Zero

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 26 Jan 2003, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Osher	26 Jan 2003
Just musing, but the zero, naught or whatever, is a new number. The Romans didn't have it, nor the ancient Jews (?). Therefore, is it right to have cards numbered with a zero? As far as I know, it is impossible for this number to occur naturally. Curious as to views on this (apologies if this has already been discussed, did a search on zero and '0', but naught)

Mojo	26 Jan 2003
The Romans and the Ancient Jews didn't have Tarot either, so why does this matter?

jmd	26 Jan 2003
If zero's but nothing then not a card can bear it... for then it would be something! Some say that the Fool as naughty as can be can naught yet carry! Yet I prefer (as friends do but know) The Fool's un-numbered being ... now, not numbered does that mean he is carrying zero numbers? Oh well - let it be the Fool's Shin does sheen in 300 wondrous ways! As for the zero let's let it be and so too Tarot!

jmd	27 Jan 2003
Got carried away.... At the time of the early numbered Tarot decks, Roman numerals were used. Does this mean that a zero is actually included but not shown? I personally doubt it. Given that both Roman and Hebrew have been mentioned, the former has already been addressed by my previous paragraph. What is interesting in terms of the latter includes, for me, that the 231 gates formed by 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet (... or should I say: Alefbeyth ;)) are also rendered more obvious by only numerating twenty-one out of the twenty-two Major arcana cards, for then their addition also makes 231. I am not of course claiming that the early designers had this in mind - and in any case, placing a zero doesn't change this triangular number's value, though it does affect its representation.

Umbrae	27 Jan 2003
Leonardo Fibonacci introduced the concept of Zero to Europe in 1202 with his lovely little book called Liber Abaci. It introduced the Hindu-Arabic decimal system to Europe (specifically Tuscan). He is considered by most, to be the father of modern banking. A large portion of the book was dedicated to pricing of goods, trade, and transactions using different (non-fiat) currency systems. It also introduced the Fibonacci sequence, also known as the Golden Mean.

Osher	27 Jan 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Umbrae Leonardo Fibonacci introduced the concept of Zero to Europe in 1202 with his lovely little book called Liber Abaci. It introduced the Hindu-Arabic decimal system to Europe (specifically Tuscan). He is considered by most, to be the father of modern banking. A large portion of the book was dedicated to pricing of goods, trade, and transactions using different (non-fiat) currency systems. It also introduced the Fibonacci sequence, also known as the Golden Mean. WOW, you really know your stuff! Thanks for that

patter	27 Jan 2003
Well, zero does occur naturally in that there has always been an understanding of 'nothing there' or 'before we start'. Calling it zero rather than 'un-numbered' is fairly trivial, I think. The fool is where we are, before we start.

firemaiden	09 Feb 2003
There was omega -- as in the alpha and omega... There was the eye -- as in the eye of God (..AHA that's the meaning of the eye on the Fool's bag...) Here's a nifty site about the history of zero that claims India had it in 650 ad. And here is a cool review (no, a really cool review) of a book called The Nothing that is: a Natural History of Zero by Robert Kaplan, who traces the roots and uses of zero back to the Sumerians. p.s. that's charming jmd, now can we set it to music? a note to mojo - that was a pun, right? Nothing matters. :P and, I'm beginning to develop a suspicion that Umbrae has read many more than one book!

jmd	09 Feb 2003
The Nothing that Is is a great little book - such a pity the publishers didn't see fit to include the pages of footnotes (which they expect readers to download and print - after already having bought the book!!!). As to the music... it's already there - I thinnnk, in the same place as zero ;). Others may have the skill in bringing its manifestation in sublime voices :).

