change does not really exist.
change is a human-made concept
which protects us from the ever-change.
yes, the ongoingness is of this ever-change.
as long as we persist with still-shot views of life
then change seems to be the consensus mandate.
change exist as a frameshift as a spectator there of,
from a view to a new view
but not accounting for the subtly
or the momentum of the ever flow that is
outside our range of gross and still-shot perception.
change is an urban myth of agreement and convenience,
since we language for object identification
and those objects are always in some sort of motion.
the magic of the ever-change continues
but we prefer gross references to that,
such as the river, the snowfall, flowers blooming,
clouds passing, weather, the news, people and moods.
change is a concept workable as comparative truth.
change suggests that you are separate from
and that you objectify to get that there is a change.
change is an audience perception term,
isolated from the ongoingness.
the movie of life would fascinate
but the pictures taken are on the mind-walls at home.
the lack of true emersion
provides for the usage of the concept of change.
change is self-referential to each person’s subjectivity.
doing has change but being does not.
the witness of being suggests that there are changes,
changes of mood, circumstance, point of view, account.
but consciousness is fluid throughout, unaccounted for.
even if the welcome mat at the front door of awareness
said, “change is change changing”
someone would still want to take a photo of that too!
make a print and post it somewhere meaningful.
somewhere in the meaning process where
things get bogged down, held back, statuesque, billboardy.
the still point in nature is that it is always on the move.
it is us, who use these methods of view
and then call what we see
“the world changing around us” . . .
(this may be an age old proverb
but I don’t think it comes from aging . . .)