More andorian/orandian metaphysics

We might say that the "and" and "or" are situational.  Like genes that express themselves when exposed to certain stimuli, the "and" and "or", which are everywhere, in every atom, idea, sentence etc, come to life when the situation is ripe.  For instance, the "or" actualizes itself when two negatively charged particles come together.  The "and" shows itself in the collection of letters that form this sentence.  The "or" shows itself in the separation of letters that form each word.  The "and" expresses itself when carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen combine to form amino acids, and when these acids unite to form proteins, while the "or" manifests itself in how these acids distinguish themselves from each other. The "and" is actualized when two lovers meet.   Like fire flies in the night, the "and" and "or" burst in and out of existence...
If we were to ontologize, we might say that the "and" and "or" always exist in either actual or potential form.  With regard to a negatively, we might say that the "or" exists in potential form until it meets another negatively charged particle, at which time it is actualized.
But we ourselves are limitless vessels of the "and" and "or".  For every time, we set forth a sentence, we let forth a torrent of and/or relationships.  Thus, we carry billions if not trillions of and/or precesses, both potential and actual, within our physical cells, but also carry billions of potential and/or relationships in the sentences we stand to utter, and stories we may one day tell.  But these, unlike the physical relationships, are of an indeterminate nature.  An electron has two very clear potential and/or states, based upon its possible relationships.
Our future thoughts, sentences, stories that may appear on paper, relationships with other beings...are relatively indeterminate, unknown at the moment, though knowable in the future.  We thus see that and/or potentiality can take on two forms: determinate form, in the case of the physical universe, and indeterminate form.  This indeterminate form can take the form of the strings of words and sentences that form the basis for our thoughts, written and spoken words, but also our future actions, which consist of and/or interactions with our environment, other people etc. 
Very often, these thoughts give rise to actions, and these actions, and the effects of these actions on the doer, give rise to further thoughts which can lead to further actions.  Thus, a person's indeterminate and/or potential at any given time consists of elaborate strings of and/or thoughts and actions. 
In reaching this conclusion, however, we must not oversimplify.  The first thought does not occur in a vacuum.  It would be more accurate to say that there is no first thought.  What we are thinking at any time, the indeterminate string of potential thoughts and actions emanating from us at any time, results from thoughts, actions, physiochemical processes (which are themselves and/or interactions) that came before.  As Heidegger said, we are all thrown into the world.  To an extent we find ourselves on strings or webs that extend temporally into the past, and which we are weaving into the future, never having complete control of what we weave at any one time.

What it's all about

So.

According to the physicists, prior to the big bang, there was one super energetic and compressed and what have you super atom.   It was one atom and the void.  The big bang brought multiplicity into the world.    And there was an attractiveness about the big bang.   Parts of what had formerly been one atom found that they wanted to merge with other parts with which it had once been part of a great whole. Each parts wanted to return to being what it was: part of a great wonderful whole.  And thus was born the "and".  And this is why the "and" is primordial.  The "and" seeks to return to the unity that was at the beginning of time.

And if we go back to the idea of one great super atom and the void, we can see that from which the "or" came.  In every tiny bit of what was once this great super atom resides the "or".  The "or" wants to return to the comfort of the void out of which this great super atom came.  It wants to become a part of the void as it once was; to return to the safety and comfort of the void. And in thus trying to draw away from, and to separate from all things, the "or" comes.

So the "and" wants to be part of the great super atom which it once was, and the "or" wants to return to its prior state of being engulfed in nothingness.

But the "and", this wanting to merge with nothingness, seems to underlie the "or", which seems to be a desire to draw away from others in order to merge with nothingness.

Thus. we might say that the "and" became primoridal at the moment of the big bang, both in actualizing the desire to return to itself and merge with other parts of what was once itself, and to merge with nothingness.

The "and" did not really become "active" until the big bang.  But we also see the power, of the "or" and how the "or" remained operative even after the big bang, as pieces wanted to draw away from other pieces of which they had been part and...

In sum, as long as there is movement, the "and" is primoridial, as you are either trying to merge with something, or to merge with nothing.

But in a world without movement, where there is no attempt to merge, the "or" is quite powerful, and it reinvents itself after the big bang, by trying to return the universe to its former state, one atom and nothing.

