temporal changes

There is no such thing as permanence at all. Everything is constantly changing. Everything is in a flux. Because you cannot face the impermanence of all relationships, you invent sentiments, romance, and dramatic emotions to give them certainty. Therefore you are always in conflict.
—  U.G. Krishnamurti

anonymous asked:

I've got to admit I don't understand how Maoism differs from Marxism-Leninism tout court (apart from having a bit more of a focus on agrarian rebellion and national liberation) & I really can't find any decent resources

Alright, so you may have heard a Maoist explain it with this phrase: Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is both a continuity and rupture from Marxism-Leninism. Now this is true, but it doesn’t really get into the “meat” of what MLM is. So let’s start with what is meant by “continuity and rupture"

Marxism is a totalizing world philosophical, analytical and scientific outlook based in a materialist world view and a dialectical method, and it develops based on class struggle. With new developments in class struggle comes new developments in Marxist theory. This is where continuity and rupture come in. We learn new things with each new development, but we don’t completely throw away everything else. MLM traces its theoretical and practical history through Marxism and Marxism-Leninism. ML served not only as the first significant rupture from orthodox Marxism, but as the first systematized and practical basis for communist organizing and built a strategy for actually seizing state power. As such, we are still Marxists and Marxist-Leninists in this sense. 

Marxism and ML serve as the basis of MLM historically, that’s why we call it a continuity; we still promote the ideas and achievements of these developments: dialectical materialism, Marxian political economy, the theory of imperialism, the vanguard party, national self-determination, democratic centralism, the history of the socialist USSR, the Paris Commune, etc. But we are also critical of these in many ways as well, and we try to learn from their failures, and this is where the “rupture” part starts to come into play.

Now, new developments of Marxism can’t (and don’t) just come out of people’s heads, they don’t “fall from the sky”, they come from social practice. They come from developments in class struggle. ML was itself itself a rupture from orthodox Marxism in the context of class struggles surrounding the Second International, development of Imperialism starting in the 1890s, and the Bolshevik Revolution and early years of Soviet power. Similarly, MLM is a rupture that is rooted in the anti-colonial revolutionary wave of 1945-1970s/80s, the capitalist restoration and victory of revisionism in the USSR and other nominally-socialist countries (including, eventually, China), the experience of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR), and the experience of the People’s War in Peru. Now let’s break each of these down a little. Each of these historical/social phenomena deserves its own essay, honestly, but for the sake of brevity in this ask I’ll try to just touch on the most important aspects, and show what experiences led to what theoretical developments of Maoism. (While I’ll try to talk about what each development means, a full explanation would be way too long. Anyone with further questions is free to send an ask or message though!)

First, the anti-colonial wave following WW2. Many countries rose up in this period to throw off the shackles of imperialism and colonialism. Some notable examples are Vietnam, Korea, Cuba, and Angola. These revolutions tore asunder the relations of imperialism that culminated in the previous two world wars. Africa, Asia, Latin America; all were witness to huge revolutionary changes. We can also see these movements shaking the foundations of settler colonies like the US and South Africa. China was also witness to anti-colonial revolution, and successfully pushed the People’s War of resistance forward and established a dictatorship of the proletariat. While many other revolutions were guided by Marxism-Leninism, they were ultimately unsuccessful at establishing their own independent DotPs, as the USSR transformed into a social-imperialist power (see next paragraph). Because of the dominance of the bourgeoisie in many of these revolutions, many, while they succeeded at becoming independent, became neo-colonies of either the Western imperialists or Soviet imperialists. These revolutionary experiences in part led to the formulation of the theory of New Democratic Revolution, which states that in situations of semi-colonialism and semi-feudalism (that is, in countries dominated by imperialism), the proletarian dictatorship led by the Communist Party must form a united front with several classes in order to adequately develop productive forces for socialist revolution, as to telescope the bourgeois revolution and “pave the road” for socialist construction.

So the second big event that led to the formulation of Maoism as a break from Marxism-Leninism is the rise of revisionism (that is to say, the victory of capitalism) in the USSR. While the bourgeois line in the CPSU had always existed (as MLMs recognize with the concept of two-line struggle), it began to gain dominance following WW2 and, following the disunity of the Party as a result of Stalin’s death, was able to seize political power of the Soviet state. The CPC criticized this trend of revisionism thoroughly, and ultimately came to the conclusion, based on the economic relations in the USSR and the USSR’s aggression towards China, that capitalism had been restored in the country. This is further proven by later acts of aggression by the USSR, such as in Afghanistan and Eritrea, and the neo-colonial relationship of the USSR with most COMECON nations. At the the same time as this split, Communists in China recognized the growing dominance of the bourgeois line in their own Party following the Great Leap Forward.

