On orness

And now we must move to the equally important word "or".  Like its compatriot "and" it implies multiplicity.  Because "or", like "and" is a separator. "A or B" can roughly be translated to "A (but not B)" or "B (but not A)".  Similarly, "A or B or C" translates into "A (but not B and not C)" or "B (but not A and not C)" or "C (but not A and not B").   Thus, unlike "and", "or" carries with itself a multiplicity of possibilities.  It further carries uncertainty.  It implies that there is something, we have an idea of what it is, but we are not sure.  While "and" involves harmony, "or" produces disharmony and tension.  When we say "A or B", we are, in effect saying that A and B cannot be together.  It has to be one or the other.  Finally, like "and", "or" makes possible the existence of many things.   Consider a world without these crucial separators.  All would be jumbled together.  Multiple elements "A", "B" and "C" would be just one element, "ABC" (or ACB or BAC or BCA or CBA or CAB).   A world without "or" would be a world devoid of multiple possibilities.   And a world without possibilities is a world without freedom.  Let "A" and "B" constitute different states of being in the world.   For example, let A be a happy and healthy mode of being, and B be an unhealthy and unhappy mode of being.  If A and B are both available future possibilities, but I must be one or the other, there exists the possibility that I am free to shape my own destiny.  But if they are not future possibilities, or there is only one possibility available to me, I am not free to shape my own destiny.   Thus, "orness" and "andness" in addition to constituting the foundation of a universe with multiple objects, are the foundation for human freedom.  How important.