This is an apple.
Can we (or should we) ever say that 'something is', if it is not a permanent state of being? In Spanish, for the verb 'to be' we say 'ser' and 'estar'; essence and condition; identity and being; one is often more permanent than the other. The verb 'to be' in the English language, however, has just one core manifestation. Does this have the capacity to be most violent in communication?
Does the very act of issuing a label by the power of the verb to be - I am, you are, he/she is is etc. - render communication not only violent, but redundant, because I am this and you are that? By containing ourselves within parameters in conversation, or debate, did we just destroy it before it even began?
If we spoke in condition rather than essence, or being rather than identity, how different might it be?
If we spoke in condition rather than essence, or being rather than identity, how different might it be?
