I could re-write that to
to be or not to being.
That is the question, or those are the choices to make. Just before you click on the 'close window' button, let me explain.
To being
I understand it as existing, from thought to action within the context of the society you are in. I could survive living in Iran, China, North Korea, Burma or Iraq, but I would not be what I want to live, I'd just be a being, humanly. (I love my liquor and women)
To be
I understand it as existing with thoughts preceding action. Some would say, 'to live in your own little world'.
I like 'to be', live in my own mind. There are no rules, no limitations, no laws, no remorse, no regrets, no fear, no failure, just absolutely pure bliss.
I think that is the continuous battled of being somebody (which you can only become from somebody else's affirmation) and to be what you want, what you think.
Isn't belief based on that? The idea of something being a fact without empirical proof for it? To want to become is beyond what you are, now.
Hmmm, this word play is getting me confused. I'll come to it, lets call this an introductory lecture.
(bell rings)
Hold up!!!! Is living not about the right balance between being and "to be"? EISH...I got caught up in the words...Then again, balance seems to always be my solution to things...an easy route perhaps...
But if you were to just "be", why would there still be a need to co-exist? Because if all of us would just "be", we would have to understand one another's state, even if we dont' accept it, we'd have to tolerate it...which is, in essence...what you call "BEING", in a shared space (society?) etc....hmm....I'm still caught up in the words, ne? I GIVE UP!
Nation
Mar 2008
exactly what you said. Because we need to co-exist --- the Being precedes the 'be'.
wait --- nearly got lost in it too, :-)
I'll come back to it.
nkoane
Mar 2008
Sekgoa se a tsietsana! Ke a se tshaba...
Nation
Mar 2008