In English we use a lot of definitive phrases; perhaps more than any other language. What I mean by this is we use “Am” or the “being form” for an enormous repertoire of categorically different qualities about people, places and things. For example; I am tall. I am sad. I am thoughtful. I am here, I am with someone etc etc. So we use “am” for physical and mental traits plus location and relationship with other things. We even use it in conjunction with action verbs “I am + doing”.

In other languages the addition of “to be” and “to do” is less exaggerated as maybe they believe to “do” is a form of “to be” and perhaps vice versa, therefore doesn’t have to be reiterated. Instead of “I am going” it’s more equivalent to “I going” or “I currently go”

Also in other languages we express these same sentiments with the possessive verb “to have” or the action verb “To do”. In Spanish you’re are not sad but rather you possess sadness at this time. I believe this is more accurate than English because literal interpretation of English would be that “you are your mental state” “I am sadness” “my definition is sad” rather than “sadness is a temporary state that I - a being in its own right -have/are experiencing right now”.

These subtle differences in the use of our most common verbs must have a profound effect on our perspective or understanding of the world between cultures. Again in English “the weather is hot” but in many other languages “the weather is acting/doing/making hot”.

What I’m getting at here is the overlap between doing and being and the difference between transient or temporary states and permanent states. should a permanent state “be” and transient states “do”? Should the only thing that really “is” be the universe whilst all thing internal to it are possessive qualities “acts the universe has, does or makes?”

For example we know that in English we say “you are pretty” or “you are blond”. We consider these as “am” traits being something relatively static and permanent throughout some period of time. But we know from biology that the state of being blond is a four stage cycle that constantly occurs in the hair follicle - and that being pretty requires bone formation and destruction production of elastin in the skin, Replication and división and repair, immune responses to invaders the list goes on. So these “states” are really the sum of thousands of actions or “doing states”

But we would never say you are doing pretty or you are making blond when really that’s the most accurate biological description of the activity.

I would like to see a language that tackles doing and being as one in the same thing and see how it discerns it’s world. Would this language simplify things or complicate them? Would it be a more effective language for science? How would we discriminate the act from the object? Would it be more convenient to consider all things as acts or all things as “being” and is “being” “doing”?