So

So we pass through a tunnel of others to become ourselves.

ones and zeroes

The ascension of the computer constitutes the crudest proof of the methodology by which the "or" uses the "and" to create complexity.  For all computer language, in its most basic form, consists of zeroes and ones. Eight bits (Eight zeroes and ones) equals one byte, and the number of combinations of Os and 1s that can make up a byte is two raised to the power of eight, or 256.  This is more than the number of combinations needed to form the letters of the alphabet and the 10 numbers (0 to 9) upon which the western numerical system is based.  Thus, from these zeroes and ones we can construct letters, and from these letters we can construct words, and from these words we can construct sentences and so on.  All from combinations of zeroes and ones.  All from the repetition of zero and one.  The "and".

   Of course, the "and" is given a little boost from the "or" in this process, for we start from two different entities, zero and one.  We could conceivably base a language on just one entity using repetition.  One "1" could constitute the letter "A", two "1"s could constitute the letter B and so on.  But it would seem to be less efficient, using more space.  Also, something would be needed to separate every letter from every other letter, and that, it would seem, would be a zero.   Thus, it would seem difficult to get around the need for at least two entitites.

Of course, even before the advent of computers, the "or" made use of the "and".  There are only 26 letters in our alphabet, but through combining them in various ways, we have constructed thousands of words, sentences, verse, books.  The number of combinations is infinite.  Similarly, with only 10 numbers we can construct the symbols for an infinite number of numbers.

A thought: The use of zeros and ones at least seems to require a good deal of space, but this is because electrical switches, at least in the non quantum world, have two states, on and off.  But in the quantum world, things do not have easily definable values. We can't know the position and momentum of an electron at the same time (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Unfortunately, Heisenberg was a Nazi.) Values, Heisenberg's included, become fuzzier in the quantum world.   I don't know how many values there are.  But if there were, say, 26 values, we could take advantage of this so that we would not need such long strings and sets of strings of ones and zeros.  Can we take advantage of the quantum world to create vastly more efficient computerized systems? I'm sure that some are working on it.

Role of the "and" in the development of the individual

In the next to last post, we spoke of the indispensable role of the "and" in the generation of language, concepts and ideas.   We can say that human consciousness largely is what it is because of the role of the "and".  For we think largely through the use of words, concepts, ideas and a "point of view".   And the absence of the "and" results, in large part, in the inability or, at the very least, extreme difficulty in learning language and developing social strategies.  It has been said that to a very large extent, thinking consists of "talking to oneself", or the creation of an imaginary other, so entrenched is the existence of the "and".

  So while the "and" plays a vital role in the development of consciousness, it also, in a best case scenario, nourishes the "or" in terms of the development of individual identity.  At a point that is in large part a result of the natural development of consciousness, and to an extent the result of differing social customs, the child and then the teenager developes to the point that he is ready to leave the nest.  It is worth pausing at this point to consider, in some more depth,  the role of the "and" in the development of individuation.  For the development of individuation is to a large extent, contingent upon the child's ties to his parents, teachers and peers.  And this mixture is unique in each case as is the product that results therefrom.  While there is no doubt genetics plays a role in the development of individual personality traits, the role of the "and" and the unique mixture of relations that each person lives through is no doubt paramount.   Many of us say,  "I get certain personality traits from my father and certain personality traits from my mother."

It has been said that biologically, the mixing and matching of genes from each parent ensures the development of the ability to adapt to predators or other threats.  This to some extent random mixing and matching provides for the creation of a brand new individual, different from its parents.  The mixing and matching of personality traits, acquired through the "and", from parents and from ties to other figures also ensures that none of us will be exactly like our parents or like our friends etc.  And there is freedom in this; since we are different that we are not constrained to follow in their footsteps and not doomed to repeat their mistakes.  We will make our own mistakes, encounter our own challenges and create our own albatrosses.  But we are free.

