Being Under Existence: On Impermanence

Betsy Calabaza
3 min readApr 8, 2022

Broadway’s turning into Coney
Champagne Charlie’s drinking gin
Old New York is new and phony
Give it back to the Indians!

  • Ella Fitzgerald

Not too sure about tomorrow, only thing guaranteed is yesterday

  • Bloo

The thing about the physical world that physicalists/materialists won’t tell you is that it don’t last. It don’t do. It do relative to the the undoing of it.

The only permanent thing is theory/idea. But they don’t wanna talk about that. They don’t wanna talk about how theory is as much as the physical. Theory is dispensable. Science can just make it so. Progress is not an illusion but a consequence of being rational empiricists.

Their best response: Humans faced the same hurdles when we thought Earth was the centre of the universe. But the theory still worked. Ultimately what matters is the state of matter. As long as the theory works, it doesn’t matter that the theory is wrong. We start with wrong theory and concentrate towards rightness/accuracy/higher correlation.

We understand that the world is messed up, but what matters is what we can do now. “Now” becomes an important term. Along with physical, theory.

We move past the issue by saying that we agree to disagree. This disagreement is founded on the unifying belief that there’s such as a thing as Being, evident by our mere reference towards the physical and theoretical.

Being is a thing that is only evident/dug/unearthed/discovered/present/identified through our own existence.

Being between existence is action. Action is all there is.

Through consciousness, we become aware of our reaction. Reaction becomes physical understood through theory.

Reactions add dimensions to Being.

Reactions can be criticized.

So the vocabulary: Now, physical, theory, being, existence, criticism.

The one-dimensional scientist that is useful for our example claims that “now” is equivalent with what is evident/dug/unearthed/discovered/present/identified.

The physical (“eternal” as claimed by this idiotic scientist I just invented) is consistent. We just have to adjust our theory. Like a biologist zooming in on a microscope to get a clearer view, we adjust our theories.

“Which one is better, A or B? A…click…B…click…A…click..B?”

“Um, B.”

The scientist the claims. “The individual doesn’t determine the answer, the process of critical review validates the claims.”

Anyone asked A or B will choose B if acting rational and free from politically-motivated manipulation. Well, for certain questions. Some questions presuppose theory not founded on science.

Dogma — Furthermore, some questions that presuppose theory must have the most functional/compatible theory for the physical to work as expected. This foundation for the possibility of existence requires existence. This required theory is cohesive, but vulnerable. Contingent, but eternal.

Cohesive, but vulnerable — Dogma brings together the possibility of self-existence but the self can be without this cohesion.

Contingent, but eternal — The possibility of A or B is irrelevant. Either choice will fall into an eternal sequence as soon as it’s chosen.

We are thrown into this world insofar that we require existence to realize our own being. Once we realize our own being, we can treat existence as impermanent. Meaning, that existence is given a mysterious shroud and we approach it as a ghost whose only body is the outline made from its interaction with the world.

We do not know the ghost. Its being. We only know its ever-changing outline.

Using the outline to create dogma concerning the ghost’s being leads to new outlines/theories. New — not closer to being. Closer to existence, but we’re always closer to existence.

Now, the physical and the theory are criticized into existence from being.



Betsy Calabaza

blooms — crazy rants masked as abstract experimental philosophy. s/o CS Peirce