Kairos, Impulse, and the Dialectics of Messianic Time

Kairos, Impulse, and the Dialectic of Messianic Time

Before I begin, I think I ought to go ahead and tell you what I plan to do. I am telling you up front that what follows is an attempt to immerse you in the messianic, revolutionary rhetoric of a new movement, employing whatever tools I possess.

To this end, according to Aristotle, there is a trinity of tricks at my disposal- what he called ethos, pathos, and logos. Ethos is greek for 'character,' and consists in the actual: it is the syntax, diction, and style of this appeal – the character of my voice, and whatever knowledge you possess of me as a speaker. Pathos is greek for 'experience,' and consists in the visceral: it is the emotion evoked by this appeal – the experience of you, the reader, as you read what is written here. Logos is greek for 'word,' and consists in the cerebral: it is the logic, evidence, and consistency of this appeal – the words themselves, their meaning and sense in the abstract.

Yet, there is something more – something that Aristotle forgot, but which must not be forgotten: kairos. It is this which I view as my greatest tool, and which carries the greatest weight in what follows. Kairos is greek for 'moment,' and consists in the temporal: it is the timing of this appeal – the relation of this moment, jetztzeit, with the historical zero-hour, stillstellung.

In the engine of existence, the gears of time churn ceaselessly, perpetually on. History unfolds, and civilization spirals out into the universe, weaving its arc into the very fabric of the cosmos. We are consequently presented with jetztzeit - the here and now.

In a certain way, it's all we have, and all we'll ever have. Time converges neatly from the past toward the present, diverges into the future, and in the middle stands this moment, the present – a phantasm of the celestial order, this effulgent nature, the universal mind.

I appeal to you now for a small piece of this sacrosanct gift, the present, our present - for the very reason that it stands between our past and our future. This is stillstellung, the zero-hour, a reckoning of history with that which succeeds history.

Now, I do not ask lightly for this gift, and I would genuinely prefer that you deny me than indulge me with resentment. If these words ring false, then, by all means, do not continue. But if these words ring true, I ask once more for the gift of your time, with the hope that I might someday return the favor.

So, read this because you love me, or because you hate me, or because you do not know me at all. Read this with the knowledge that it constitutes no more than a speckled, splattered, splotch of ink, and with the knowledge that I constitute no more than the spent fuel of some ancient, starry fusion - but please, if you will, read this:

We are rapidly approaching a pivotal moment in the course of human events. This moment, as all moments, will present each of us with a choice. This choice, as all choices, demands an answer. We have such an answer. What follows is an explication of the coming moment, the choice we must make, and the apparent answer. This choice can be framed in myriad ways, but ultimately there is a single question we must ask ourself: pulse or impulse?

Let me explain:

The first term to understand is pulse. I use this term in the way that one might use spark, to mean consciousness, complexity, adaptability, reactivity, or chaos. Every thing, as such, contains some measure of pulse. This pulse demands its own mutability, fighting against the impulse, to transform and remake whatever contains it. Pulse is the antecedent of will. Pulse is the negation. Pulse is 0.

The second term to understand is impulse. I use this term in the same way that one might use conatus, to mean direction, endeavor, inclination, inertia, or order. Every thing, as such, contains some measure of impulse, too. This impulse demands its own immutability, fighting against the pulse, to maintain a static constitution in whatever contains it. Impulse is the antecedent of appetite. Impulse is the affirmation. Impulse is 1.

Together, pulse and impulse constitute the fundamental binary.

There are binaries in this world, despite the deconstructionist invective to the contrary. For too long now, we have placed the 1 before the 0. Our history, human history, is the story of this binary, starting from the point at which we began to consciously carry the past into the future. This is the point at which we began to value impulse over pulse, 1 over 0. Now, certain brave souls through history have invoked the 0 - scientists, philosophers, visionaries, and prophets, who dared to disturb the order of things, if only for a moment. History's heretics have harried us here, with revolution after revolution, and we are ready now to return to the present moment, to restore the balance between impulse and pulse.

