[Fredrick]

Austin,

That is definitively a valuable piece you have there; I love it.

Thank you for providing me the underlying thoughts, because they quickly tell me where to find the difference of people sitting on chairs and people possessing the chairs. You mention that you consider '0' to be fixed as separation, and though I agree with you, I consider it more than just the separator sitting nicely between the pieces. It is also the location that can be "taken in" by someone or something else.

In the introduction I try to show that the matrix is the basis, and then if one wishes the first three numbers deliver the three overall perspectives that are always causing trouble: 0, 1, and 2. Let me use the example here of religion to further explain these three, not because it is the best way to deliver a scientific concept, but because we are all so familiar with them.

The number 0 would of course be the number to describe the religious concept of the atheist. 1 would deliver the number for believers in a monotheistic god, while 2 is used for those who do believe in gods, but not in a single god.

Though we indeed need 3, 4, and 5 to make the story complete about all the possibilities to believe, what is most important here is that each number takes in the position of the whole. Those believing in one or more gods, simply make the atheist be the person not (0) understanding how everything fits together. The atheist would disagree and vents especially against the monotheist and claims that the position of 1 to be the whole in which there is no god. The atheist will say that the monotheist has no (0) evidence. Between the monotheist and the polytheist yet a different battle is going on where the monotheist claims 2 to be an inferior idea, worthy of no (0) attention, while the polytheist claims that there must always be separation (0), so the whole (1) is not holy whole.

Then it is possible to see that in all three versions 0, 1, and 2 are used, but they are all used differently for each their own perspective. That is 3 times 3 is 9 already, with some of these 9 the same for some people or even for all people. Add 3, 4, and 5 to the mix, and you can understand how easy it is to get mixed up about the entire set, while at the same time it should then also be quite obvious how complicated it is to figure it all out.

As you may remember, professor Rubik invented the cube with the 6 color fields as a learning tool for his class, not knowing that once the wheels had been turned how difficult it was going to be to get the cube back in order. And that may be a good example to show that once the path is discovered, it is basically "a piece of cake." Getting the 6 color fields (if you wish you can call these color fields 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) of the Rubik's Cube all lined up again is now quite easy for some, for those who learned how it all works. They are now holding silly funny little competitions on who is fastest, and all of them can do the trick under twenty seconds. Einstein said that once the toe was known, a three year old could understand it. The Rubik's cube is quite complex, but the basics are as simple as 1, 2, 3 (0, 1, 2).