Time, Constancy and Change

both Kant and Russell define time as a constraint for the identification and classification of phenomena. and yet time itself is meaningless unless there is something that abides the constraints that it imposes. that is to say, unless there are variances with respect to time, time itself is a trivial and meaningless property, and not a constraint.

and there are variances that depends on time. namely, all changes and constancy imply a time span. when we see something and define something, we assume constancy. when we describe something and expect something, we assume change. and so, time is an inherent and prenatal concept rooted in our cognitive and epistemological faculty - because we live in either constancy and change, and we need to define them and make use of them to live and to think.

and yet, very few people are aware of this little logical fact. people often assume that the world is eccentric, or even solipsic. in doing so, they deny the flow of time, and redefine constancy and change as "phenomena that revolve around their petty cognition and comprehension". and so, for these people, time means little, and they fail to grow. we call this the stasis.

for the sage, things revolve as they are. time flows, and even the self is a subject of these torrents. humility is the first step to acknowledge the presence of time. and yet, few people have such courage and wisdom to admit this obvious fact. they would think that man is invincible. pah! nay. neither the pyramids nor the ziggurats last longer than the sands of time. pride has always been mankind's undoing.

now, back to the first question: are you in a stasis, or are you aware of the constancy and changes around you?