It doesn’t necessarily mean either. Sometimes it takes people a while to respond to things. And sometimes posts are short and not necessarily clear. If I’m reading you correctly, I’ve had similar ideas:
Our ontological being is in constant flux (Whitehead’s fallacy of misplaced concreteness is a Western example of this observation) so this leads to a crisis in language where we discover that we got it wrong. Yes I agree with that…we are always changing we are always thereby failing, although there is no need to be so self depricating wrong is right because that is change. …Being is what is …yes…in the state of change…yes… whereas becoming, the principle of creativity…nice idea…, is the constant factor in our lives. So from an ontologically real perspective, we only have the “now” …agreed…and have to live in that now as best as possible…bang on. However, we also have to recognize that the very thing we recognize as “us” is an empty thing…yep…, a construct that we have made to help us actualize our existentially realized selves…yep… but it exists only in that capacity…hmmmmmm. To reify the self as something beyond that and to place undue emphasis on it leads to a collapse of the very thing that allows for it to exist and leads to anomie. So instead we have to strive to reconcile the immanent self of the now with the transcendent self that transcends the now…love it…and I think we are very similar in thought.