Well, what I *really* want to see is not so much a handedness..
   perhaps _something_ capable of showing where it fits in the
   greater context of where it is used and what it is used for.

   I suppose what I'm thinking of is to bring in a distinction of
   purpose. Zero has multiple uses and is quite powerful.

   It is used as a placeholder.
   It is used as a marker of "Start" for the number line.
   It is considered the lowest Even number.
   It is used as a marker for "Success" in balancing systems (such
   as economics)
   It obliterates identity entirely; a number loses its
   positiveness and negativeness and its quantity.
   Conceptually, it's the "empty bucket".
   Conceptually, it's non-movement or stillness or balance.
   Conceptually, it's potential as it either *could have once*
   represented something or it *could* in the future represent
   something.
   Conceptually, it's absence.
   Conceptually, it's "I can't know" of a very strong form.

   This is off the top of my head; please correct me if I'm
   mistaken in these things.

   But it seems to me that, perhaps zero serves too many purposes
   without distinction, leading to confusion.

   I have a similar issue with the modern concept of impetus versus
   the Newtonian usage. Impetus that is external or internal are
   considered the same now; both external; but in Newton's time and
   before, Impetus was a pretty hot topic.

   But that's with Science. At least in mathematics, the Axiom
   would be the intrinsic impetus and the Proof would be the
   extrinsic impetus, in my viewpoint creating a marvelous engine
   which drives mathematics both from without and within.

   Yeah, I tend to conceptually analogize to machines.