Existence

Being is becoming.
Becoming is being.
Essence is existence.
Existence is essence.
By definition, no-thing cannot be being,
but all depends on what the definition of 'is' is.
To be; I am, you are,
he or she or it is,
we are, y'all are, they are.
To be; I was, you were,
he or she or it was,
we were, y'all were, they were.
I have been, you were being,
he or she or it has been,
we had been, y'all will be,
they shall be, should be, could be.
To be or not to be;
to become or to stop becoming -
to cut of what has been
from what may be
by the sharp blade of what is now being.
To be, to exist,
to do, to act,
to happen, to become,
to grow, to change,
to persist, to ensue,
to endure, to abide,
to prevail, to remain,
to continue, to last,
to live, to stay,
to obtain, to rest,
to stand, to inhabit,
to breathe, to hold,
to subsist, to survive,
to move, to go on.
Why is it even a question?
Life lives,
that is its nature,
that is its essence,
that is its being.
Is it necessary
that to be there must be a not-being?
Is the contradiction
required to make the mechanism work?
Is there a kernel of not
inside every is?
Is there a nut of being
within nothing?
If there were not
an endless cycle of
is-not-is-not-is-not-is-not
could there be anything at all?
And what is the third option?
I don't believe in dichotomies,
nature is too multifaceted, multifarious
for things to simply chug along
one-two-one-two-one-two-one-two;
girl-boy-girl-boy-girl-boy-girl-boy;
in-out-in-out-in-out-in-out.
I've seen rainbows,
I know better than to believe
in just black-and-white.