And we might say, that the birth of a person, or of any being, is a re-enactment of this process. The womb is the void, and the baby emerges from the void to merge with other beings.  But part of it craves being left alone, returning to the void, and it does so often, thousands of times every day......


.....

.....

So it is all about memories

My Critics

My critics, who are legion, contend that I am a reductionist.  The "and", the "or" and matter cannot adequately describe the richness or complexity of reality.  Oh, so the full spectrum of colors cannot be derived from different combinations of the three primary colors?  And is the full spectrum of colors any less rich or capable of dazzlingly complex combinations of colors because it is thus reduce-able?  Is a bouquet of flowers any less beautiful because there are three primary colors?  Even if we were to take the purely scientific view that all "stuff" is in fact composed of different combinations of the elements in the periodic table, it is clear that there are hundreds and thousands of molecular combinations of these elements, some of them organic.  Infinite diversity and complexity can be derived from a finite, and incredibly small number of elements. Thus my critics are clearly incorrect.

Orandian View of Consciousness

It is said, at least by some, that consciousness is a collection of processes occurring all at once.  When I am conscious, processes such as seeing, feeling, thinking, hearing etc. are all occurring, and the ego is the director, trying to arrange all these processes. (Daniel Dennett)  We can call the "I" the "and", as it is trying to tie all these processes together, into a single experience, and to arrange them, so that some are more at the forefront than others.  If the "and" is part of the self, it is only a part, and the "or" plays just as great a role.  For the "or" says that I am more than the sum of all these processes.  I am apart from them, distinct from them.  They may be part of me, but they are not me.  I am more than them.  Thus, the "and" is attempting to tie these processes together and to incorporate them into consciousness, while the "I" is trying to stand above it, to retain its sense of self. For the sense of self results in large part from the actions of the "or".

(A socio-biological or evolutionary view of consciousness , or at least human consciousness,would say the "I" may be a fiction, but it is a fiction that evolved, that came into being as a result of evolution, i.e. it was more successful at surviving than consciousness (that of other animals) that doesn't involve thinking and didn't contain the sense of an "I".  In order for a being with all these processes, i.e. feeling, hearing, touching etc. to be more successful than other beings, it needed to have the sense it was in control, it was above these processes, it was directing them.  It may not really have been more than these processes, but a species with these processes would be more successful at surviving if it had the sense of control, of being above, apart from and in control of all these processes.)

Depression, Mania

Beginning where I left off with my last post, we can thus see that depression , or at least some forms, occurs when there is a disruption of this and/or cycle.  Mental health requires a certain connection with the outside world, which is made possible by the "or", getting outside one's self, to make a connection with other people and other possibilities, i.e. the "and".  When you can't get outside yourself or connect with other people, things etc., self absorption and depression occurs.  So depression occurs when the first link of the  and/or progression is severed.   With mania, it is easy to see how the major disruption occurs at the second link.  The self may get outside itself, but it can't form a sufficient connection to any people, or possibilities of being, on the outside world, and jumps from possibility to possibility. However, the "or"'s connection to the self is also damaged.  We have seen, in the post "Deities" how the "and" follows the "or" when the "or" attempts to escape it.  In mania, the "and" connecting the "or" to the self, has difficulty following the "or" or keeping it connected to the self.  Thus, we have a completely unmoored "or", neither connected to the world, or the possibilities of being in the world or possible courses of action, nor connected to the self.

If God is within us

Relating to my post "Deities". If God is a divided self, the self within us is its microcosm.  The "and" want it to be completely self contained, completely calm and at rest.  The "or" wants to escape from the self, to be more than the self, to be other than the self.  The "and" feels it is authentic, and says that being true to the self is being authentic.  And this is true.  But we also always want what we don't have.  We want to be better than we are.  We want to see things from different perspectives, even if it is only to destroy them.  And this urge to escape boundaries, this bit of the "or" that is within us, is also authentic.

In point of fact, the "or" is/" a precondition for human relations, a precondition for the "and" in this sense.  For it is necessary to escape the self, to get outside the self, in order to bond with another.  Thus, the "or" makes possible the "and", and we see a repetition of the "and"/"or" cycle, or shall we say the "or"/"and" cycle.  So we can call this andorian philosophy, or orandian philosophy.

