Erudite: Circles should square?

Everything is always as it should be,look at your hand,you cant conceive of a better way to assemble a hand.

The room you're in,its windows and doors can only be in once place really,after contemplation, after doubt there is only real place for everything.

Your boss could only act, look the way they do or they would not fit in.

They as you are rightly thinking would be "square!

They would be moved on, alienated or you would try to re-shape them.

If items that don't fit are too square we need to add circles; so to reshape iron we need to add heat or if the object is too circular we need to add squares like Jello or a dry mophead to clean up split milk.

Confused? Too fluid, do I need to add structure? Ill explain....

Any structure must be complied of units that use all the structural space of that form, if not the structure either will not exist or lack integrity.

The outside shape (of a collection of mass), will differ from another outside shape depending on its content and process of collection.

One collection may wish to be spherical such as water molecules, and another cuboid such as salt mineral, or copper sulphate.

Is it that basic elements seem to strive for stability?

Or is it that given our environment only certain constructs are able to have integrity? Note its' perceived shape and really the only possible shape the rainbow could take. As it is a product of its environment and its elements.

Being spherical enables movement whatever the shape of the external container and so allows free movement and interaction and then enables the creation of combinations reductions of different but related shapes and elements.

Being square in an environment square does not facilitate movement.

Only in environments where spheres (circles) and cuboids (squares) are forced together can interaction occur and new shapes or collections of matter be formed that comprise of both spherical and cuboid identities or spherical identities.

If we did not use salt in cooking it would stay its chosen identity for as long as structurally sound. By adding water (spherical), shapes to the crystals it allows the salt to move more freely within the salt water environment to establish relations with oxygen, nitrogen hydrogen or any other matter in the water and so form new shapes or collections, be they biological in nature or not, and re-establish identity.

Once the spherical shapes disappear from the newly established transitory relationship, the salt will retreat to its previous identity and be stored effectively again happy in its new spherically barren environment.

If cubes and spheres combine to produce a Frog life form and the Frog is put in a microwave and all the spherical elements are removed, the Frog will eventually return to its most basic cuboid elements.

"From dust to dust"

Energy in the form of heat and wind can also allow cuboids in a cuboid environment freedom to interact by reducing and increasing the size of the cuboids and the the volume fill of the shape. This can be reduced by adding spherical collections of shpes. Fire is one example it can be restructred by adding, water or foam.

Anger by love perhaps

Love by anger perhaps?

Also an environment with spheres and circles will produce heat through interaction and the freedom within the structure itself.

Maybe the shape of structures could be the cause of life as we know it, but which comes first the internal mass or the external shape?

I am not proposing that such shapes or collections know they are a particular shape or even consciously choose their eventual shape, but merely asking what determines it?