Some thoughts on freedom

If you are not free to change, then you are not free.  Freedom, thus by necessity incorporates change.  But a rock can change.  It may be worn down by water or split in two by a harder rock.  And no one would say that a rock is free.  Thus, we can say that freedom presupposes life, and that freedom presupposes choice.  Thus, to be free you must be alive, be able to change, and be able to change because you choose to change.  The choosing to change can involve choosing to direct one's thoughts in a certain way, choosing to move somewhere or to do something or any combination thereof.  However, it seems clear that the change involves movement of some kind.  Directing one's thought towards certain things involves movement in a sense, as does moving itself.    And we have already said that movement is always towards something or away from something and that it involves the "and" and the "or".  Thus, freedom cannot exist without the "and" and the "or".  But a pebble moves when swept by a current, and a pebble can hardly be said to be free.  For a person to be free, he must be able to choose to direct himself, to move, in a certain way.   Thus, freedom would seem to involve being able to draw from one's own personal reservoir of the "and" and the "or" to determine his own relationship with other beings and ideas, drawing from the "and" as one sees fit and drawing from the "or" as one sees fit, choosing which to draw from and when.  This personal reservoir, I would posit, is always there, but when one is not free, one is not able to draw from it.  Something or someone or preventing one from accessing this reservoir.  And when this is the case, and "and" and the "or" are not actualized but only exist in potential form. In the same way that the conservation of energy provides that total energy, i.e. potential energy plus actual energy, doesn't change (potential energy and actual energy change proportionately to each other, but there total remains the same), I would say that the size of the "and"/"or" reservoir does not change.  The potential "and/or" and the actual "and/or" may change in proportion to each other but the total remains the same.  In other words, the potential to be free is always there, at least for humans.  There may be something blocking this potential, whether it be socioeconomic straits or mental illness, but the possibility that these obstacles can be removed, however remote, is always there.  And that is why freedom is something we can aspire to, and why not being free results in anger, frustration and often rebellion.  It is because the potential to be free is generally within view.  

This and/or reservoir such not be confused with a reservoir of possibilities.  Rather, it is the possibility of acting on these possibilities.    It is the reservoir of the "and" and the "or" that each person has which either exists in potential form or is actualized. 

It might be said that each of us has a personal and/or reservoir, but collectively, those within a collective, whether it be a state or a country, have a collective and/or reservoir.   And when they can't act collectively to decide their future, i.e. when the "and/or? reservoir exists only in its potential form, the seeds of rebellion are sowed. 

Boundaries and Form

Thus, the "or" breaks boundaries, but it also sets boundaries, it separates one being, one form from another.  Thus, the "or" is largely responsible for the creation of form.  What adheres together and works together within form (the and), such as the organs of the human body, is also inseparable from form. The "and" holds form or shape together.  But we're talking about the "or" now, establishing boundaries as it tries to break them.  Like a man trying to conquer or expand his horizons in someway, or a philosopher  eating. 

Creativity

The "or" makes the two dimensional want to become three dimensional.  It makes straight lines jagged. It is responsible for thinking outside the box.   But the "and" is what keeps this thinking grounded.   It was what prevents creativity from becoming fantasy.  It is what connected the propositions that became the Theory of Relativity and put them into a logical sequence.  Thus, the "and" and the "or" must work in tandem for creative thought to become meaningful, for it to become anything more than manic ruminations. In sum, the "or" may be responsible for that initial burst, that escape from the confines of conventional thought, the severing of existing connections.  But as long as there is genuine creativity, the "and" is there, trying to keep it real.

(Of course, the "and" in one creative endeavor, say painting, may differ in character from the "and" in another, such as an innovative mathematical or scientific theory.  In the latter, the "and" may consist of logical connections, while in the former, it may consist of an idea, or in the case of a novel, a plot)

   

More musings on language

Languages are collections of words, along with rules for combining them, that enable us to describe the world (in the broadest sense) to each other, and assist us in manipulating it.  If we took all the languages combined, we'd perhaps have hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of words.  The "and" and "or" gathers certain words and rules together, and separates them from other words and rules, thus forming separate languages.  OK, we know this is not how language is formed in empirical reality.  But the "and" and the "or" do play an important role both in the historical formation of language and its use. 

To the extent that geographical separation and human migration play a role in language, the "and" and "or" are present.   Groups of people gather together (the and) and, through migration, separate from other groups (the or), and different groups develop their own words and rules for combining them.  While the development of language may have an accidental or arbitrary quality, differences in language may aid the cohesiveness of (the and of) different groups, providing them with a sense of identity (the or), and also providing a means of protection.  If a member of a different group cannot understand your language, he or she cannot hurt you.  By requiring that person to learn your language, you co-opt him, set the terms for the relationship, forcing him or her to join the group on your terms.

Turning to the rules of different languages, or their grammar(s), we may say that the "or" is operative.  For the rules are largely restrictions on how words are to be combined.  Words may not be combined in certain ways.  Arguably, the "and" is also operative, as the rules may enable words to combined in certain ways, but I would argue that the "or" predominates.  These rules also help distinguish the speakers of a language from outsiders who have not mastered it, who often find themselves the object of ridicule for their inability to follow, or their lack of knowledge of, such rules.     

Moving somewhat deeper into the actual functioning of language, we can say that the "and" maps words to objects in the world.   In addition, a word itself functions as the "and", connecting objects to the user.  Or the "and" uses words and language to connect people to the world. The "or" is largely responsible for the diversity of words, for different words having different meanings and being connected to different objects. 

Andorian basis for ethics

It has been said that there is mathematical reasoning/truth, scientific reasoning/truth, and moral reasoning/truth. .  If I understand T.M. Scanlon correctly, at least insofar as his book, "Being Realistic about Reasons" is described by Thomas Nagel, moral reasoning stands apart from these other types of reasoning and relies upon a normative element.  That we should swerve when driving to avoid hitting a pedestrian is clearly and obviously true, and its truth is not based upon anything else, rather it is based upon its shouldness. Moral statements have a clear normative element, and that normative element does not make them any less true.
I would propose a different schema. The obvious shouldness underlying the statement we should swerve to avoid hitting a pedestrian derives from its participation in, its strengthening of, the "and" and the "or".   For if you don't swerve, and you strike and kill the pedestrian you are not participating in the "and" and the "or".  Rather, you are standing outside them and trying to vanquish  them.  That you are clearly destroying your relationship with others (and), severing the relationship between the pedestrian and others (and), denying the pedestrian the right to an independent existence (or), and shattering the diversity upon which the universe relies could not be more obvious.
Though not as extreme as in the case of killing, other acts that are generally regarded as immoral, such as stealing, are similarly damaging to the andorian fabric that holds us together.    
Thus, to repeat again, the apparent normative basis of moral reasoning derives from its participation in the "and" and the "or".   In much earlier posts I have described the Andorian basis of mathematical reasoning as well as the Andorian basis for scientific reasoning (and many other disciplines.)  Reasoning is not divided. Each area of reasoning does not constitute its own universe.  The "and" and the "or" underlies all that is.

For

For Andorian thought gave birth to quantum physics.  For quantum physics says electrons have particle and wave properties.  And what is the particle but the "or", something that makes itself infinitely small so that it can shy away from, distinguish itself from, all other things.  And what is the wave but the "and", smeared out throughout the universe, everywhere and touching everything. Quantum physics is an expression of Andorian thought.

The answer

Andorian thought resolves the issue of whether the world is one or many, an issue that has roiled the world of philosophy since the age of the pre-Socratics.  The world is neither one nor many. It is two.