Being is not what it is defined as

Being is not the “act” of being, being is what it is and not “what” it is defined as, being is not the “idea” of being, or the “form,” or the “unity,” being is substance configured in what substance is configured in as matter and supermatter. Being can be the things I just mentioned secondarily, as definitions, etc. of being. This applies from the smallest being of a cell to Godhood, being is the configured substance of what is existing as a being.

The “essence” of being is the Spirit-Will which activates being, the “existence” of being is the body that the Spirit-Will activates, the existence of being therefore includes both essence and existence. There is never a separation between essence and existence, or between being and existence and essence. Existence is the body, mind, soul and Spirit of a being at various levels of evolution.

Aristotle seems to have come close to this definition or description of being, and prephilosophers seem to have also thought this way without analyzing this way. But it seems that Aristotle slipped back into Platonism by preferring “form,” or the species-definition to the individual in defining being.