For the for-itself, permanence is what needs explaining, not change

Evidence

But if, on the contrary, we proceed from an adequate comprehension of the for-itself, it is no longer change which needs explaining but rather permanence—if permanence can exist. In fact if we consider our description of the order of time apart from everything which could come from the course of time, it is clear that a temporality reduced to its order would immediately become temporality in-itself. — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 498

Categorization

• DEFINE: Clarifies the inversion central to Sartre’s ontology: time flowing is native to the for-itself, so stasis is the anomaly.
• XREF: connects to: Permanence presupposes time rather than helping constitute it; Permanence is identical with abstractness, both rooted in the for-itself’s negation; The permanence of change itself grants passing objects an illusion of duration — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 742

Broader Connections

• Permanence is identical with abstractness, both rooted in the for-itself’s negation #expands (0.85)
• The permanence of change itself grants passing objects an illusion of duration #complicates (0.80) — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 742