English psychology

What does “IS” really mean 🩶 THE NUTSHELLS OF “IS” — A LITTLE JOURNEY INTO EXISTENCE Nutshell I — “IS” exists, but not necessarily as a thing. At first, I wondered whether “IS” itself exists. The word “IS” isn't an object that we can physically point to, but it exists as a concept and has meaning. So perhaps “IS” is non-existent as a physical thing, yet existent conceptually through the meaning we give it. --- Nutshell II — “IS” may represent a deeper relation. I began to think that “IS” might not be the relation itself, but rather the name or linguistic representation we give to a deeper relation that already exists. For example, a chair can exist without anyone saying the word “IS.” The word didn't create the chair's existence. Therefore: Reality → relation → language represents the relation. This led to the question: What exactly is the deeper relation that “IS” represents? --- Nutshell III — “IS” varies according to the relation. We discovered that “IS” doesn't have only one function. It can represent: • Existence: The chair is. • Identity: The chair is furniture. • Property: The chair is black. • Location/state: The chair is in the house. • Function: The chair is for sitting. • Meaning/description: The chair is useful. So “IS” can act as a linguistic/conceptual operator connecting something to its existence, identity, property, state, function, or meaning. --- Nutshell IV — “EXIST” and “IS” overlap, but they aren't identical. “Exist” concerns having or having had being/reality. For example: 🦖 Dinosaurs existed — they had being in the past. 🪑 A chair exists — it has being now. But “IS” is broader than “EXIST.” We can say: The chair exists. But also: The chair is black. Here, “IS” isn't simply saying that the chair exists. It establishes a relationship between the chair and the property “black.” Therefore: EXIST → concerns being/existence. IS → can express existence AND establish other meaningful relations. --- Nutshell V — The question behind “IS.” The deeper question became: «Is “IS” merely a linguistic phenomenon, or is language giving a name to something deeper that already exists in reality?» I chose the second possibility: «“IS” may be the linguistic representation of a deeper relation rather than the relation itself.» And that leaves us with a much bigger question: What is the fundamental relation that makes something “be” what it is? And perhaps that is where the real journey begins. 🩶 — Almond's Theory of IS™ 🌚🧠

Referral Earning

Points-to-Coupons