The paradox with the universal approach is that it’s more related to the notion of intersection than to the notion of union even if it consists of the union of many intersections. With the intersections, we get the vertices and with the union, the edges. This is possible with the manifold of traditions. Traditions are more useful than religions for the universal approach because of the absence of dogma. They are sets but they aren’t rigid. The rigidity comes with the dogma. The vertices are crystallized but the edges are fluid and we obtain the desired network to find a new way to approach the open universe outside the small closed words.