Is “To be” the perfect verb for nature?

At the end of class on Tuesday, the phrase “all is one” was compared to the English literature rule of E-Prime. I am not an English major, so I did a little research on the term E-Prime to better understand its role in our language. I found out a few things that struck me as most interesting and related to our class discussions. Avoiding “to be” is intended to clarify meaning, stimulate intellectual thinking, and enhance critical thinking. The passive form is an incorrect way of writing and you are considered a better writer and more intelligent if you can write and speak without using the “to be” verb. “To be” also has many, many forms.

In class, we noted that “is” in the phrase “all is one” is a “to be” verb. Is this a bad thing because it is implying all is a being and everything is changing? And if everything is one, then how can we categorize anything into natural or unnatural?

While researching E-Prime, I found out that the term is compared to the Greek sea god, Proteus. Proteus constantly changing forms, a lion, wild boar, snake, tree, running stream, this is similar to the many forms of “to be.” Therefore, I would have to assume that “all is one” is a pretty accurate statement because nature is always in motion and changing. Is Aristotle saying that everything is apart or connected to nature? How would you clarify this analogy? I definitely hope in class we can come to a conclusion because I find this concept interesting and complicated.