There is no "be"

No thing or person can be. You can tell what is yet and what is not yet. The only way something can be is if you can go outside eternity for a quick witness. No point into eternity can you see anything or anyone actually be.

So lo, "be" is a false implication. The word itself is not false, but it's implication is false. I am yet. We are yet. Yes, "am" and "are" imply "be" also.

The dictionary should have the words "beyet" and "beless" for a true implication instead of a false implication. Yes, the words "amyet" and "amless" and plus "areyet" and "areless", concerning "be" is what the dictionary should modernly obtain.

Everything which was always is still yet and not yet complete. When you look at a closet, you cant say it be there since you don't know yet if it'll get destroyed a minute away from the now you only can know.

The words "become" and "becoming" have a true implication concerning potential in a sense the implication tells whatever or whoever it is it is somewhat still yet that obviously wasnt always, with no implication it can stay present always either.

So if someone asks you who you are, tell 'em you are yet and/or becoming.

If someone gets a tude to ask you: "And just who do you think you are?" Rebuke their whole question, while keeping your cool, by saying, "I am yet, I tell you. So imply a better, true question without a tude if you want a better, true answer."

And "belong"? Same applies since it is a false implication. Nothing can belong. So nothing can belong your's. Am yet I even lieing?! Something can 'beyetlong' or 'yet belong' or 'belongyet' your's. We may mordernize the true implication with modernizing words without waiting for a dictionary's officializing. But the lame and unhip snarl when they distantly see mordernization occuring so.

And "is" implicates present distant be. "a remote be". And if you read the bible, know, the key of the bottomless pit is the 'false implication' ('be'). And know, you can not have a name. Names are yet and names never get implicated the same way with any person. So actually nameless is anyone or anything. You have a 'yetname' or a 'nameyet'. Or! A naming is anyone or anything. Since, know, the implication with singling for any person is always fresh and new.

Any person have any 2 cent for sharing concerning the false implicated "be"?

[edit on 26-10-2008 by Mabus]

In my most humble opinion you are absolutely correct Mabus.

The word be is a verb/action word.

Examples:

Let it be. = Leave it alone.

I want to be a carpenter. = I want to learn carpentry.

Next one Mabus. That was fun.

I am trying to wrap my head around what you wrote. I'm finding this fascinating, confusing, and disturbing. Have found peace in being for years, yet may have had a misconception of what I was experiencing. I'm apparently not nearly as smart as you. Is there any way you could dumb this down a little, while still holding the same meaning?

reply to post by Mabus


Check this site out

nobeliefs.com...

It's a form of the language which removes the verb to be. It's also in Wikipedia if you want to check that out (E-prime). I wish I could remove it from all of my language, but the thought of it is too much of a head ****.

I disagree. The way I see it is I am not who I was and I am not who I will be, but "I am" in this moment. The past and the future no longer and do not exist, but what "is" does exist, IMHO. This is how we are trapped in this modern world. What is associated with the name attached to you is not necessarily who you are in this moment. To not possess the power of "I am" is to deny the only power that you can truly possess.

Originally posted by redled
reply to post by Mabus

 

Check this site out

nobeliefs.com...

It's a form of the language which removes the verb to be. It's also in Wikipedia if you want to check that out (E-prime). I wish I could remove it from all of my language, but the thought of it is too much of a head ****.

Interesting. Yeah, those implications the words they list on wikipedia concerning e-prime can confuse, depending on how they are implied.

I always look at "were" as implying something or someone no longer.

And the bible puts the "was" implication expanded on with "not" or "yet is". It's where you read "was, is not, yet is"...

But I disagree with e-prime knocking the "is" implication since it is concerning the present, not an always. And "been", to me, is a paradox implication since if something pops into existence and then pops out, you can refer to it as having been...if something popped into existence and is still present, you can also refer to it as having been in a 'so far since point ago' sense...if something you havent seen pop into existence, but is still present, nonetheleast, it you can refer to also as having been. Since I am yet with a paradox I wont knock the 'been' implication.

Yes, certain words obviously seem meant for having a context so that the word's implication can actualize.

The implication concerning "being" is not 'to being' so I disagree with e-prime since being can implicate a person or an existing, not a 'to person' or a 'to existing' since a person is a present implication and an existing is a present implication, not a 'be' implication.

