Metaphysics - To Be or Not To Be

Is it possible for a thing to be and not-be at the same time and in the same way?

This is an interesting question that has had me stymied for well over an hour. So, I had to do more research into the matter to obtain a deeper understanding of what the question entailed. To this point I am still unsure of how deep the meaning of the question goes, but I will do my best to unravel its mystery.

If we are to believe as Aristotle did, then thinking this way is impossible according to his Metaphysics Book 11 part 5. Here Aristotle says, “…that the same thing cannot at one and the same time be and not be, or admit any other similar pair of opposites.” He goes on to say, “He, then, who says 'this is and is not' denies what he affirms, so that what the word signifies, he says it does not signify; and this is impossible.” So, if we were to accept the premise that a thing or word can only be defined in one way and one way only, this would be correct when applied in the strictest sense and rightfully so.

However, I believe there are many things and words and persons that have a dual or even multiple nature and thus can be and not be simultaneously in a more loose sense. Also Aristotle’s view can be refuted if you include the possibility of different perceptions from different vantage points or points of view. This more flexible idea allows for paradoxes which are not necessarily contradictions. For a simple example, it is correct to say that dry ice will burn you. This is not a contradiction, but a paradox, in that, dry ice is so cold that it has the same properties as something that is hot. Thus, a thing can be (cold) and not be (hot) in a singular action based on perceived definition of what is and is not.