The word and has to do with interest. When we can say intensely, “I and that thing,” we are showing an interest in that thing. In proportion as “and” is felt, the interest is large. “And” completed is annulled, and becomes identification. Before food is eaten, while it is on the table, it is “I and the food.” It is still “I and the food” while it is being eaten. It is to a degree “I and the food” shortly after we have swallowed it. But after it is in our bodies for a while, unless digestively it disturbs us, it is ourselves. The “and” has been completed, and becomes identification.
We can say “and” after ourselves as to anything. By this I mean we can say “I and the Reformation; I and the solar system; I and ancient man; I and Hedy Lamarr; I and General Robert E. Lee; I and stoves; I and Mary; I and Europeans.” —For the while, in all these phrases, there is an equivalence, for both “I” and the thing that follows it, are, as things, seen as. equals. But in the various phrases, “and,” while it joins, also distinguishes, even separates. The “and” is of various intensities. Assuming that Mary is the person “I” loves, then the “and” between “I” and “Mary ” is quite a different kind from the “and” between “I” and “ancient man.” However, logically, there is an equivalence between the first person pronoun and Mary, and also an equivalence between the pronoun and ancient man.
“And” can separate while it joins. If I said “I and my body,” I should be making a distinction for which many people are not prepared. If I said “I and my personality”—logically quite permissible—the same thing is true. And I could say “I and my past” where “my past” holds logically the same relation that 42nd Street holds in the phrase “I and 42nd Street.”
And is a word of many gradations, of many logical variations, or intensities. However, it always implies interest, when used with the personal pronoun. “He and his thoughts” implies an interest of “he” in his thoughts. “He and current history” implies a relation of “he” to current history; but relation is the more impersonal way of saying interest; for all relation, as interest does, approaches identification.
As soon as two things of any kind are joined by “and,” a relation is affirmed, no matter what the things. If I said, “ice cubes and goddesses,” the fact that verbally I can join these two, presents a relation. If I said, “Edgar and equations,” there is a relation. If I said, “Edgar and inconceivable nothingness,” there is a relation.
“And” can be of more than two things, though at any one time, it joins only two things, or a group of things seen as one. I could say, “Three horses and four devils and most of ourselves”—and I’m joining three things (though plural), but the “and” joins only two in any single use of it. If I used “and” often enough; if I said, “This house and this house and you and snow and purpose and books and this book and they and history…” and went on with enough “and”s, I could cover, linearly, the universe. If I didn’t, it wouldn’t be because of the inefficiency of “and.”
The world can be seen as things connected by “and.” That is why a child is so fond of this conjunction. Really, you can always use it. Going on at all implies “and.” Tomorrow implies “and.” The next moment implies “and.” Difference implies “and.” Existence implies “and.” The new and the old imply “and.”
A word that is another form of and is but. “But” includes to exclude. In the sentence, “The dancers came, but he wasn’t there,” the statement “but he wasn’t there” is added to “The dancers came.” The addition states an exclusion. “But” means subtraction; but before you can subtract anything, you have to state it or add it to the thing subtracted from. To subtract 12 from 80 is also an addition of the idea 12 to the idea 80; to subtract a button from a coat is to say, “the button and the coat.” “But” negates while it makes more.
A word close to and is without. I could say “I and my body” or “I without my body.” “Without” doesn’t show the logical equivalence, however, that “and” does. “Without” points to a thing belonging to something; “and” points to equivalence. However, to say everything the world could be without, would also be giving a complete list of everything the world has, which is the same thing as everything the world is.
And is a “pleasure” word; but is a “pain” word—though to be sure, taken in context, and can point to pain and but to pleasure. I can say “I and my diabetes,” and I can say “I slipped, but I did not hurt myself.” There is a large mathematics of pain and pleasure in “and” and “but.”
“And” implies joining; and where there’s joining, there is some interest. “But” implies exclusion; and to exclude something, you must be interested in it, too. “With,” which is another form of “and,” not implying the equivalence of things and the independence of things, also has the meaning of interest about it; as does “without.” To say “I and he,” with “and” completely intense, would mean complete interest in “he.” To say, “I am here, but James isn’t,” with complete intensity of “but,” would mean complete interest in James. To say “I with Shirley,” with complete intensity of “with” would mean complete interest in Shirley; and to say “I without my friend,” with whole intensity, would mean complete interest in “my friend.” For pain and pleasure, at their utmost, both show interest.