Karenwhe	12 Feb 2003
Quote: Originally posted by patter Well, zero does occur naturally in that there has always been an understanding of 'nothing there' or 'before we start'. Very interesting and the beginning of all thoughts of the very beginning........... How can we start anything if there is "nothing", as it would mean that there is nothing to start or nothing to start with. In other words, there is no zero. The oldest debate in the Old Testament in regards with “the beginning” is "something out of nothing". How can there be something out of nothing is there is nothing to start with. Or then maybe there was something to start with, but then it couldn't have been the beginning as there was something before. This is one the deepest philosophical debates to the beginning the "big bang" or whatever one wants to call it. And of course all the big "parshanim" of the Old Testament are have been philosophizing over this for hundreds of years. At the end, we are still left with the question: how can something start of nothing if there is nothing to start with. In Hebrew for those who study the old testament should be familiar the statement of "something of nothing, or something of something" (that was my direct translation of from Hebrew, may not be quite accurate, but there you go). The problem these people have is with the "something of something", which would prove that the beginning was not the beginning really, which would make a big problem with the theory of the beginning of the world (as seen in the bible of course). And if you feel confused about this post, it is ok, it just proves that you are normal, no one yet solved the problem – it is supposed to be confusing. Just a thought about zero/nothing.

Major Tom	12 Feb 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Karenwhe At the end, we are still left with the question: how can something start of nothing if there is nothing to start with. Thank you for making me think. }) I've got to take a shot at this. }) :laugh: }) One way to look at this - which is surely where the question began - we could be talking about matter. There was an absence of matter - then it existed. Before then, there was no-thing. ;) This is represented by pentacles. :) Or we could simply be talking about what we can experience through our senses. }) Energy can be experienced through the senses and it certainly exists. Has energy always existed? Perhaps. :) Hmmm...energy? Represented by wands then. Then there's things called emotions. We all feel emotion - all the time. Was there a time before we felt emotion? I could imagine that. :) Emotions are represented by cups. Penultimately there is thought. We all think - all the time - we just can't help it. }) I'm practically positive there was a time when I had no thought processes at all. :laugh: Present time excepted of course. :laugh: Finally, imagine when none of these things existed. Here we encounter nothing. I am nothing. I am God. So are you. Fool! What is it - exactly - that you want? Therein lies the secret. }) I've got to quote Dr. Paul Foster Case from his The Book of Tokens - Tarot Meditations: "I AM, Without beginning without end, Older than night or day, Younger than the babe new-borne, Brighter than light, Darker than darkness, Beyond all things and creatures, Yet fixed in the heart of every one." Ok - this is Golden Dawn tradition but via A.E.Waite. Paul Foster Case reckoned the minors - and - fortune telling were frivolous. :laugh: I love his majors. Highly recommended link: http://www.bota.org I also highly recommend the book in my signature. }) I am here to help. Help me help you.

Rusty Neon	10 Mar 2004
For what it's worth, here's a link to an article about the Grand Binary Code, the Qabalah and The Fool as Zero: http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/jd0215.htm

Cerulean	10 Mar 2004
http://www.mathmojo.com/interestinglessons/originofzero/originofzero.html This was the question: What is the origin of zero? Does it have something to do with why x/ 0 is undefined? Thanks Professor Homunculus' answer: The origin of zero is a nebulous subject. The Babylonians were known to have used a space as a placeholder for empty "columns" as far back as 1700 BC. Around 1400 years later, they developed the first known symbol to stand for an empty place. It looked something like YY. It didn't actually stand for the number we know as "zero." It was never used alone. It was only a place holder. The Mayan culture developed a symbol for the number zero, probably independently of the Babylonians, sometime later. So did the Hindu culture. The first records we have of the symbol we use for 0, is from Hindu writings from the late 9th century. There was no internet back then, but information still got around. Mostly by camelback, or foot, so it took awhile for 0 to migrate to Arab lands, (probably due to commerce). Eventually, about 400 years after South Asia and Asia Minor had been using 0 and inventing and discovering math concepts the we in the west couldn't even consider (because we were busy being "religiously enlightened" and culturally superior) 0 finally got to the civilized world. In its superior intellect, civilized Europe continued to use the Roman numeral system, refusing to change for as long as possible, as the infidels ran circles around it. Eventually the Europeans gave in. That's the scoop in a nutshell, The fact that almost anything divided by zero is undefined came to the west much later. The zero came first, then the paradox. By the way, do you know which number divided by zero is not undefined, and why? Find out by clicking here. Happy calculating, Prof. Homunculus -------------------------------- Mari liked the math mojo name!

