I think, I would disagree in the sense that he was not only completely discounting on metaphysics, but also on ontology. Because one cannot write up a definitio

I think, I would disagree in the sense that he was not only completely discounting on metaphysics, but also on ontology. Because one cannot write up a definition without using the word 'is' he must have been somewhat also completely discounting on definitions. His philosophy is in a sense Heraclitean because it is centered around 'becoming' rather than 'being'.