In the next to last post, we spoke of the indispensable role of the "and" in the generation of language, concepts and ideas.   We can say that human consciousness largely is what it is because of the role of the "and".  For we think largely through the use of words, concepts, ideas and a "point of view".   And the absence of the "and" results, in large part, in the inability or, at the very least, extreme difficulty in learning language.  It has been said that to a very large extent, thinking consists of "talking to oneself", or the creation of an imaginary other, so entrenched is the existence of the "and".   So while the "and" plays a vital role in the development of consciousness, it also, in a best case scenario, nourishes the "or" in terms of the development of individual identity.  At a point that is in large part a result of the natural development of consciousness, and to an extent the result of differing social customs, the child and then the teenager developes to the point that he is ready to leave the nest.  It is worth pausing at this point to consider, in some more depth,  the role of the "and" in the development of individuation.  For the development of individuation is to a large extent, contingent upon the child's ties to his parents, teachers and peers.  And this mixture is unique in each case as is the product that results therefrom.  While there is no doubt genetics plays a role in the development of individual personality traits, the role of the "and" and the unique mixture of relations that each person lives through is no doubt paramount.   Many of us say,  "I get certain personality traits from my father and certain personality traits from my mother."

References to the collective

It is worth thinking about how often the "and", the collective, creeps into virtually all speech.  In political speech we speak about "the economy", which is a collection of all economic activity; income earned, money spent etc. within a given area; politics (a collection of leadership issues within a given area), "society", "the press", "the direction of the country".  There is always some collective entity out there; i.e, "the country", "the city", "spare change", "my family", "the workplace".  All subjects, such as "science", "nature", "plants", flowers, mathematics, geometry and language refer to various types of collections.  When we talk about a person, and how we feel about that person, we are, in effect, collecting our memories or knowledge of different things that person has done and trying to reach a conclusion or judgment regarding that collection.  Similarly, when we judge or speak of ourselves, we are collecting evidence, judging, trying to reach conclusions.  It could be worth speaking to someone for 15 minutes, and after 15 minutes has passed, attempting to set forth all the references to collective entities that were made during that period.  And, as we've said, all  language (another collection), is learned through collection (the and) and differentiation (the or).  The definition of the word "table" is arrived at through collecting images or conceptions of "table", somehow, with the help of others, arriving at an "essence" or definition, and differentiating that thing from other types of things.

More on the development of ideas, vocabulary etc.

   Thus we have seen, at least in part, how the "and" and the "or" work together in the formation of language and conceptualization of ideas.  But this, of course, is but a very thin slice of the picture.  Words, numbers, etc., at least in the abstract, don't exist "out there" in the same sense that this keyboard that I am currently tapping exists.  Plato and many of his successors proposed the existence of an immaterial world of ideas.  It is difficult to think of something "existing", unless it is "out there" and thus is material.  But if we concede that an immaterial world is possible, we can see the "and" functioning when a word is spoken, a number is written or a thought is thought.  For, assuming such a world exists, the "and" links a portion of this immaterial world to the users brain when the speaking, writing or thinking is taking place.  It is impossible, or nearly impossible, to debunk the existence of an immaterial world, for it is impossible to destroy something that can't be seen or touched. Many great philosophers have attempted to eviscerate this theory without success.
  What is possibly more effective is to propose an alternative or to just run with other thoughts without dealing with the validity of the theory of forms.   Without reaching whether ideas, words, numbers etc. objectively exist out there,  we have seen from the last post how the "and" and the "or" play a role in idea formation.  For all language, concepts etc. are taught.  All, or at least 98% of them are learned. (We won't deal for now with the remaining 2%)   And to be taught or learned, social connections are necessary.  We can only learn ideas, words etc. from other people.  An autistic person learns relatively little because of his or her difficulty in forming social connections.  Thus, the "and" or the social "and" is a prerequisite for the formation of ideas, the learning of language and all learning.   One person is able to communicate to another what that other people should be seeing or learning.  If we combine this idea with that set forth in our last post, one person helps the other person map the word "chair" to a number of different chairs, until that person, through the use of the "or", is able to separate the idea of "chair" from, say, the idea of "table".   It goes without saying that for one person to be able to communicate these ideas to another person, their brains, i.e. human brains, must be remarkably similar.   This similarity in brain structure probably explains why two persons' idea of the concept "chair" are essentially the same more accurately  than the idea of each person, through the "and", participating in the same nonmaterial world of ideas, in which each speaker, at the moment of utterance, links to the same idea of the word "chair".