Sunday, March 27, 2011

On the "and"

                                              On Andness
The inspiration for this paper came from some cogitation regarding the three relational terms in the English language, "and, or and but"  This particular essay will be about "and" and its significance.  I will title the subject "andism".  I'll also write about "orism" and "butism". Once these essays are done, we should know much about our wonderful English language and ourselves.

We can start off from the logical atomist premise that the world is composed of "objects." which can be people, things, animals, substances, molecules etc.  These objects have various relationships with each other. Andism, orism and butism fundamentally describe these relationships.

To understand these relationships, it will occasionally be useful to use symbols. Thus, we can briefly contrast (A & B) to (A or B).   We can take it further, (A & B & C) versus (A or B or C).  The use of "or" rather than "and" results in considerably more ambiguity in the last example.  With  (A & B & C) we have only one result: A & B & C. With the use of the word "or", on the other hand, we have three different possible results.   Thus, with "and" there is a great deal more certainty, a more definitive outcome.

Let's look at (A & B & C) a little more.  Since we are using three different names, A, B and C, we are assuming they stand for three different objects.  Thus, the use of the word "and" unifies different objects.  It allows them to maintain their separateness while unifying them.   And this describes, to a large extent, what we often do in various contexts.  For instance, with a sports team, we group together various individual players.   This would not be possible without the use of the word "and".  When we make things, we group things together.  For instance, when we make a chair, we gather wood, and group together its legs, seat, backrest and armrest in a certain way.  Making virtually anything involves a gathering together of molecules of a certain kind and eventually combining them in a certain way.  Again, none of this would be possible without the word "and".   Thus, atoms combine into molecules, which we in turn gather together to make things.  These things are gathered together to make larger units.  Chairs, other furniture,  a ceiling and floor make up a room, and a number of different rooms make an apartment.  (Kitchen & livingroom & bathroom and bedroom = apartment.)  Apartments are gathered together into a building, which are in turn gathered together into a city block, which are gathered together to make neighborhoods, gathered together to make cities (or towns) which are gathered together to make states.  We then get countries, the world. Planets and suns gathered into solar systems which are gathered together into galaxies.  All this gathering together of different things, this "andness" underlies everything that is.  As long as there is more than one object in the universe, the "and" must exist.  Thus, the "and" underlies all.  It is an essential substance of all.

The same holds, of course, with regard to human relationships and societal relationships.  Could you have Jack and Jill without "and"? Or how about "Peter, Paul and Mary"? The "and" is a central component of all families, and a dysfunctional family can be said to be lacking in sufficient "andness".  A cohesive society has sufficient "andness".  A person who is isolated is in need of "andness".

Similar conclusions can of course be drawn for all living things.  The "and" is a central component of forests, which have numerous trees, plants and various creatures.  It is also a central component of colonies of ants and bees.

In sum, the universe is composed of objects. As long as there is more than one object, there is "andness".  The "and "  is a central component of the universe.

No comments:

Post a Comment