What appears is what changes; appearance is change, but that which appears is constancy through change, and what sees is the constancy that does not change. The mind extracts constancies out of continual change. If the eye is tricked to remove the effect of saccades then the world vanishes, but if it is not possible to abstract an underlying constancy then the flux does not register, it passes through the field of attention as through a sieve. We know process in things which change as they are changed, and so it seems that what we are is also process and we build images of ourselves out of such processes. We track it with a vengeance. Experience seems to be the running of one process against another, the faster against the slower, harmonics and dissonances, but as rich and fascinating as these are there can be no decisive separation of seer and seen in such interplay. If it were so, if subjectivity were an effect, or an affect, then it would not be anchored anywhere, would be serenely decentred and of no stake in the game, would not need to be so jealously phenomenalised. The scandal is that everything appears because it does not appear, everything moves because it is unmoved, that everything matters because it does not.