The Cultural Revolution was launched in a struggle against the bourgeois line in the Party. The GPCR was a huge movement in the economy, politics, and culture, and is probably the best example of revolutionizing the relations of production historically. In this social movement, which is considered by Maoists to be the closest we have gotten to communism, many theoretical developments were “crystallized” in a sense; among them is the Maoist conception of dialectical materialism which posits that the unity of opposites (Law of Contradiction) is the fundamental and only law of dialectics, with other “laws” simply being expressions of this one. This can be summed up by the phrase “one divides into two”, a break from the old conception of dialectics dominant among Marxists which said “two combine into one”. One divides into two recognizes that struggle is constant and unity is temporal, and recognizes the change and conflict in all things. The GPCR laid the groundwork of anti-revisionism in the ML movement worldwide. Because Maoists recognize that struggle is constant, we know that class struggle will continue to exist under a proletarian dictatorship and in the Party. As such we recognize the need of two-line struggle in the Party (breaking from the ML and otho Marxist view that the Party is wholly of the proletariat and any capitalists within it are just “wreckers” or “infiltrators”), as well as the need for cultural revolutions, that is, if we view socialist revolution and a revolution in the economic base, the cultural revolution is a revolution in the superstructure of society. We know that class politics have to be primary in all our work, which is how we maintain proletarian political lines. This is a huge break from Soviet revisionist theory which put economic production in command. This focus on the forces of production is a revisionist error that only encapsulates and expands extant capitalist relations in society, and played a large political role in capitalist restoration both in the USSR and China. Communists in China also brought back an emphasis of the Mass Line method of leadership, so as to keep Party cadre in touch with the masses. This was a method used by the Bolsheviks and the Chinese Communists, and it can be summed up with the slogan “from the masses, to the masses.” Essentially, Communists should gather the different ideas of the masses, analyze them under Marxist theory, and then bring back those conclusions to the masses in form of political work and propaganda.

After revisionism won out in the CPC and capitalism was restored in the late 70s in China, many Marxist-Leninists said Maoism was dead. At this point in history, self-proclaimed Maoists existed globally (the RCP in the US and the CPP in the Philippines are two very different examples) but this was before MLM was consolidated as a universal theory. The Maoists of the 60s and 70s were all anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninists or followed “Mao Zedong Throught”. However, shortly after the end of socialist China, communists in Peru launched their Protracted People’s War. PPW was the method of warfare and revolution implemented by the Chinese Communists in their Revolution. In MLM theory, PPW is a 3 part mode of warfare (defensive, equilibrium, and offensive) which implements 3 “magic weapons”: The Party, The United Front, and the People’s Army, to build base areas of red dual power in preparation for a seizure of state power. This was a large break from the ML strategy, which advocated a prolonged legal struggle followed by an insurrection, as in Russia, and rejected the ability of coups as capable of making socialist revolution, as in Afghanistan or Burkina Faso. Peruvian Communists applied PPW to the conditions of Peru, worked with the Peruvian masses, and, despite their errors, came very close to actually seizing state power. Working with ML-MZT movements in other countries, these Maoists began to crystallize Marxism-Leninism-Maoism into a universally applicable theory, just as the CPSU had done with Marxism-Leninism in the 20s and 30s. Peruvian Maoists, working with others internationally, “officially” declared MLM a new development in 1993. Since then MLM has been the dominant ideology of Communists worldwide. The shortest i can put it is that Maoism (MLM) is Marxism adapted for the terrain of Neo-Colonialism.

So, TLDR, MLM principally differs from ML in its dialectical method, which leads to the conclusions of most of its theoretical breaks. The focus on national liberation and agrarian revolution isn’t a tenant of Maoism (altho we support natlib struggles), but most likely misunderstanding of the theory of New Democracy and of the concept of semi-feudalism. I wrote this post of readings and websites to learn more about maoism a while back: http://prolezac.tumblr.com/post/155584631622/hey-what-are-the-books-that-i-should-read-about To it i would add Continuity and Rupture and The Communist Necessity by JMP, plus his website has loads of good shit: http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/?m=1 If you (or anyone for that matter) has other questions feel free to hit me up, my ask box is always open and i accept all PMs!

A Different Path

 Several Knights and Masters were very keen to take on Obi-Wan as a padawan learner, but Yoda sought them out and gently discouraged them. A plan the Force has for young Kenobi and Master Jinn, he’d tell them. Most of them listened, bowed their heads, ceded to Yoda’s wisdom, and went on their way.

