Couldn't have, or need,

But my problem here, as with the role of God as ultimate explanation, is that I'm not sure I understand the idea. Can there really be something which gives point to everything else by encompassing it, but which couldn't have, or need, any point itself? Something whose point can't be questioned from outside because there is no outside?

What does it all mean? Thomas Nagel

I'm so confused of what the author wrote. I think the expression "but which couldn't have, or need" could be written like this:

"but which couldn't have, or needn't have". Is it right?

Thanks