jmd	11 Mar 2004
The number zero is one of those which has had just about the most written on its history - an amazing amount of writing for nothing! Personally, I find the Golden Dawn (and derivatives, including Crowley's works) totally unconvincing with regards to presumed Kabalistic associations and allocations of zero to Alef to first (or one). Ie, to claim some justification that, to use a more numerate example, the Basteleur/Magician is numbered one and two (or second) simultaneously. Whenever I read these, or have worked with them, it seems more a forced or assumed allocation which is then cleverly manipulated in thought. In that cleverness, I strongly suspect any two thoughts or concepts may be carefully connected. When I wrote my first post in this thread over a year ago, I still principally located the Fool (in the given poem) along with the predominant esoteric Continental tradition (along with Eliphas Levi, penultimate with Shin) - though felt a little uncomfortable with such fixity. I usually argued against a fixed position, the Fool remaining, traditionally, un-numbered. If I have had a little change of view since then is due in large part to increased confidence that Mark Filipas is probably correct in his Alphabetic Masquerade, which in essence provides a cohesive over-riding structure and ordering to what is otherwise a wonderful, but somewhat arbitrary, sequence. In that sense, I probably now personally prefer, along with the other major Continental tradition, to locate the un-numbered Fool as twenty-second card. So why mention all this ? Precisely because this discussion isn't solely about the history of the number zero per se, but also, importantly, about possible attributions of this number to a Tarot card (or a variety of Tarot cards). This is, of course, what was likely to happen once the shift of numeration occured from (additive) Roman numerals to Hindo-Arabic ones: a zero was virtually asked for!... but does it belong within the Tarot?!?

kwaw	11 Mar 2004
Although Fibbanacci was the first to successfully popularise the use of Hindu/Arabic numbers in the west they were known about before him. A 10th century pope first tried to implement the use of them, he had some limited success in Spain for a while but in the end they failed to take off. They were widely known about within the Jewish communities within Europe, Jewish texts from the 11th century describe their use and application, the zero being called Galgal (meaning circle or wheel). The words zero and cipher both derive from the word zefiroth, rooted in the Arabic a'sfr. It was shortened in Venetian dialect to zero from whence it came into English. Along another route it changed to cipher (from whence came the French chiffre), which originally refered to zero came to be used of all 10 digits. The Jewish practice of using 'ciphers' to encode messages lead to its usage as referring to secret codes. The Arabic a'sfr is also the root of the Hebrew 'sephiroth' which is translated as 'ciphers' by some scholars (eg, Baeck). In 14th century arithematic textbooks the ten ciphers are usually ordered 1-0 (ie, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0), so 0 may have been viewed by some at this time as the 10th digit, not the first. This might relate to the thread elsewhere on the 'fool' as X? Interesting in this respect that the word for zero in Jewish texts on numbers at the time, Galgal, also means 'wheel'. The first known use of the circle as a symbol for the 'empty place' in place notation is actually Greek, not Hindu. When transcribing Babylonian astrological tables the Greek astrologers used the letter omicron 'o' as a symbol for the empty place. Kwaw

Ravenswing	11 Mar 2004
hole lotta nothin' goin' on... :laugh: Mari-- with the concept of x/0 being undefined.... Think of division as pulling numbers out of a number. ( 6/2 says that you can pull 3 2's out of the number 6) so how many times can you pull nothing out of something? thus comes the concept that x/0 is infinity-- you can pull nothin' outta somethin' all day and there's still somethin' left. }) No end to it.... Tom-- yeah!! no thing verses nothing.... there's a lotta no things, but there's only one nothing :joke:. (does that make any sense ?? :confused: ) I can't really explain it, but there's a big difference between nothing and zero. Do we 'number' the Fool with a zero, or do we leave it unnumbered? I'm still meditating on that one.... fly well raven