One, however, remained unconvinced.  While it was true that the esteemed Grand Master had centuries of experience in listening to and interpreting the will of the Force it was also true that even those in the creche were taught that no one being could ever truly say that their interpretation was the only correct one. They were also taught to be careful not to confuse their own feelings and wishes for the will of the Force.

With that in mind they meditated on the issue. Was Qui-Gon Jinn truly destined to be young Kenobi’s Master? It was true that Obi-Wan had a fiery personality and that Qui-Gon’s far more reserved disposition might help to temper him into a fine Knight, but they knew from experience that too much tempering could weaken a blade or even cause it to shatter. They reached out into the Force, concentrating on what might be best for Obi-Wan.

There was no answer, as such. The Force rarely worked like that and had never done so for them personally. However, they did receive a… sense of things. There was an impression of multiple paths leading forward, some better than others but with no idea which might be which. What was clear was that despite Grand Master Yoda’s insistence Qui-Gon wasn’t destined to teach Obi-Wan, he was simply one of several possibilities.

It gave them a lot to think about. And think the did, watching Initiate Kenobi grow more frantic as his nameday approached and no one stepped forward to claim him. No one told him why, of course, which left him free to assume the worst. They also watched Master Jinn’s steadfast refusal to have anything to do with any of the year’s candidates and when Obi-Wan tried to approach him anyway he was shut down before he could even stammer the words out and sent on his way. That tipped the balance. They’d meditated, they’d watched, and now they’d decided. Defying the Grand Master of the Order might have some unpleasant consequences, but it was a risk they were willing to take. Before that could happen, though, there was one important detail that needed to be handled.

They tracked down Obi-Wan while he was alone, ignoring the ripples of anxiety that he was trying hard to control.

“Initiate Kenobi,” they said, kneeling down to be at eye level with him. “I’ve given a great deal of thought to taking on a padawan learner and have been greatly impressed by what I’ve seen in you. Would you have any interest in allowing me to become your Master?”

the ultimate TAZ theory: who is the original red robe?

it hasn’t been easy to crack this one, but oh boy griffin mcelroy, i have cracked it. i’ve angused this one, griffin mcelroy, and i have solved your red robe puzzle.

there are several red robes but there has to be one most important one, one “leader” of the red robes. it was stated by the temporal chalice that the grand relics might have been one person at a point in time before being split up. and through endless clue-solving, i have figured out the identity of this mysterious person, this ‘red robe’, and i now have compiled enough evidence to say for certain who it is.

the final red robe… the original is….

The Final Pam.

Keep reading


THE T-SHIRT ISSUE ‘Muybridge Part Two’ at MAD NYC

Art collective THE T-SHIRT ISSUE were born out of a frustration with the current approach to clothing design and their result is an innovative digital approach to apparel construction that uses a 3D construction technique to give them the freedom to create garments that begin with a concept. Their latest installation, Muybridge Part Two, is currently on show at the Museum of Arts and Design in NYC. The exhibition is a study on temporal change in 3D: a bird in full flight is rigged, animated, and transported into T-shirts, and is inspired by Edward Muybridge’s photography from the late 1800′s which pioneered the capture of animal and human locomotion. Exhibitors alongside THE T-SHIRT ISSUE include Zaha Hadid, Frank Stella, Anish Kapoor and many more. The show continues until June 1.

“Full love of fashion” Art. Fashion. Music. Quotes. Inspiration.





Fun time with @elixirsgelsandherbs

Edit: The intro starts with a flickering, so if you’re senstive you can jump to 0:06 !

altered state

cozy. static - it shifted. and got stuck.

i’m going nowhere. there is no “where’  

because s pace

is gone.

it moved in such a way that it got caught, and s




the machine of the universe.

and so nothing can move, because motion

is gone.

only i can traverse this shifted state - but wander or stay, there is

no difference in this dream in a dream in a dream in a

the clock is changing.

the clock is lying, the clock is a superficial tick tick tick trying to convince me

of the passage of time. but it’s feeble. i know it lies because time

is gone.

i can feel it. temporal change is something make-believe

the silence sits next to me.

it watches me

‘welcome’” it seems to seem to seem to say.

but it is quiet here

because sound

is gone.

it has no being (outside of the implied drone of white noise

in the back of my mind)).  

i don’t try to decipher it. i don’t think to, because

this version of the world,

it lulls me into its gray sopor and thought

is gone. all

i can think is b l u r r e d. only seeming to be.

all projection that does not exist. i am the only real one.  

