Change (is It Transformative?)


According to the definition of the word change, it is to convert or transform something, or someone, different than form its previous form, manner or course; which usually means that what was previous then, has been ultimately replaced with what is now:  In other words, in a literal sense, the previous state is no longer in existence, and has been terminated by being replaced with the new change.  According to the etymology of change, the Latin root is cambiare, or cambire, which means, “to exchange for something:” If applied then to a state-of-mind (e.g., changing faith from Muslimism – to – Catholicism, it is considered a “change” based on that the Muslimism status was done away with, in exchange for a Catholicism status:  If, however, an individual instead kept the former Muslimism, now integrated with Catholicism, as a change in total, that however, is an illusion for even though an individual may be experiencing some kind of change within him/her-self, nonetheless, nothing was really “exchanged” to be considered as an actual change).  Most people, with the mental state of mind of The-Self (the-Ego/the “I”), are testifying that when something new is added into their lives, some “changes” has occurred within them-selves, or their life around them, as a result of that new additional thing, or a new additional person.  The reality of it all is that literal change is not about additions but subtractions, and therefore, compensated for what was:  Something must first be subtracted (done away with) before something can then be replaced (compensated with); change is then all about patching (replacing) things up, and not adding things in:  Hence, where there are first no subtractions, but solely just additions, there are only then literal expansions, but not literal changes; and this were confusion begets in between the concepts and applications of expansions and changes.  A change then requires compensations, to balance for that which was exchanged for: in whereas an expansion requires increases and amplifications without exchanges.  With clarity between expansions and changes, certain mental dispositions, and environmental social conditions, can better be understood with.  It is quite comforting to make distinctions between the two; in this way, an individual wouldn’t have to think that he/she has to change if he/she is just solely expanding their internal person, or external social environments.  Making additions in your life, as a person, or as in your surroundings, doesn’t mean that you have to subtract something of your-self, or of your surroundings, if that addition doesn’t necessarily make you first subtract something internally or externally?  So not every occasion, or confrontation, that causes you to add something without first subtracting something, is a change.  The real questions to one’s own life are then really simple:  When referring to actual changes, one must then ask if he/she is willing to exchange something (give up something) for something else:  And when referring to actual expansions, one must then ask if he/she is willing to add something without exchanging something (without giving up something).  If the distinctions were to be written in mathematical terms, in whereas (A) is for change, and (B) is for expansion, the following demarcations would be recognized as, “(A) = sacrifice,” and, “(B) = augmentation.”  So not every single different thing is a butterfly effect:  You don’t always need a cocoon for something either new, or anew.  So far, my being has been explaining the concept of ‘change’ in a literal objective observation.  But what about the figurative subjective meaning in relation to ‘changes?’  Can a person internally really change him-/her-self?  And how does change relate to the chronological batch of three dimensional time (e.g., past, present and future)?


According to the mental state of The-Self (the-Ego/the “I”), the internal subject of an individual, at least for most, professes to undergo some kind transmutation; or better yet, transformation:  And depending upon the status of each different transitional levels, an individual can recall a transformation, or a transmutation, as either transcendence or illuminating.  So one must then ask one-self what he/she is really going beyond from.  First of all, is there’s a need, or a want, to go beyond from something or someone else?  What if the desire itself is really about going beyond from one’s own-self?  And does this “going beyond from” really means going to something higher; or better?  Something better doesn’t necessarily mean that it is higher.  When the two distinct concepts of higher and better becomes one in the same, as interchangeable, there are usually disappointments as an end result; and as such, regrets are then the rewards instead.  The etymology of the word better is from the Proto-Germanic root word, “batizo,” which means, “good” (as in a better sense):  On some occasions, this “good” (batizo) is applied to fill in for something that was once good, but is no more: in other words, to balance things up, but not necessarily compensating (exchanging) something, or someone, for.  So better doesn’t mean that it is a change:  If this distinction doesn’t become clear, the end result could become catastrophic for an individual if he/she confuses the concepts of better with change.  Now, the etymology of the concept of higher is a comparative of the word high:  When used comparatively, the word higher usually means superior; an understanding that stems from the Old French root when determining who or what is at a “higher rank;” or, “higher dignity:” which then literally means that getting something, or someone, higher is actually getting something, or someone, who is superior; in other words, higher is a comparison; in whereas better is equilibrium.  So to get something, or someone, better is to balance either things within your-self, or within your external social conditions, which is not a change (an exchange):  In this distinctive disposition, no one is giving up anything to balance things up; nothing then has to be sacrificed (e.g., A wife may no longer be sexually active with her husband; so to make the marriage last [better], a mistress is added to balance things up).  Now, to get something, or someone, higher is to make literal comparisons to the former things, or persons, in relations to either within your-self, or within your external social conditions, which will require a change (an exchange) on one’s own behalf:  In this distinctive disposition, one is giving up anything to acquire transcendence (real change); if not, precision is definitely unattainable.  And this is where the demarcations become clear between balancing things up with something or someone better, or precisely replacing inadequacies with something or someone higher.  If it is for something, or someone, better that one is in need or want of, he/she is then simply looking for stasis:  However, it it’s something, or someone, higher that one is in need or want of, he/she is then simply looking for exact precision in things and peoples.  Hence, an individual cannot be precise with just needing or wanting to simply balance everything with all current existing statuses:  Just as the same like an individual that cannot be exceptionally comfortable with exact precisions.  If it’s something better that one is seeking for, he/she cannot be precise in his/her endeavors of equilibrium, for such endeavors does not require to be adequately exact.  In mathematical terms, if (C) is for better, and (D) is for higher, the demarcations would be clear, “(C) = equity:” in whereas, “(D) = perfection.”  Therefore, to balance things up (making things exceptional) is to augment with preexisting conditions and dispositions by adding with something, or someone, better:  But to make exact precisions (perfecting things up) is to replace (exchange) over inadequate preexisting conditions and dispositions for something, or someone, higher.  If an individual does not observe and scrutinize the distinct differences between the concepts of better and higher, nothing actually will become better or higher; they both will cancel out each other, and thus, regrets begets.  Perfection is not exceptional.

