In Portuguese, Spanish and Italian we have a distinction between two verbs that both mean, in English, to be. For the first two, it is ser/estar, whereas for the latter it is essere/stare. Ser and essere have the value of being permanent, essential (thus essere) state of beings, whereas estar/stare denote temporary being. It absolutely does not hold the same value as “to be now”, or in other words to be in the moment, because stare is not bound by time periods or specificities.
This distinction is important. There cannot be a strict essere. To be in such a form, a “to be” which is essere, implies the permanence of one’s properties, that is, it implies the properties of a thing that “is” remain within certain essential function, forms or “fields”. It implies that to be is to essere, and thus it is to be suspended within an inherent and static status. Essere, outside of common language, would necessarily mean a permanent and unchangeable state of being which cannot exist in any measure.
Rather, we are always experiencing stare. Our characteristics are always temporary, insofar they serve certain purposes, and interact among themselves within a certain context and for a certain function, of a certain form or within a certain field. There is, too, no set boundary between two states of “stare”, just as there is no set boundary between the idea of a “past”, “present” or “future” you.
Let us take an analogy. If you insert in water an ice cube, you can very well on a “macroscopic level” observe the boundary between the ice cube and the water; it might appear foolish to think there isn’t any! In reality, that is but a simple perception. As you approach this cube on ice, you can see the zones of interaction between the cube and the water, so much so that you might perceive those zones as being a part separate from the water or the cube entirely upon. Going further, to the atomic level, it all becomes not much more than arrangements of atoms in which, to the core of the cube, they are arranged in a crystalline manner, whereas in the water they’re freer and more separated. There is no defined “zone of contact”, though; there is no moment in which you can definitely say “ah, yes, now we have crossed towards solid-or-liquid state”. The boundary is a zone of fluidity and blurs, and in this case we set arbitrary definitions of where the “frozen” begins and the “liquid” ends.
In that boundary zone, you can find all sorts of amalgamates, and part of the water is freezing, in the sense of stare freezing, whereas part of the ice is melting, or rather (to use incorrect but more representative terms), they’re “iceing” and “watering”. It does not occur in a singular moment, but it is a constant temporary process. The water and the ice are exchanging characteristics and one is melting into the another, and as such nor the ice is melting neither is the water freezing but they’re rather incorporating each other (in the sense of stare).
Nothing cannot be said to be an essere besides the characteristic of stare. If the example of the ice cube and water seemed irrelevant, we need to understand that these do not apply only to physical phenomena but rather even in relation to “individual” and “society”. Neither is society capturing the individual, nor is the individual “integrating” society, but rather they stanno each other in a process of amalgamation.
Stare cannot be about a demarcated, singular and chronological moment, but rather stare is a process within an aggregate of processes which constitutes essere. Essere is, for all things that exist and do not, the eternality of the stare. The only essential characteristic to reality is it status of constant transformation.