some more thoughts on the "and" and "or" in chemical reactions

That reality consists of movement may, in some senses, sound counterintuitive.  But science tells us that even the most static objects, such as rocks, consist of clusters of atoms, each with orbiting electrons.  To the extent that an electron is a wave, it does not appear to move. However, to the extent it is a particle, it rotates around the nucleus trillions of times per second.
In any event, we digress, for it is not the rotational status of electrons that excites interest.  Rather, it is their seeming instability.  For virtually all "chemical" reactions occur when atoms lose or acquire electrons.  By chemical reactions, we mean the formation of molecules, in which two or elements combine.  Thus, table salt is the dramatic result of the union of sodium and chloride.  Thus, in all chemical reactions, the "and" appears predominant.  And thus we see how the "and" underlies all physical things.
However, we cannot underestimate the role of the "or", or the harmony in which the "and" and the "or" live.  For many molecular combinations (called ionic bonding) seem to occur when one atom sheds an electron (in which we see the "or" separating the electron from the outer orbit of the atom - this is called ionization) and another acquires that electron (a case of the "and" being actualized).  Thus, we see an "or/and" cycle, or an "and/or" cycle.  The ionization itself (the or in action) may be induced by energy being directed at, or in a sense combining with electrons in the atom.
We cannot deny that each element has its own nature.  Based upon the number of electrons in their outer shells, some elements are more anxious to acquire than to shed electrons.   Those with only one or two electrons in their outer shell can easily shed electrons, or be "or'd".  Those with seven in their outer shells are anxious to acquire the final electron to make their shell complete (it can have eight.)