Speculations on the place of the "and" and the "or" in string theory

String theory holds that everything is composed of miniscule strings, loops.  Assuming arguendo that the fundamental particles of matter, leptons, electrons, gravitons, what have you, are in fact loops, what makes them different is that each type comes in its own shape.  And how do they acquire their shape?

 The "or", trapped inside, stretches them out trying to escape, while the "and", desiring unity with itself, while the "and", desiring oneness and self containment, tries to pull itself in.  And if different leptons, say gravitons, are attracted to each other, or make things come together, it is because the shapes fit together, like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle.  And the greater the attraction, the tighter the fit.  And if other particles or waves repel each other, it is because there is no ways these shapes can ever fit.   

The "and" and the "or" also determine the shapes of these strings by working on them from the outside.  Strings are shaped by the "and" bringing them together with, or trying to bring them together with, other strings and the "or" trying to free them from other strings. 

And we may say that strings take their final shape when a symmetry is reached between the "and" and "or" forces acting on them from the inside, and the same forces acting on them from the outside.

Deities

The "and" and the "or" are deities.  If they're separate, I'm a polytheist. Opposites in an extremely complicated relationship, sometimes friends, sometimes partners, sometimes at odds.

If they are one, God is a divided self.  (But aren't we all?)  The "and" wants the self to be one.  But the "or" won't allow it.  The "or" wants to be free.  But the "and" won't allow it.  The "or" breaks away, but the "and" follows it.  So this divided self goes everywhere and is everywhere.  It is in all things, all ideas, everywhere.  So this is a God in turmoil.  But a tormented genius it is, giving birth to more beauty than any artist could hope for; the universe in all its grandeur and complexity, life in all its greenness.

Emotions

We connect to the world through our emotions.  Emotions, at least in part, play the part of the "and".  Our emotions, to a large extent, determine how we interact with people and how we interact with objects. They determine which people we want to see and eventually do see, and what things we want to do.  (And doing things, while it may involve doing things with people, also involves doing things with objects.)   If I am happy and energetic, one set of possibilities show themselves to me, and if I am depressed, another shows itself to me (i.e. staying in bed; and a bed of course is an object) Of course some of the same possibilities may show themselves to me when I'm happy and when I'm depressed, but how I regard them -or what might be called my being towards them if you're a fan of the word being, differs.

Thus, the "and" participates in emotions.  But the "or" does as well.  For in order to have an emotion, I must be other than the object or person towards whom I have an emotion.   It is axiomatic.  Even if I'm happy and "am one" with everything and everyone, I can't be removed from the equation.  An equation by its nature involves more than one variable.  Thus, emotions are self referential, and as they are self referential, they draw away from other people and objects.

So am I a Cartesian?  You bet your life I am.  It has become fashionable to trash Descartes over the last few hundred years, to blame all of philosophy's problems on this poor man.  Blame yourself. Descartes had it right.

Some simple ideas on the Andorian basis for geometry

As we recall from our halcyon years of adolescent frustration, the world of geometry starts with a point.     It progresses from there to two points, which form a line segment.  (In actuality, since a point is infinitely small, it is impossible to have a line segment consisting of two points, but we need not go there for now.)   But it is clear that the "and" is needed to unite points into a line or line segment.  Similarly, the "or" is necessary to separate the points on a line segment from all the other points on a plane.   Thus, the "and" and the "or" must work in tandem to form the basis of geometry, and they also work in tandem to constitute the basis for all geometrical shapes.  The "and" and the "or" work together to form the boundaries of a triangle.  Similarly, when we calculate the area of a triangle, we are gathering together the points within a triangle (the "and"), determining how much space they cover, and delimiting them from the area outside a triangle (the "or").   The same can be said for all geometrical shapes.

Finally, the same can be said for absolutely anything that takes up space, whether it be a desk or a person.  In giving that entity an identity, or at least a physical identity, we are gathering all the points, cells, nails or what have you (the "and") that that entity occupies or contains, and delimiting them from what exists outside that entity.

Restatement of Andorian essentialism

Essentialism in general provides that the world is what it is because things have certain essences.  Plato called these essences forms.  Aristotle, while denying that forms existed separate and apart from the physical world, went about systematically describing its essence.  We can divide the world into categories of things, and there are categories within these categories.  For instances, there is the category: clothes, and within this category, there are pants, socks, gloves and shoes, and within the category "shoes" there may be Gucci shoes.

