Is emptiness conventionally non-empty?

Is emptiness conventionally / provisionally non-empty? Please include reference to whose perspective you are replying from. ---------- By empty I mean non-substantial, how dharmas are constantly arising and perishing, and nothing is the same from moment to moment, but in flux. By conventionally I mean in the sense that enlightened beings can use "I" to refer to themselves, even though they ultimately lack any self identity at all or sense of "me and mine". BY non-empty I mean permanent. ---------- I know that there are debates about the identity of the conventional truth and emptiness, and Nagarjuna said that emptiness is empty. I read Gelek Rimpoche - Geluk lama - say that he'd "love to say emptiness is impermanent, but emptiness is meant to be permanent", because it is uncompounded and uncreated. And a translation of The Great Prajna Paramita Sutra, saying it is neither permanent nor impermanent. Personally, I would guess that it is identical to impermanent dharmas (there's discussion about that in early ch'an, seemingly explained by Zongmi), not permanent, and yet does not arise or cease, is not impermanent. Then it's both empty and non-empty: changing in accordance with conditions, but not dependent on any individual conditioned thing. Arguably, I am rich independent of any one of my financial investments, even-though it changes with all of them. Not a great analogy, but I can't think of anything else that could be "permanent".