Living things are always becoming something else. They are never static. They are never like a ‘finished painting’, but rather experience endless becoming unto death.
If there were no such thing as death, or nonexistence, there would be no living (or existence) to contrast the death. Therefore, living would be meaningless because it would be a constant. It is only death, and the constant becoming and changing that makes living meaningful.
Change extends the nature of the being; it does not alter the being(ness) itself. It merely adds onto it.
I disagree, a child becoming more worldly has knowledge added to itself, but has lost innocence, therefore, change does not always result in a pure gain.
Also, if someone were to sustain a head inkury, the being has changed and suffered nothing but loss.
Everything flows, not just life.
Life in fact performs a complex ritual of self-organization and replication, which allows for the process to continue even as the original pieces of subjects decay and die.
Death is meaningless to the subject. Our death doesn’t happen to us; death always happens to others. But this means our life always only happens to others. Why is this important?
Because it matters why we believe what we believe.
Whether or not we’re nihilists, whether we affirm life and joy.
The question of life doesn’t just boil down to the dry biological distinction: what lives and what doesn’t? (No more could metaphysics answer this question: whether being is flowing or static does not help us explain the development of life from non-living matter.) The question of life is an existential one: which posture do you compose when presented with the real world?
How do you face up to the event? How do we become equal to the encounters in our lives? How do we have better desires?
Life is an illusion, biologically alive and alive-to-being is a completely different definition. Being is dictated by experience, one engages in being when one is subjectivly involved in its environment (not objectivly or mechanically). Given that the nature of the experience changes as more experiences are had, the obvious answer is that the being changes in some way. I think Faulty_Reasoning is right to point out that the being-ness does not change, just the being; the nature of being is a mere condition, beings are malleable.
Also, death may not be the end of experience. In which case is a being a ‘finished picture’ at death or is it a never-ending process?
For these purposes, I would think death is the end experience, because it is the final experience we can be absolutely sure of.
Hey Pavlovianmodel146,
You may experience your dying but you will never exerience your death. An experience is a pretty good tip-off that you aren’t quite dead. 
Regards,
Michael
Good point, but that’s not quite what I meant by the statement. What I mean to say is, last night when I went to bed, I couldn’t be absolutely sure that I was going to fall asleep, or wake up. I can’t be absolutely sure that in about ten minutes I am going to eat two slices of toast, an orange, and a bowl of Cap’n Crunch because it hasn’t happened yet. The only thing that has not yet happened of which we can be absolutely sure is our own death, and naturally, the death of others.
Plus, as a body, we do experience death, we may not know that it happened, but that doesn’t make it any less of an experience.