All I was trying to say was, for this very reason, one can't say what cannot be experienced, all one can say is, I haven't. Excuse the naive question, but if no being, then who, or what, is perceiving the becomingness? I'm all for that. Well it's been revised. Platonic being was a triune: Rest-Movement-Becoming (stasis:kinesis:genesis). Christianity revised the triune: Becoming-Movement-Rest The latter idea posits 'being' as an act of becoming (and coming-to-be and act of being), so any being, as it emerges or appears, is moving, simply by the very act of being, which is dynamic. Do we need to discuss what it is to be? Act and esse in the language of the scholastics? Can we clarify whether there is a 'self' that experiences, or are we saying there are experiences which give the impression of a 'self' (which is problematic), or am I missing something quite basic? Are you asking for, or rather I'm saying to be acceptable, can the answer be 'a science of everything', a philosophy, a metaphysic, or a theology?