Insight? It's false. The symbol for zero originated as a dot, indicating an unfilled place in the place value system, and evolved from there. [0]

[0] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2147450-history-of-zero...

Obviously, your source doesn't support your argument. Just because something once had one shape doesn't mean a new shape can't have new connotations. You're jumping from 'the zero was not always a hole', to 'the zero can never symbolize a hole'. Which is pretty strange.

This 1/0 man/woman white/black kind of binary is so ubiquitous in our culture it's kind of redundant to go and find examples - but it is in itself interesting that when you mention stuff like this, some people will always find a way to claim it is nonsense.

I think it's a desire for security amongst political turbulence - you say, this stuff is abstract and clean and without cultural baggage, so I can hide in it from the world, which is ugly and ambiguous and provokes uncomfortable reactions.

It's a kind of desire that's really common around engineering, mathsy people - I mean, part of the attraction of these subjects is you don't have to navigate anything sticky. So that's why it usually provokes a pretty extreme reaction if you profane the temple by bringing cultural stuff in.

A word or symbol does not represent every single thing that can be free-associated with it. If you want to show that "1" represents the Washington Monument, it is not sufficient (or even necessary) to point out that they're the same shape, you have to show some evidence that there once was a culture that used the symbol "1" whenever they wanted to say "2 15th St NW, Washington, DC."

Using '1' to symbolise the washington monument would be reasonable, if the washington monument was something people very commonly referred to. It would also be reasonable to describe that as phallic. It wouldn't be reasonable to use 1 to refer to an address in DC, because you're jumping from three obviously formally similar things, to the street address of one of those things.

It's a pretty good example of what people mean by free association - and why what I'm(1) doing isn't.

1- I mean, obviously I'm about the millionth person to make this particular observation.

You got a point there (pun intended :) about the symbol for zero.

I guess I was being generous with interpreting the parent comment, by mentioning the (possibly common and cross-cultural) visual association of a circle with womanhood, a straight vertical line with manhood.

I didn't mean to imply that the symbols for zero and one have direct historical origins in those ideas - like the parent comment might have suggested - but I do think there is a philosophical or artistic merit in drawing the analogy.

I never heard of this. Have you ever heard of the symbols also used for Mars and Venus indicating male and female?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_symbol

According to that page, in some contexts, a circle means female and a square means male, but I've never heard of that before either.

Interesting, I've seen the symbols for Mars and Venus being used to represent genders, but not a square or triangle for male.

As for zero/circle/woman and one/vertical line/man.. I guess in my mind, they couldn't be more obvious, universal and simple - to put it crudely: the hole and the stick.

But also: off and on, dark and light, absence and presence.

(So far, I have found no historical evidence that supports the above theory, no basis in logic or fact. I'll leave it as idle speculation on a possible primordial/mythological way of thinking in pictures, with perhaps two of the most primitive symbols.)