We exist within
This splendour of a moment,
Within the tension
Of what creates piece of time
Worth holding close;

Of what it means
To want to push it away &
What it means to finally
Bend into the rocking of the sway.

We were once crushing berries
in the palms of one another’s hand.

Let me be the first
To say
It looked like blood
Running between our fingers.

You cannot deny
That we could not discern
Its source; whether or not
It was hypothetically

Or mine.

—  Lorne Ryan, Timeflows

ajohnnygoldmain  asked:

People seem convinced that The Reforged Chain means Sarkhan no longer exists. Wouldn't his non-existence affect stuff that happened while he was on other planes (Alara/Jund, the Zendikar plot), which you're not doing? Can't "temporal forces whisked Sarkhan away" just mean back to the new present? OR couldn't Bolas come back and keep killing Ugin, and Ugin keep summoning Sarkhan to the less-distant past to save him, in a repetitive cycle until Sarkhan only had to go back to right before Zendikar?

We’ll have to wait until closer to Dragons of Tarkir to find out the specifics of what happens with Sarkhan. But yes, we’ve said we don’t intend this block to change the history of other planes. The how is kind of timey-wimey (more on that during DTK), but from the perspective of the rest of the Multiverse, somebody who called himself Sarkhan still showed up and participated in those Sarkhan-involving, off-Tarkir events in recent history (meeting Ajani on Jund, declaring fealty to Bolas, going to the Eye of Ugin, fighting with Chandra and Jace). In other words, worlds other than Tarkir have seen Sarkhan showing up and doing stuff over the past few years just as before, and haven’t experienced any temporal changes, even though things have already begun to change in Tarkir’s history. I can’t say more without spoiling stories to come, but that’s the sitch so far.

DC’S Legends of Tomorrow “Out of Time”

LOST AND FOUND — GUEST STARRING STEPHEN AMELL — After the defeat of the immortal villain Vandal Savage and the exposure of the corrupt Time Masters, a new threat emerges. Dr. Nate Heywood (Nick Zano), an unconventional and charming historian, is thrust into the action. After making a shocking discovery, Nate seeks out Oliver Queen (guest star Stephen Amell) for help in finding the scattered Legends.

Once reunited, the Legends continue their new mission to protect the timeline from temporal aberrations - unusual changes to history that spawn potentially catastrophic consequences. Their first stop is 1942 to protect Albert Einstein from being kidnapped before the Nazis destroy New York City with a nuclear bomb.Meanwhile, Ray (Brandon Routh) notices that Sara (Caity Lotz) has a mission of her own, which leads them both to face her nemesis,

Damien Darhk (guest star Neal McDonough). Victor Garber, Arthur Darvill, Dominic Purcell and Franz Drameh also star. Dermot Downs directed the episode written by Marc Guggenheim & Phil Klemmer and Greg Berlanti & Chris Fedak (#201). Original airdate 10/13/2016.

Quantum theories and spoons bending...

Just sharing a little more about what you posted regarding the bending spoon and at the end my own experiences.

Or what if the spoon you hold in your hand is not a static mass of steel but rather a certain number of atoms destroyed and recreated every millisecond, a process happening so fast that when you move the spoon around in the air, the appearance of movement is really nothing more than those atoms being created, destroyed, and recreated in different space at different time in discrete moments?

I’m not suggesting you can bend the spoon with your mind; I’m only describing one way theologians, including Jonathan Edwards (1703–58), have explained how God sustains creation in time and space.

The theory is called continuous creation (also continued or continual creation). At root, it suggests creation and providence are both ex nihilo, out of nothing. The material universe was “created by the word of God” (Hebrews 11:3). And the material universe continues to be spoken into existence by Christ, who “upholds the universe by the word of his power” (Hebrews 1:3).

, “I pick up the rook and I move the rook three spaces forward.” The way you would write that down quantum mechanically is, “Delete the rook from its current position and create it at its new position.” That is what I do when I pick up the piece and I put it back down on the board. I remove it from one spot and I put it in another. And quantum mechanically, the mathematical description you can write down is something like, “I destroyed the rook from existence, and then I recreated it at the new spot.” That amounts to the same thing as me picking it up and moving it. The rook was at one position and now it is at another. So sometimes we write down mathematical formulations that are very much like that. Destroy the rook from existence and then recreate it at the new position. That doesn’t mean that that is how it actually moved.