Originally posted by justamomma
I disagree. The way I see it is I am not who I was and I am not who I will be, but "I am" in this moment. The past and the future no longer and do not exist, but what "is" does exist, IMHO. This is how we are trapped in this modern world. What is associated with the name attached to you is not necessarily who you are in this moment. To not possess the power of "I am" is to deny the only power that you can truly possess.

To what is in bold...

With the context spelled out surrounding your use of "am" you've implicated the same thing I have basically. I mean you implicate the 'am yet' thing indirectly with the context you use with "am".

And we are yet who we are yet. I deny "I am" in exchange for "I am yet". The "I" is not complete, but is yet complete. I mean, the past and future is never us present like you say. We are yet.

Okay I get it now. I thought my world was about to be turned upside down, only to find that I'm already here with you. This seems like too much wording for such a simple concept. All you are saying is that as a subjective being experiencing spacetime we can't truly know objectivity, so to state something as an absolute, is false. The only moment is now, and every other is only an illusion. Am I missing something here, or is this the gist of what is being described?

[edit on 26-10-2008 by unityemissions]

Originally posted by unityemissions Okay I get it now. I thought my world was about to be turned upside down, only to find that I'm already here with you. This seems like too much wording for such a simple concept. All you are saying is that as a subjective being in spacetime we can't truly know objectivity, so to state something as an absolute, is false. The only moment is now, and every other is only an illusion. Am I missing something here, or is this the gist of what is being described.

What you stated is a great summary of how I personally view "life." What the OP is stating is still over my head, but apparently according to the OP, the concept is similar or perhaps even the same (?). Still not really sure haha

Originally posted by unityemissions
Okay I get it now. I thought my world was about to be turned upside down, only to find that I'm already here with you. This seems like too much wording for such a simple concept. All you are saying is that as a subjective being in spacetime we can't truly know objectivity, so to state something as an absolute, is false. The only moment is now, and every other is only an illusion. Am I missing something here, or is this the gist of what is being described.

Yeah, you can say it that way.

The moment is present. Anyone or anything standing before you is "at" present. The "at" part is the present light reflecting them or it, image wise, with light speed. No one or thing, besides light and the date and the hour, is its image.

[edit on 26-10-2008 by Mabus]

reply to post by Mabus



You know OP, this is a concept that I have recently started to grasp and I have spent a lot of time thinking of how different the world would be (which is missing the concept, I know lol) if everyone could realize this and act on *this* rather than the *what was* and *what might be.*

If this concept were carried out in someone's life there would be:
1. no suspicion or expectation (both of which are the source of a lot of the problems we face)
2. no worry or anxiety
3. no loss or gain
4. true freedom




[edit on 26-10-2008 by justamomma]

reply to post by Mabus


Exactly!! You are amazing! Thanks for the excellent paraphrase. I have known this for a while, basically intuited this as a child, but it took many years to analytically describe and reintegrate into my psyche after conditioning during adolescence. Thank you for every word! It means more to me, than I can properly describe.

I simply worry about, '(s)he is a professor.' Well, whatever (s)he teaches, (s)he will also cook, eat, sh1t, etc. I suppose I agree with '(s)he is a human' but beyond strict biological definition, it is making the metaphor all consuming, I don't like it.

to what my eyes are seeing in your posts, when you say you are "yet", you show that you believe your reason for existence, or what makes you "complete", is death, or the removal of you from eternity...
for instance...
"Everything which was always is still yet and not yet complete. When you look at a closet, you cant say it be there since you don't know yet if it'll get destroyed a minute away from the now you only can know."

i can see how you might look at somethings destruction being the "completion" of its existence, in that it is erased; subtracted from the addition that it brought when it was around, to the overall equation of Existence..
BUt that implies to me that this reasoning forgets about the other face of a thing's Life.. its personal, day-to-day that accumulates its life. Maybe your reason for existing is to complete a cycle, say a path you take in society or within your world, before your completion into death? would that not complete your existence far more than your eventual decay into the ground and assimilation back into this magnificent balance of particles and energy?
especially when it is your legacy that lives on beyond your time on the physical plane of existence, affecting other cycles, possibly influencing still of what others may turn out to "be".

"So if someone asks you who you are, tell 'em you are yet and/or becoming."

How would you say that if you chose to omit the "are yet and/or"?
I am becoming?

"Yes, "am" and "are" imply "be" also."

The grammar doesn't really fit..
BEsides, is becoming not a compound word of "be" and "coming"? becoming implies a state of being, a point of reference that lies in the process of change.

Just trying to wrap my head around this way of thinking.. interesting idea.