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. 🩶

— Rhema's Theory of IS™ 🌚🧠