Andorian essentialism holds that the "and" and the "or" serve as the foundation for the world of categories.  The category "shoe" exists because of the "and": we gather together all the things we use to cover and protect and in some cases showcase our feet and call them shoes. It couldn't exist without the "and".   The "or" plays an equally important role in the formation of essences by separating and delineating them from each other.   Thus, shoes are given their identity, in part, by being limited to what is placed on or under feet for protection, decoration etc.  Shoes are not socks or pants.  We give shoes their identity by delineating them, limiting their essence, separating them from the essence or definition of "socks".  As is the case with the "and", a category could not exist without the "or".   Thus, Andorian essentialism holds that the "and" and the "or" serves as the basis for all that is.  They have the highest ontological status.  And so it is.

The folly of mathematical and scientific thinking

The history of the universe, if the physicists are to be believed, traces the development of complexity.  The big bang supposedly exploded some kind of incredibly energetic super atom. From there, various subatomic particles found expression, then some of the lighter elements, then heavier elements were cooked in stars and all of this was eventually followed by the development of complex organic molecules and living organisms, such as ourselves.   Thus, we see a movement from a singularity to multiplicity, from simplicity to complexity.

When solving an equation, we see movement in the reverse, or largely in the reverse.  It may start off being of moderate length.  It may lengthen and become terribly long,  several lines or even pages, consisting of numerous pieces.   Then starts the process of simplification, in which we move numbers around, divide here and there, knock off this and that.  And we simplify and simplify, knocking off piece after piece until we arrive at THE ANSWER, THE SINGULARITY.

Thus, scientific and mathematical thinking, or a least a large chunk of it, can be seen as a specious attempt to reverse the flow of cosmic history, at least in the imagination. When this thinking moves beyond the realm of the imagination, and is used to make smokestacks and manufacture automobiles, is it any surprise that this is resulting in the destruction of our species?

A supplemental note on the Andorian basis for mathematics

Much like the study of chemical reactions, which has been discussed in an earlier post, mathematical reasoning, or at least a great deal of mathematical reasoning, involves an elaborate "and/or" dance.   It is often necessary to begin with what appear to be interminably long equations.  Variables are shifted around, moved from one side of the equation to the other, actualizing the "and" on one side of the equation, the "or" on the side of the equation that is losing a variable.  It is lengthened and shortened until, lo and behold, an answer has been arrived at, which is generally one number.   A lengthy equation with numerous constituent parts, is eventually peeled away until all has been compressed into one number.   Thus, while the "and" and "or" is involved in mathematical problem solving, we can say that the "and" eventually triumphs when a solution is arrived at.  Or is it a triumph of the "or", with a solution being reached by a peeling away of layers.  Most likely a fine balance, as is required for good health.  Problem solving, like health, requires a balance of the "and" and the "or".

A brief transition from mathematics to physics

And we can say that because the laws of physics are expressed in equations, the "and" is present in all the laws of physics.  And unlike mathematical equations, equations expressing the laws of physics are not entirely self referential.  Rather, they connect to the world.  And the "and" is present in their connection to the world.

Thus, the "and" is present in Newton's law, Force = Mass times Acceleration, Distance = 1/2 acceleration times time squared, etc.     Thus, the "and" connects Force to Mass, Force to Acceleration, and Mass to Acceleration (for Force divided by Mass = Acceleration.    Each member of each equation is in some way connected.

But the "or" is also present in each law, for the quantity described by each member is not the same, and the "or" separates differences in quantity (see last post).  Thus, Force does not equal Acceleration, it equals Mass times Acceleration.

Thus, the "and" and the "or" are present in each of the laws of physics.

Everything is related. Everything is different.

Some more (simple) philosophy of mathematics

We have already said that the "and" is what makes possible the operations of addition and multiplication, while the "or" underlies subtraction and division.

Similarly, the "and" underlies all quantity, or all numbers greater than one. The number two would not be possible without the "and" conjoining separate units.  While the "and" makes quantity possible, the "or" makes possible differences in quantity.

We can take that all of this a step further, and say that mathematics consists largely of equations.  And equations, in their simplest form, consist of two sides, a left side and a right side separated by an "=" sign.  Statements of equality essentially join together the two sides, saying their the same.   Thus, we can say that the "and" makes possible all mathematical equations.

