From Existence to Interpretation

Is existence a simple fact—or a layered illusion shaped by time, space, and the mind that perceives it? 

🧠 From Existence to Interpretation: The Architecture of Meaning and the Paradox of Permanence 

By RuiEnglish™ 

Introduction 

Existence seems self-evident, an undeniable fact. Yet upon closer examination, this fundamental concept reveals itself to be not a solitary state, but a complex web of dependencies. To speak meaningfully about what is, we must also speak of time, space, matter, and the interpretive mind. This essay traces a conceptual chain linking existence to interpretation, confronts the central paradox of change, and explores how this tension—between the fleeting and the permanent—is navigated across philosophical, scientific, and spiritual traditions. 

I. The Architecture of Being 

We cannot define existence in a vacuum. Its very meaning arises from a contrast with non-existence—a duality that only makes sense through the concept of change. Change, in turn, requires a "before" and "after," temporal markers that presuppose time. 

But time itself is unintelligible without a spatial framework; change unfolds somewhere. Space provides the dimensional stage for temporal sequence. Yet space is not mere emptiness; it is defined by the presence and relationship of objects. Without matter, space is an indefinable void. 

Matter gives substance to space. Its composition implies mass, a property that invites quantification. To speak of mass is to engage in numerical abstraction—measuring, comparing, and differentiating. At this juncture, the chain shifts from the physical to the cognitive. Objects require an observer. Through observation and analysis, the mind breaks down sensory data, leading to comprehension—the mental grasp of meaning. 

II. Meaning in the Mind 

Comprehension is not passive reception but active interpretation. The mind assigns significance by employing cognitive structures like duality, time, and number. As Immanuel Kant argued, our minds impose categories such as space and causality upon experience, structuring reality before conscious thought. Phenomenologists further revealed that meaning is not extracted from a neutral world but generated through the dynamic interplay between observer and observed. 

This interpretive act stabilizes the flux of existence into coherent narratives and truths. Tracing the full dependency chain—
Existence → Time → Space → Matter → Mass → Object → Observation & Analysis → Comprehension → Interpretation—
leads to a profound insight: existence as we know it is a relational construct. Interpretation makes existence meaningful, just as existence makes interpretation possible. This recursive loop is the stage where both change and permanence are enacted. 

III. The Paradox of Change 

The assertion that “Everything changes; nothing lasts forever” appears universally true. Yet it contains a subtle paradox. If the statement is eternally true, then it itself is an unchanging truth—contradicting its own claim. If it is not eternally true, then there must be some things that are permanent. This self-referential problem, akin to the liar’s paradox, reveals a deeper fault line: the concept of change is only coherent against a backdrop of something enduring. To measure flux, we need a stable reference point. 

IV. Eternal Frameworks for a Fleeting World 

Spiritual traditions have long sought this stable reference point beyond the material world. Ecclesiastes acknowledges the cyclical nature of change (“a time for every purpose under heaven”), while Isaiah contrasts ephemeral life with divine constancy: “The grass withers… but the word of our God endures forever.” Similarly, 2 Corinthians urges a focus “not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.” These texts articulate a shared worldview: change is real, but it operates within an unchanging spiritual order. 

V. Philosophical and Scientific Anchors 

The paradox resonates beyond theology. Heraclitus declared change the essence of reality (“Everything flows”), a view echoed by the Buddha’s teaching on impermanence. Science offers a different form of permanence. Lavoisier’s principle of conservation — “Nothing is created, nothing is lost, everything changes”—posits a constant totality underlying all transformation. 

Existence and cognition can also be viewed as parts of an interconnected system. Existence provides the ontological ground, while cognition—the mental processes of perception, intuition, and reasoning—emerges from it. Some philosophers propose inverting Descartes’ logic: “I am, therefore I think.” This suggests that being precedes thought. A newborn exists before developing self-reflective consciousness. Plants and animals live without conceptual reasoning, and even humans persist through sleep or unconsciousness, absent active thought. Cognition, then, is a product of existence, mediated by the brain’s interpretive engagement with reality. Moreover, ideas may exist independently of minds—as latent possibilities within the structure of reality, awaiting discovery. This reframes existence not as the consequence of thought, but as the ground from which thought arises. 

René Descartes introduced a pivotal anchor within the self. His “Cogito, ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I am”) grounds existence in the act of consciousness. Even if all external reality is an illusion, the act of doubting affirms the existence of the doubter. This Cartesian insight shifts the locus of permanence from an external framework to the internal witness. 

VI. The Enduring Witness 

The journey from existence to interpretation reveals that our reality is woven from interdependent relationships. Change may be universal, but it can only be recognized from a vantage point of stability. The responses to this paradox—whether spiritual (an eternal God), physical (conserved energy), or philosophical (the conscious self)—all point to the same need for an enduring ground. 

Thus, the true anchor may not be found in a fixed object or doctrine, but in the capacity for awareness itself. The paradox of change unfolds within us, between the transient content of our experiences and the enduring fact that we are experiencing. Permanence, then, is not the antithesis of change but the ability to witness it. Our deepest anchor is the self-reflective consciousness that contemplates the flow, forever navigating the recursive loop between the world that is and the mind that interprets it. 

If change is constant, what within you remains steady enough to recognize it? 

If the world is always changing, what part of you touches the eternal? 

If energy is conserved and matter only transforms, is change just the surface of a deeper continuity?