kwaw	11 Mar 2004
Quote: Originally posted by jmd Personally, I find the Golden Dawn (and derivatives, including Crowley's works) totally unconvincing with regards to presumed Kabalistic associations and allocations of zero to Alef to first (or one). Ie, to claim some justification that, to use a more numerate example, the Basteleur/Magician is numbered one and two (or second) simultaneously. Alef and Ain [nothingness] are connected in some of the earliest kabbalistic writings of the 12th/13th centuries [see 'origins of kabbalah' by scholem]. Beit [2] is a symbol of beginning [first in creation]. Number symbolism of ascending numbers [2/3 or 3/4 or 7/8 etc] is found in the bible and was common in canaanite literature (according to my copy of the Jewish Study Bible). So convincing or not, there is some historical precedent for the concept [though not of course for the particular application to the tarot]. Kwaw

jmd	11 Mar 2004
Alef & Ain being connected in Kabalistic considerations is a little different to connecting zero and one. Ain is not zero, nor nothingness, but negation of there being something, in a similar way to Alef heading the series of the AlefBeit. Alef is here considered as to be in the mind of God, whereas Beit begins the creative act proper (in line with the opening words of Genesis). Hence, one may view that Alef and negation-of-what-is-to-follow are connected (and again, usually as a creative act). Even in this sense, then, the image of the Basteleur/Magician quite well connects these together: the creative act as manipulation of the elements... but I move away from the thread. I suppose that there is such a strong 100 year old push for allocating zero to the Fool that the main alternative views do not get much of an airing - even LoScarabeo added, regretfully, a zero on a reproduction of one of its Marseille (the Burdel)!!! With regards to zero proper, to return to the discussion, even ancient babylonian used a 'place marker' with their usage of abaci. The 'big jump', however, is determining where, when and how the place marker denoting an empty category became the number zero - the concepts are not the same. Here, of course, are various views and research which, from my background reading, point in different directions. Beit may very well denote the beginning of creation... and thus needs to come second, for before the creative act, it remained in the mind of God (Alef). For what it's worth, by the way, the Hebrew letters signifying numbers is later than Hebrew letter usage for writing purposes, so any argument presented will probably partly also depend on where we stand with either our personal Kabalistic or Tarot considerations... after all, the RABD did not agree with some of his contemporary Kabalists on various issues of import, and we may very well be lead to pick and choose 'authorities' which back our personal claims if we select from historical considerations and exegete these through modern eyes. But of course, these are also important to be aware of, and, as kwaw says, there are some historical precedents (ie, others have also considered the same).

kwaw	11 Mar 2004
What pre-GD decks do associate zero and the fool? I know of four: The piedmonte. Etteilla, in which the fool is numbered both 78 and 0, so it could be considered in circular fashion to be both first and last, at the end of the minor and beginning of the major. The Sola Busca, though of course the ordering is very different to what became the standard, nonetheless the fool is numbered '0', and the rest use Roman numerals. And the deck refered to in the Steele Sermon (c.1450 - 1470) which gives: 1, El bagatella. 2, Imperatrix. 3, Imperator. 4, La papessa. 5, El papa. 6, La temperantia. 7, L'amore. 8, Lo caro triumphale. 9, La forteza. 10, La rotta. 11, El gobbo. 12, Lo impichato. 13, La morte. 14, El diavolo. 15, La sagitta. 16, La stella. 17, La luna. 18, El sole. 19, Lo angelo. 20, La justicia. 21, El mondo. 0, El matto. According to text of Steele Sermon here (last paragraph): http://www.tarock.info/steele.htm '0' but it is listed last, in 22nd place. Thereagain, Alef in early kabbalistic texts is refered to as first AND last;) Any others? Kwaw

Thirteen	11 Mar 2004
Moving out of math into emblems and symbolism, the Zero shape suits the Fool as arrives on this earth very much as an infant appearing out of the womb. Viewing the divine in a feminine sense, we can, in a way, see how something can coming out of "nothing." In addition, we talk of "nothing in our head" and people who are "vessals to be filled." This is the Fool. He isn't nothing in the sense of negation, but rather in the sense of a blank slate, an empty vessel to be filled. Thus, all other arguments aside, symbolically the Fool, to me, suits his "zero" in his arrival through that "0" doorway into this world, and in his "empty" state of being. Both imply not nothing so much as the space needed for something, eventually, to be.

