there is no such things as breakthrough.
what you break out from gets referenced
as the framing for the breaking out
and then is carried forward as external baggage
as if for future orientation’s cause.
even breakout, as method, suffers
from the same syntactical nature of approach.
this, as seduction, is overly promoted
by the confines of linear thinking
which myth-fully endorses the concept of change
when change actually refers to
a person-centered experience
and not actually the whole of the environment
still existing as if a surround
honoring that same perspective.
might as well have a paper-bag
over one’s sensing of the world
with a single pinhole
for a sensory reference point of view.
then it becomes clear
that what you respond to as change
is really only your limited experience range
of what fully surrounds you.
yet to you, this represent change
and can be regarded as a breakthrough.
maybe you have broken out
of the confinement of familiar
but in either case change does not exist
only the perception from a self sense claims it.
the reality is that change exists a constant
as in, change is change ever-changing.
and it is only a false assumption
that constancy exists
from our limited perspective.
we therefore claim it to be true
when in really, it is only a reflection
about how limited our senses feed us clarity.
and how much we claim such isolation
that we are separate from the it-of-it all
and therefore have the working method
which allows us to invent
the concept of ‘change’
and then subsequently advancing the concepts
of breakout and breakthrough
not realizing the self isolation
that that truly implies.
it is like we all live in phone-booths of self,
slightly fogged-over from our own body heat
as the sense of our selves.
and we are phoning our knowing selves
to do two things:
ask where are we?
and to tell ourselves,
this is what we sense is going on around me,
giving ourselves mindful still-shots
to work with . . .