By “quickly” I assume you mean an answer that does not take a lot of time to answer. One that is not TLDR; that goes on and on forever. But even overly long answers come to an end. Everything comes to an end. That’s neither metaphysical, nor ontological. It’s a fact. An event with a beginning and an end. We experience the start of the event and the end of the event. Some events are really short lived, others go on for millennia, like the erosion of a mountain, some even longer, like the Sun. But none continue ‘forever’ — not even the universe.
Do you grok the perspective here? It’s not some bullshit ‘objective’ conceptual view from nowhere, or a God’s Eye view overlooking all of metaphysical ‘eternity’. The Buddha wasn’t interested in metaphysics and he specifically eviscerated the ontological basis of Ontology.
And that is where there is a problem with your question: you are trying to twist impermanence into a metaphysical assertion, or an ontological one. It’s neither. It’s just the universal fact that no event lasts forever.
Emptiness is what you need to incorporate into your calculus, because impermanence and emptiness are two aspects of one truth. By not incorporating emptiness into your question, you are creating a golem out of impermanence.
Emptiness is a complex dialectical understanding about what “exists”, and different schools of Buddhism hold to varying applications of the doctrine. No ‘thing’ can be truly said to exist because no thing has an independent self-nature. You can say your fingers exist, but you’re really confusing yourself because fingers don’t exist on their own. I’ll leave it to you to expand on that.
I said “dialectical” because not even Emptiness exists as an independent thing.
And yet, though nothing exists in the naïve sense of that word, it’s not a void. It’s not nihilism. It is a plenum of events of varying durations. It is a fullness, rather than an emptiness. The point here being that Emptiness refers to the lack of independent selfhood, and that’s it.
It breaks ontology though.
“Exists” means being, in our common meaning of “to be.” And it implies that in being, something has an independent self-nature. It’s real. It’s material, etc., etc.
But that is just an illusion that happens because of our ignorance (lack of direct insight really).
So, can you experience “a shape being red without existence and "permanence"* in the standard way of using that word,” even if everything is impermanent? Of course! You do it anytime you look at something that is red.
Of course, the redness has little to do with the thing you are labeling as being red. (I’ll skip all the junior high-school physics lessons about why that is.) It has to do with the entire context of the moment, including the thing, you, and the light source, but also the time of day, the weather, etc. This is called codependent origination.
The crux of all this is that you have to distinguish between the common meaning of existence, and the Buddhist doctrine of Emptiness. Otherwise, you are just asserting erroneous interpretations of the very unique and very profound insights of the Buddha.
The End 😊