kwaw	14 Mar 2004
Quote: Originally posted by jmd When I wrote my first post in this thread over a year ago, I still principally located the Fool (in the given poem) along with the predominant esoteric Continental tradition (along with Eliphas Levi, penultimate with Shin ) - though felt a little uncomfortable with such fixity. I usually argued against a fixed position, the Fool remaining, traditionally, un-numbered. If I have had a little change of view since then is due in large part to increased confidence that Mark Filipas is probably correct in his Alphabetic Masquerade , which in essence provides a cohesive over-riding structure and ordering to what is otherwise a wonderful, but somewhat arbitrary, sequence. I too find Filipas work impressive and imaginative, I am not so far totally convinced but on another thread he has stated he has been working on some exciting new developments which he will be publishing when it is ready and I look forward to it with interest. At the moment I find some of his choice of words for the cards a bit of a stretch in some cases and a little selective in others. Some of the 'hebrew' words are not Hebrew at all, but transliterations, TVMPV (time) which I presume is a transliteration of the latin tempus but is certainly not Hebrew. And what about the emperor being reduced to a Duke, and a transliterated one at that [dvkvs - not a genuine hebrew word as far as i am aware]. And his Eagle is not an eagle apparently but a Kite, the Empresses bird of prey which looks awfully similar is not an eagle either but a Falcon (so we have the genus in the Empress [falcon small bird of prey, and the species [kite - at least it is one of the larger of the falcon family:)] trouble is, they look like eagles to me, which though a bird of prey is not of the genus 'falco'). There are many words for crown, Kether, aterah (in fact all ten sefiroth are called crowns in older kabbalistic texts and each has a synonym of its own, aterah=crown is familiar to us as malkuth). It is fairly easy to find a word meaning 'crown' beginning with a variety of letters, I don't find such examples convincing, unless of course they relate to a specific type of crown such as the figures in the card are wearing, but this as far as I can tell isn't the case. Similarly for example he finds a variety of words meaning grass, or young shoots, or sprouts all beginning with different letters so he can apply them to different cards in which such appear. Some words he uses are interpretive. How do we know the Papessa is a virgin, according to some it relates to Pope Joan who gave birth, but this is covered because there are also words beginning with B meaning one no longer a virgin, sexual intercourse and pregnancy so all interpretive aspects are covered. And there is 'womanhood', and she is ceratinly a woman [virgin or not take your choice] but doesn't this apply for example to the Empress as well, is she not also a representation of 'womanhood'? My on criticisms are perhaps only minor and I am sure Mark can answer them with ease. I would be interested in a critique of Marks work by someone knowledgeable of medieval Hebrew, has any such critique been done? PS: Il Matto as Shin, in Hebrew one word for 'mad man' is ShGAy [shin, gimel, ayin] Kwaw

