I made a re-discover recently too. "It" is conceptualised as iota-ted through the classification "identity theft" in linguistic appropriation this century. In the rise of hyperawareness blogosphere, FaceBuke and things that require arseholes to ingest their bile deep in their bowels and hold grudges for as long as they live, "this" and "it" forming "this is it" became naturally interchangable and staunchly idiomatic. But what do we really mean by identity theft?
The answer, my acquaintance, lies in the acceptance of what "might be", instead of the acceptance of "what is believed to be".
And this, my audience, is where the majority of bile-spewing keyboard warriors fall down.
"It" paints itself as separate from everyone else, getting people's backs up for its sheer arrogance. This is the dark side of the term "it" in language. Prismed not just as meaning "marriage", but also, as we shall see, in the aspect of "identity theft". Go further Muttley, what links these seemingly unrelated causalities. Simply, the wanting to "not" purvey oneself as separate. Identity theft is blending in, marriage is blending in. Most people think being identified, like a terrorist, is to be weak-minded. Just like most people think marriage is for the strong-minded, because it requires a commitment. This, if I can call you a friend (see what I did here) links the two stratospheres conceptually and idiomatically. Concept and idiom are part of the phenomological cluster ideology of parts, something which Westerners would reach for the Oxford dictionary to find philology for, which is the term "root", as in root of a tree. And we know the tree of life is full of many branches, all wanting to be what they want to be, grow a certain way, shed their leaves a specific time, et cetera. Whatever. The point is that while roots are what they want to be after growth, they will always struggle to be "what they're not"...
The answer, my acquaintance, lies in the acceptance of what "might be", instead of the acceptance of "what is believed to be".
And this, my audience, is where the majority of bile-spewing keyboard warriors fall down.
"It" paints itself as separate from everyone else, getting people's backs up for its sheer arrogance. This is the dark side of the term "it" in language. Prismed not just as meaning "marriage", but also, as we shall see, in the aspect of "identity theft". Go further Muttley, what links these seemingly unrelated causalities. Simply, the wanting to "not" purvey oneself as separate. Identity theft is blending in, marriage is blending in. Most people think being identified, like a terrorist, is to be weak-minded. Just like most people think marriage is for the strong-minded, because it requires a commitment. This, if I can call you a friend (see what I did here) links the two stratospheres conceptually and idiomatically. Concept and idiom are part of the phenomological cluster ideology of parts, something which Westerners would reach for the Oxford dictionary to find philology for, which is the term "root", as in root of a tree. And we know the tree of life is full of many branches, all wanting to be what they want to be, grow a certain way, shed their leaves a specific time, et cetera. Whatever. The point is that while roots are what they want to be after growth, they will always struggle to be "what they're not"...