Okay then Amos..........Being, huh? Well, "being" a student of the great Dane, Soren Kierkegaard........Allow me to paraphrase him a bit on the subject:

A thing may be in and of itself or may be a thing realted to although not similar to itself or other things which have the same makeup as the thing first encountered. An old saying, which may or may not be an old saying, derived from the world of experience, or possibly from the writings of George Gobel, has it that "he who will not work shall not eat." A thing having such a trait cannot be considered to be wholly one thing, but a part of the body of like things whereas if the thing has the same properties and does not eat the thing may not exist at all and will therefore refuse to be. But, strange to say, this does not hold true in the world where it is thought applicable; for in the world of matter the law of imperfection prevails, and we see, again and again, that he also who will not work has bread to eat—indeed, although the soup is extra, and excepting for those times when the oneness of it's thingness prevents the thing from eating and hence, being that thing or any other thing.

If the physical powers of he who sleeps has a greater abundance of it than he who works, then the sleeping he is of less being than the other unless the he in question is a she, in which case, it's all over and Bob's your uncle. In the world of matter everything belongs to whosoever happens to possess it; it is thrall to the law of indifference, and he who happens to possess the Ring also has the Spirit of the Ring. and a bottle of Wisk, at his beck and call, whether now he be Noureddin or Aladdin or Clarabelle with a seltzer bottle, and he who controls the treasures of this world, controls them, howsoever he managed to do so, except for Bill Gates.

It is different in the world of spirit. There, an eternal and divine order of sacrificial vestal virgins abstains, there the rain does not fall on the just and the unjust alike, nor does the sun shine on the good and the evil alike; but there the saying does hold true that he who will not work shall not eat, and only he who was troubled shall find rest, and only he who descends into the nether world shall rescue his beloved, and only he who unsheathes his knife shall be given a pile of doody which they cannot ascribe any oneness of being to in order to possess again. There, he who will not work shall not eat, but shall be deceived, as the gods deceived Orpheus with an immaterial figure instead of his beloved Euridice, deceived him because he was lovesick and not courageous, deceived him because he had a pecker that resembled a toothpick, deceived him because he was a player on the cithara rather than a man of no being and possibly a being of similar though different characteristics than one of no being.

There is a kind of learning which would presumptuously introduce into the world of spirit the same law of indifference under which the world of matter groans. And what, forsooth, does this learning really know? What is known or possibly known or assumed to be cannot under any cicumstance be more or less than the property of the being if the one being has the same properties. Therefore the Cartesium Dictum of "I think, therefore I am," can best be seen in the statement, "Someone dropped a charcoal briquet in Jane's underwear."

Well, that about sums up being and the otherwise unintelligible writings of a Danish without the cream cheese, although we may want to revisit the writings of Jay Silverheels at a later date to garner the Native American take on the idea...........

Okay........Who's asleep?

Spaw