So now we are going to get really philosophical. So the idea would be that in order for the particle to move not through space, but through time, can you imagine now if time was like a chessboard and you are going to discretize time, and I can move a particle from one second to the next but not in between? So there is a formulation of quantum mechanics that is like that as well. In order to move a particle forward in time I destroy it from one time and recreate it in the next. I think that is probably the origin of this connection to quantum mechanics.

That was Erica Carlson, Professor of Physics at Purdue University. She went on to explain that wavefunction collapse doesn’t mean the wavefunction goes away. It simply means the shape of the wave suddenly changes — it snaps (or collapses) from one shape to another, again no proof that individual particles come into existence many times a second.

Let me say two things about this. First, there are modern theologians who have done the same thing. Wolfhart Pannenberg was a continual creationist. There are two different doctrines at play here that you mention, there is continuous creation. Continuous creation is simply the idea that God is recreating the world every second, which means there is no such thing as cause and effect. Secondly, there’s Idealism, which is the notion that everything that exists is ultimately mental. And so in the history of philosophy the two big possibilities are Materialism (everything is matter) or Dualism (everything is either
matter or spirit). Well, Idealism is a third option (everything is spirit).

Personal experiences I had:
My vision with what I described as gray matter walking on the road between where I entered and on the other side? It was time in between. That is why I didn’t exist there. Then when I came back out of the doors time was created for me to see…a table and chairs appeared, gray matter was placed in the chair that then became spirit.

I almost died today. I experienced a SUV in my lane about 6ft in front of my car heading head on. When I saw it I said three words…Oh my God. Then something happened that I can only explain as it was God saving me.
I felt as if the impact was fixing to happen. I had no place or time to move. Then it was as if that SUV or time just stood still and moved it over. I didn’t see it start to move. I saw it already in the other lane again. I saw just like a second or so of it movement of some sort.
— nsarabie

Time seems to be moving more fluid is what I have been noticing…or it seems like there are almost glitches in reality these days. What you experienced is better known as time dilation. time is an arrgregate continuity. Regardless if you think about how time works because of special relativity we’re always in the past because of the way time moves.

It’s an aggregate sequencing of continuity. It is the realization of local and non-local perception simultaneous. In layman’s terms, time is when you experience a phenomenon, and register the change in environment. the human mind experience’s an averaging of temporal changes and what we perceive is the median phenomenon. During a flight or fight response perception is increased and the buffer is reduced causing the temporal illusion, known as time dilation. Time moves as if your perception is in two spots at once at the same percise time. Time Dialation relates to premonition through how we are perceiving time itself. Time dilation is the ability of time to expand and contract according to our visible perception. this is why time must be measured in both terms of actual time and perceived time, and the average between the two is what we call aggregate continuity, or the unification of time as it actually is and time within our own minds. I believe time dialation is moreso related to various perceptions of reality and how we wish to approach reality.

I try to stay away from religions but I do believe there are truths in all religions as each connects to the next in a giantic stream of consciousness symbolism. Continuous creationism is an interesing theory because it denotes that creating goes on forever, it merely changes form. However what you said regarding quantum mechanics put somethings into perspective for me that I forgot about.

My personal view is I don’t view reality as having an anthropomorphic God, I believe God and the universe are one being that lives inside the heart of all beings. We are all symbolic archetypal figures creating our realities together through the vast projection of the collective consciousness into material form of substance. If we take the “ man in the sky” out of the equation it makes a lot of sense spiritually. That we are consciously creating everything with the projection of our thoughts and emotions into a given form. The illusion is that there is no truth because we are the ones creating it. It is not the spoon that bends it is merely ourselves. So if we were to do like you said….“ move a particle forward in time It destroys it from one time and recreate it in the next” we annaliate the old consciousness and replace it with the new. If we were to “ unplug” from the old paradigm we begin creating into the new evolved consciousness. However it’s not that simple as a collective because most of society has all these conditions placed around them. Instead of being able to move on they are recycling those issues and projecting them into their reality. Thus creating the karmic bonds of what keeps them “ stuck” in the old cycle. If we destroy the old perceptions by awakening we begin to unplug from the old system and start building/ creating the new one.

If time starts moving differently we would move out of the temperal loop we created for ourselves and begin operating in the new system through the manifestation of our thoughts.  We seem to be aligning our perceptions into various probability waves and infinite ways of seeing into reality. This opened up the time lines. We are left with two choices of thought: someone is in control of my reality( projecting on other people) or I am in control of my thought constructs of reality ( the Creator).

We need to disable the old system from the ground up, it has to start with us.
Change the thought construct. Change your reality.