one

I have of late been thinking about numbers quite a lot, the number one in particular. The abstract quality of numbers fascinates me, and I have been trying to relate them to other abstract concepts, like wholeness and love and perfection.

For example, a glass – Glass A. If Glass A has a small chip in it, it isn’t less than one glass. If it has a small lump on it, it isn’t more than one glass. The glass is still one; it is one of itself. It is a perfect Glass A.

This inspires further thought. It is impossible ever to have duplicate Glass A’s. The ideal glass exists only in theory. How, then, can two things ever have enough in common to be called two? Put two glasses together and all you have is two ones. The ideal two does not exist. There is no such thing as the ideal two.

I found this concept very disturbing. The ramifications of the nonexistence of the number two would be extensive. How could there be true love without two? I asked friends, teachers; no one had the answer.

Fortunately, I came across a solution to this problem just recently, in e. e. cummings’ poem, “if everything happens that can’t be done,” He sets up the idea of the individual one with lines like “there’s nothing as something as one” and “one’s everyanything.” He then reveals that two ones are involved with each other – in love. He unites these ideas, wrapping it up beautifully in the last stanza:

we’re anything brighter than even
the sun
(we’re everything greater
than books
might mean)
we’re everyanything more than
believe
(with a spin
leap
alive we’re alive)
we’re wonderful on times one

One times one! It makes so much sense. We don’t generally think of multiplication using two objects. Usually, we think, “One apple one time” – equals one apple. However, Punnett squares have shown that multiplying one horse by one donkey will yield one mule. Decidedly different from either of the originals, it nevertheless combines characteristics of both into one being.

So it must be with people. The love of two individuals, while independent of one another, blends together to form one love – their love. People speak of “our love” or “the love between us” or “the love that we share.” The two ones multiply to equal one, but that final one is different, seems richer, fuller than either of the originals.

The implications are intriguing. I had no idea that numbers could mean so much. It’s paradox, because mathematics is the ultimately logical system, totally intolerant of interpretation, I think these ideas merit further development – after all, I haven’t even begun to think about zero.