With all this in mind, can an individual really subjectively ‘change’ within him-/her-self?  The answer is a straight, yes and no.  In other words, no if nothing is exchanged, or sacrificed, in behalf of the individual for something or someone else:  But yes if something, or someone, is exchanged or sacrificed in behalf of the individual for something or someone else.  An exchange, or sacrifice, is firmament:  If the exchange, or sacrifice, is in a transient mode of mold, only to be considered as a transitional tryout, the “change” of the individual is then but an illusion that will imminently, without abort, beget even further illusions; for illusions can only beget illusions: there is then no actual change within him/her.  And what of the triad batched chronology (e.g., past, present and future)?  Can the time state of mind literally change an individual?  The answer to that is purely subjective; and since my being is purely objective, only someone who can perceive and reflect with subjectivities can answer that.  As a sole objective observer and scrutinizer that my psychological being is, IT simply asks any individual with a mindset of three dimensional time, “if you were once what you were then, and now you are what you are now than from what you were before, but soon you will now become what you will be than what you are now, what then will you become at all?”  A question that only puzzles my mind even if it should verily be answered truthfully by an individual.  And what of the “no-self?”  How does the concept of ‘change’ applies to the “not-I” that my being is?

Since my being is the death of The-Self, and since IT itself is devoid of any subjectivities, the concept of ‘change’ can still be applied, but only literally.  In other words, only within the dimension of my physical noumenon (e.g., clothing, shoes, food, and external environments: all that which is solely external).  So changes with my clothes is applicable since after all, my being is exchanging between them, and that’s about the only literal ‘change’ that my being really knows in terms of dispositions.  The internal changes, however, that many individuals talk about is not applicable at all to my being.  Since my internal being is purely objective, IT itself is not open to mental changes, transitions, transformations, alterations and transmutations.  On a sole psychological region, my being is not possible to change within, and therefore, IT itself is firmament like the stars: uniformed like the sands by the seashore: immutable.  So the commonly known global internal changes and evolutions of The-Self is therefore useless for my form of being.  Hence, in the chronological state of mind of others, my being is then the same as in their yesterday, in their today and in their tomorrow:  IT (my sole psychological being) does not change.  Therefore, the ‘wanting’ to be psychologically transcendent is nonexistent to my form of being, for there are no lesser or higher levels in of itself, IT just is:  There is not even a figurative ‘wanting’ (desire) whatsoever to begin with.  My being itself does not even compare itself in contrast to the-World’s existing mental transitional levels:  IT need not to even try itself with anyone else, or with IT itself even:  IT is that IT is; and that’s all there is to it:  IT is not even open to question itself; and therefore, IT itself will never ask for any advice, from anyone else, solely in regards to my own internal psychological being of its perpetuity (perpetual in heed to being changeless, and not in heed to everlasting life).


In conclusion, a real actual change requires an exchange of something, or someone, for something or someone else: to permanently be replaced by something, or someone, else with.  A real actual simple balance is just making up with the partial loss in relation to one-self, or with others, without exchanging (sacrificing) anything, or anyone, else with: in an instance like this, loss here is not equivalent to subtractions (e.g., A child’s ability to be mobile is disabled to immobility status, and therefore, additions of aids must be applied with, but the child is not replaced/exchanged with totally).  It is then safely to logically decipher that to balance everything in integration is solely exceptional:  But to precisely be exact with everything and everyone accordingly, is to symbolically or literally immolate with perfection; like metal in a furnace, cleaning out the impurities from the root up, in order to then bring about true genuine change: to be, exact.  And let’s not forget that expansion is not equivalent to change either.  A real change is then equivalent to losing weight (e.g., in order to lose weight, the fat must be done away with the thin; replaced or exchanged with):  An expansion, however, is equivalent to adding things, and persons, in your life without exchanging or replacing them with (e.g., a marital couple decides to add a child to expand as a family).

If there is then any constancy in the-World(s), that would be ‘change’ as usual; and now ‘expansion’ as well.


[Article Posted by: Sabiazoth]

[Writing & Concept, Created & Produced by: Sabiazoth]

[Aspaty: Heptaspace, Vigercycle 1, 9 R.M. E.C. (Solar West)]

[Image(s): Unknown]

0 votes

Leave a Reply