Now, there are different schools of thought concerning what mathematical equations really say.  It has been said that they don't say anything about the world.  Rather, they are entirely self referential, with the statement on one side simply being another way of expressing the statement on the other.  And if the two sides of an equation are not really different but are really the same thing, then we are arguably not tying together two different things, and the "and" is not operative, for in order for the "and" to be operative, there must be at least two things.

While there may be some validity to this point of view, we cannot say the "and" is not present at all, as the "and" underlies all quantity.  Moreover, while the quantity on each side of an equation maybe the same, we can't say that all ways of naming the same quantity have the same meaning.  The quantity (4+2) may be the same as (5+1) but it is hard to argue that we mean the same thing when we say (4+2) as when we say (5+1). At the very least, it would seem, an equation would would tie together two putatively different quantities by showing that they are in fact the same.  And once again, in this tying together of putatively different meanings, the "and" is present.

It can also be argued that an equation ties together two different sets, one on each side of the equation.   This is a relatively dynamic picture of what happens in an equation.  In the equation 4 plus two equals six, according to this school of thought, you have a set of six units on the right side of the equation, and two sets on the left side, one consisting of four units and the other of two.  These two sets are joined together, and when you count the total number of units on the left side (6), you see that the quantity is the same as what is on the right side.  The "and" is prominently featured in this conception, and as noted above, it is dynamic.  Things are happening. Things are being joined together or, in the case of subtraction, wrenched apart.

While we usually think of mathematics consisting of statements of equality, it can also consist of statements of inequality, such as four plus two does not equal 7, or 4+2<7.  The "or" would appear to be present in such statements, distinguishing between the different quantities.

We can attempt to compare the strength of the "and" and the "or" in the mathematical realm by asking whether there are more possible statements of equality or inequality.  It would appear at first blush that there are more possible statements of inequality.  Four plus two can only equal 6.  It can't equal 7, 8, 9 etc.  Thus, it may seem that for each statement of equality, the number of statements of inequality is infinite.   However, there are an infinite number of numbers that add up to 6 (3 plus 3, 2 1/2 + 3 1/2, 2 1/3 + 3 2/3 etc.)   And if we wished to compare the number of statements of inequality with the number of statements of equality by mapping each statement of inequality to a statement of equality, since the number of both is infinite, it is always possible to find a statement of equality to map against a statement of inequality.

Thus, we can say that the "and" and the "or" are equally strong in the mathematical realm.  And there we have another statement of equality!!

Similarly, we can say that the "and" is always present in a statement of inequality.  For even when we say that two numbers are different, we are linking them together when we compare them.

Knowledge

Knowledge, of course, is what is known.  To know something is to understand it.  To understand it is to perceive something about it or within it so that it has meaning.

We, or more accurately I, can take some examples.  I know some Spanish. My vocabulary is sufficient to put together sentences, and I can often express what I want to say when I am in a Spanish speaking country.  However, my knowledge of Spanish is not such that I can understand two Spanish speakers engaging in a conversation.  If I didn't understand any Spanish, what I would hear would be a plethora of usually indistinguishable syllables.  My level of comprehension is sufficient for me to pick up a word here and a phrase there.  The remainder is this plethora that my cats probably hear.   Thus, there are different levels of knowing and different levels of understanding.  When we know a language well, what we hear is not a jumble of syllables but utterances that have meaning.  The entire character of the experience is changed.   And we feel more at ease as we understand what is being said. Since I don't understand most of what is said, I feel a certain lack of comfort in Spanish speaking countries, which would explain why I would like to learn more Spanish. Through this example we see how knowledge involves a relationship with something, a connectedness with something, that allows us to see, to derive meaning.   Knowing a language does not increase our familiarity with rocks and animals or the laws of physics.  It does increase our familiarity with certain sounds, and if sounds are things, we can say that knowledge increases our familiarity with part of the world (i.e. things in the world.)   It goes without saying that the meanings we have decided to ascribe to words is entirely arbitrary.  There is no logical reason that the word "the" should mean "the" rather than "of" or "dog".

The act of learning involves the most intense unity between the learner and the learned, a revealing that peels aware the barrier between the two.  (It should go without saying that the "and" is operative here.   Knowledge is what follows the act of learning.  The unity may be less intense, but there is a comfort, a dwelling, a sense of contentment that results from knowledge.   What was previously drivel is now understood.

