Re: measuring systems (was: Selenites)

Pablo Flores wrote:

> >The fact is, there is no way to make a *perfectly* nonarbitrary
> >measurement system.  You will still always base it on something
> >that is ultimately arbitrary itself.
>
> True and true. But once you choose a base for your system, you should
> stick with it and make derived measures from the base ones,
> multiplying/dividing by a constant number (which in our culture
> should be ten, or perhaps two).
Well, as I explained, for our purposes in the modern
Western world, we find this a very valuable ability in a measurement
system.  I would prefer a changeover myself, but I don't envision that
very soon, as Americans tend not to want to change unless they have
to. ;-)

=======================================================
Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
ICQ#: 4315704   AIM: Deuterotom
Website: <http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/>
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."

We look at [the Tao], and do not see it;
  Its name is the Invisible.
                 - Lao Tsu, _Tao Te Ching_

Nature is wont to hide herself.
                 - Herakleitos
========================================================