# Re: Numbers

```
On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 4:09:03 PM UTC-4, JohnM wrote:
>
> Bruno asked why I have problems how to figure out *'numbers'*. * *
>
> In his texts (as I remember and I have no quotes at hand) the "world" can
> be construed from a large enough amount of numbers in simple arithmetical
> ways (addition-subtraction). Also: numbers do not mean quantities.
> If his older post with pegs (II=two, IIII=four etc.) is OK, the 'words'
> two and four DO mean quantities. If not, as 'numbers' they are meaningless
> combinations of letters (sounds?) we could call the series any way, as well
> as e.g.:
> tylba, chuggon, rpais, etc. for 1,2,3 - or take them from any other
> language (eins,zwei,drei, - egy, kettő, három) as they developed in diverse
> domains/lifestyles. The 'numbers' would be like "Ding an Sich" (German)
> however used as qualifiers for quantities if so applied (see Bruno's 'pegs'
> above).
>
> More reasonably sounds the idea of my wife, Maria, who assigns the
> primitive development of quantities originally to proportions: "larger
> (amount)" - "smaller (amount)"
>```
```
Yes, I think that is a good place to start. Larger and smaller are
aesthetic qualities - feelings which we use to discern objects from one
another and changes in objects (the pond is larger after it rains).

Craig

> evolving in some thousand centuries into the process of 'counting' the
> included units. I published on this list my thought for developing the
> Roman numbering signs. I started with 2 - a PAIR of hands etc. (not with
> one, which means only the existence) and branching into 5 (as fingers, as
> in pentaton music) already as 'many'.
>
> I still have no idea what description could fit *'number'* in Bruno's
> usage (I did not study number -  theory - to keep my common sense
> (agnostic?) thinking free).
>
> John Mikes
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email