The primacy of mind

This last question gives rise to the conclusion that language gives rise to form.  As long as there is language, there will be some form.  For what could seem to be as form free as formlessness?  But as soon as we call it something, we have defined it.  We have labeled it, and it is something that is different from other things.  Formlessness is different from form.
Thus we can say that this differentiation, the "or", at least in part, has its birth in language.  Which is not to say that the "or" is an artificial construct.  We have seen how the "or" is present, in very real form, in nature, epistemology, biology, biochemistry, chemistry, physics, society, history, economics et al.
However, to an extent that may never be completely clear, the "or" emanates from the human mind.  In the same way that an electron does not occupy a certain position until the observer observes it, and the observer determines that position, form does not exist until the speaker defines it.  Does this mean that reality does not exist until it is observed, as some philosophers have argued?  Of course not.  Electrons exist, regardless of whether they are observed.  But the observer plays some role in defining them.  Just as an observer plays a role in defining various types of form.
Take a chair.  Does my cat understand what a chair is?  Does she really see it as anything different from a tree stump or a bed.  Does she know it generally has legs, a backrest (in contrast to a stool), and sometimes armrests?  I don't think so.   The concept of chair has much more meaning to a human than to a cat. To a cat, beds, tree stumps and chairs may all occupy some vague position in the world of potential resting places or potential observation points.  But they aren't something a cat will think about or categorize to the point that a human will.