kwaw	24 Mar 2004
Quote: Originally posted by jmd Alef & Ain being connected in Kabalistic considerations is a little different to connecting zero and one. Ain is not zero, nor nothingness, but negation of there being something, in a similar way to Alef heading the series of the AlefBeit. Alef is here considered as to be in the mind of God, whereas Beit begins the creative act proper (in line with the opening words of Genesis). Hence, one may view that Alef and negation-of-what-is-to-follow are connected (and again, usually as a creative act). As I understand it Ain means 'nothing, not, nought'. So yes depending on context it is used as a form of negation (ie, not-this). In the context of creatio ex nihilio I do not interpret it as 'negation', but simply as 'nothing'. In that creation proceeds from nothing, this nothing cannot mean 'negation', for in the 'nothing' that precedes creation there is nothing to negate, no this of which it can be said not this. Affirmation and Negation are aspects of, and concomitant with, creation; they are not aspects of nothingness, for in nothingness there is nothing to contradict. We may illustrate it with a line. In the center of the line let us place a zero, and think of this zero as a symbol or metaphor for the 'nothing' from which 'something' is created. Let us call this something 'light', and symbolise it by a '1' and place it to the right of the zero. Contominant with the creation of light however is born the concept of 'not light', the negation of the 'being' of light or 'darkness'. We can symbolise this with the figure '-1' and place it to the left of the zero, thus we illustrate by means of a numerical metaphor that both affirmation and negation proceed from the act of creation within time , and are aspects of creation, not of nothingness in which no contradiction exists. In making this analogy I am perfectly aware of course that there is a difference between 'mathematical' zero and 'nothing', and I am not saying that 'mathematical' zero = nothing. Given the vagaries of its history it is difficult to pin down with any degree of certainty exactly when zero as a mathematical number in its own right 'occured', indeed because it was a process, a development, then it would be virtually impossible to extend to any one incident of its occurence as a moment in time, of history as its 'birth'. Barring exceptions that go back as early as the 6th century I think it can be safely said that its power as a mathematical number in its own right does not manifest itself in its full strength until the 17th century. However, the use of zero, cipher, figure of nullity as a metaphorical number was being made as early as the 12th century. In fact the westen concepts of 'nothingness' within Christian and Judaic mystical theology as a metaphorical number [as for example in the neo-platonic, pythagorean meaning of number] was sufficiently developed to be hung upon a metaphorical zero from the moment of its introduction. As to what is meant or conceived by this metaphorical nothingess, given the many paradoxes inherent in the concept [and that of the opposite side of the coin, infinity] there is, as only to be expected, a confusion of many and contradictory opinions. Differences to be found not only between Eastern and Western concepts, between Judaic and Christian, but within differing Christian and Judaic schools themselves, and those changed and developed over time [there is a difference between the concept in st. augustine and aquinas for example, and again among renaissance philosophers and theologians such as cusanas]. Interestingly, and perhaps relevantly, the greatest changes and developments within the [western] theological concepts of 'nothingness' were concurrent with the introduction of hindu/arabic numbers and the 'zero' from the 12th century on. Kwaw

kwaw	13 Oct 2004
Quote: Originally posted by kwaw According to text of Steele Sermon here (last paragraph): http://www.tarock.info/steele.htm '0' but it is listed last, in 22nd place. Thereagain, Alef in early kabbalistic texts is refered to as first AND last;) Kwaw As well as being numbered '0' according to this transcript of the sermon it is also called: "El matto sine nulla (sini velint). The Fool is a "nulla" (without qualities of its own, an empty-head). 'Nulla' also has a specific mathematical meaning, which can be found from at least fibonaaci on [if not earlier].In mathematics a 'nulla' is a figure that in any operation between two numbers leaves the other number unchanged. In basic arithmetic there are two 'nulla', and they are 1 and 0. Zero in operations of addition and subraction, 'one' in operations of multiplication and division. Kwaw

RedMaple	13 Oct 2004
I prefer the line "as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be world without end...." My first glimpse of infinity. I believe the idea of zero as a place holder is what was actually new, which allowed a very different type of mathematics to develop. Ever try adding in Roman numerals? Certainly, in Hebrew, the Aleph is that moment before we speak, that sort of pregnant absence, fertile nothingness out of which everything comes. I like the Fool to be unnumbered - s/he is everywhere, and nowhere. Sort of like in the uncertainty principle where you can't know the position and speed of a particle at the same time....Where is the Fool, and where is s/he going next, and in what manner? But I don't let the zero bother me, it just becomes the eternal circle.... RedMaple

jmd	14 Oct 2004
Though Alef is the opening of the throat in order for sound to be able to resound, it is signifies one (not zero) and first: further evidence to its connection to I le Bateleur?

hoomer	15 Apr 2005
everything is nothing and nothing is everything..... The Fool as 0 is perfectly valid...as the Fool is nothing...and yet everything...... "God is thus not to be looked at, but loved and enterd into union with. Loved and Lover must become one." --W G Gray (The Ladder of the LIghts)..

The Zero thread was originally posted on 26 Jan 2003 in the Using Tarot Cards board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Using Tarot Cards, or read more archived threads.