We crave the act of revealing, the moving away of barriers, and the comfort, the dwelling that comes with knowledge. It is partly a kind of insecurity that motivates the desire to learn and understand. I am in a Spanish speaking country and don't understand anything that is being said around me.   I have some interest in physics because I believe I will feel more comfortable with the world if I know something about how things work.  (Of course, there are various other reasons why we learn, the most obvious being that we are forced to by our parents, guardians and teachers.  Education succeeds when we are done with its compulsory aspect and still wish to learn.)

And this, in part, is what motivates the desire to learn.  But the desire to learn is also motivated by a desire to control, to gain power and autonomy over what is learned.  To solve a problem, whether it be a difficult equation or to learn a language is to conquer it, to gain mastery over it, to subsume it.  Once again, the "and" is involved in this merging.  And this conquest, while resulting in an immediate sensation of exhilaration, is also what causes the sense of comfort alluded to earlier.

(We are not dealing here with the notion of knowledge as "enlightenment" or "wisdom".  Those who see it in those terms are generally unable to explain what it is and resort to the rationalization that it somehow transcends definition.  That's fine. We won't talk about it.

Still, you may say, "Is knowledge of a language really knowledge?"  My answer is simple. "Try saying that to a linguist." To say that one type of knowledge is less worthy than another is, quite frankly, elitist.  Language is the filter through which we view the world, and viewing it through different filters undoubtedly broadens our aspect of reality.  Over the last 120 or so years, others have written about this subject at great length, and I will not burden the record further. )

Einstein

Of course, Einstein demonstrated a kind of connectedness, a primordiality of the "and".  Space and time are no longer completely independent characteristics of the universe.  They are integrally connected.  When one object accelerates, time for that object runs more slowly than it does for a stationary object. (That object or person would not experience time as running more slowly, but from the standpoint of the stationary observer, it does.)  And acceleration causes the shape of space, literally, to change.  The object accelerating itself becomes smaller in the eyes of the stationary observer, and "circles" in this world would no longer have the same circumference that they have in a stationary world.  Thus, as distance covered over time increases, time itself moves more slowly in the eyes of the stationary overserver.

Thus, space and time are connected, and so is empty space and matter.  Einstein showed that the the mass of physical objects (gravity) has the same affect on space and time as acceleration.  In the presence of massive objects time slows down (at least from the standpoint of an observer who is not near a massive object.)  The shape of space changes to the extent that a straight line, from the view point of someone on earth, would not be straight to an observer viewing it in outer space. Light itself, and the speed of light is one of the essential parameters, the boundary of this world.

Similarly, he showed that matter and energy are largely the same.  Matter is potential energy and can be converted to energy (e=mc squared).  And light, the electromagnetic force, is connected to it all, setting the parameters through which space, acceleration and time must be viewed.   According to physicist Brian Greene, we always move through space-time at the speed of light.   When we accelerate through space, some of that motion is, in effect, diverted from the time access, slowing down time.  Thus, space, time, matter, gravity, and energy are all connected.

Connectedness, connectedness, connectedness.  The "and" underlies more than was first thought.  While he failed in his efforts to show a grand unifying theory of the universe, might it be because of the strength of the "or"?  Things can only be so connected?

Another look at multiplication - nothing that original

On second thought, multiplication does not have to involve creating something from nothing.  It can involve dividing something into parts and then adding them up.  Take 5 x 3.   We can either start with 5 units, and add two more sets of 5 units to this set, creating, as it were, these additional two sets out of nothing.  But we can also start off with a set of 5 units, slice each member into three parts, and then add these smaller units together.   This, of course, involves the "or" (division), which is overcome by the "and", addition.

This probably comes closer to describing what occurred during the birth of the universe, which started out as one tiny superatom, broke apart, parts gathered to form new elements, scattered, broke apart again, combined in massive suns to form new heavier elements, and eventually, more explosions, more scattering, dust coalescing to form planets,  complex molecules being formed, eventually indescribably complex organic molecules etc.    The and/or dance that I have described at length in my earlier posts.

So yes...multiplication was undoubtedly key.  But this involved division and addition.  And as the universe continues to expand and things drift apart, members are subtracted from each set.

Thus, the and/or, is, in its own beautiful way, the unifying principle that underlies all creation.