In the years following the industrial revolution, it has become increasingly and manifestly clear that the impulse of our species is pointed toward our own destruction: We are perpetually on the brink of nuclear warfare, we are poisoning our planet with toxic hydrocarbons, and the towering edifice of our economy verges on collapse. Thus, we have a choice: Will we give sway to our impulse, which drives us to maintain the status quo, or will we give sway to pulse, which drives us to remake, renew, and re-imagine? Will we continue cautiously, conservatively, and steadfastly on our path towards destruction, or invite chance, volatility, and chaos to change that path?

Okay, you might say, this is all well and good, but how does one invert the binary? How does one place the 0 before the 1? We cannot yet answer the question. First, we must examine the way in which the fundamental binary entrenches itself, manifests itself and enshrines itself in our society.

Since the dawn of history, homo sapiens have constructed their identities with an implacable concern for the self. This mode of analysis flows from the singular to the plural – we begin with an understanding of the fact that we are sapiens, and then proceed to classify, compartmentalize, characterize, and categorize our experience. Thus arises the distinction between the self and the other. We race ourselves, gender ourselves, nationalize and culture ourselves into the strata of an extant hierarchy – the hierarchy of human experience. This way of thinking has led, and leads inexorably, to oppression, malice, warfare, hunger, and strife.

Call it hetero[______]o-normativity. The prefix hetero is used here not to suggest any idea of sexuality, though it has certainly played a major role, but rather to express the distinction between other and self. All that remains is to fill in the blank – straightness, whiteness, maleness, christianity, americanness, wealth et cetera. In the presence of a hierarchy of human experience, a certain stratum of humans has come to oppress and subjugate those that display an insufficient degree of similarity to the supposed norm. This occurs because the self is naturally inclined to seek any plausible advantage over the other. This is the binary that denies, blackens, feminizes, and impoverishes the 0 while affirming, whitening, masculinizing, and enriching the 1. This is what happens when we understand our experience as that of a human.

But there is another way – a way for our species to move forward, and to leave this oppressive mess in the dust of history. We must invert the binary. We must place the 0 before the 1, and in so doing restore a most natural order. We must understand our experience as that of humanity, an experience in which we play a small, though valuable part. Rather than as an element of a hierarchy, we can envision our identities as part of a mesh - with all of the interconnectedness and interdependence that that entails. The self is manifestly not the sum total of our experience, as our moral, aesthetic and linguistic senses are constructed in concert with others. These senses give rise to the commonality of human experience, and to our very ability to carry our past into the future. Yet, we abuse this ability by constructing identities which point to the self as the locus of consciousness. This must end.

We must construct our identities with an eye towards the whole, and a mode of analysis which flows from the plural to the singular. As a species, we demonstrate an understanding of this principle in many ways, and yet we are reticent to apply it to our own experiences. We understand that an atom is made of quarks and leptons. We understand that a molecule is made of atoms. We understand, even, that a protein is made of amino acids, that a polysaccharide is made of monosaccharides, and that a nucleic acid is made of nucleotides. We have continued this chain of understanding, up through organelles, and cells, and organs, and systems, all the way to the self. Now we must continue on – coming to understand our role as part of something much more complex, much more interesting, and much more intricate than our self.

So, we must embrace the pulse of human consciousness: that which is beyond our appetites, that which speaks to the will. We must embrace our commonality and mutual intelligibility. We must embrace our humanity.

YES, ISAAC, BUT HOW!?

We must build ourself a network.

Through millennia of heresy, innovation, revolution, and invention, we have obtained technology that will allow for virtually instant communication between anyone, anywhere. The internet as we know it is an application of this technology - but it is built, operated, and controlled by the very individuals who are most vested in our collective impulse, in maintaining the 1 before the 0. This philosophy is apparent in the architecture of the current internet, which exhibits centralized, hierarchical structures of transmission and control.

Humanity now enters a new age of mutual cooperation, understanding, and flourishing by building itself a network. We cannot be stopped, and soon the hierarchy of the internet, which reflects the hierarchy of human experience, will come crashing down. In its stead will stand a foiled image of the network we have today. Instead of a hierarchy, where every node talks to its superior, we are building a mesh, where every node talks to its neighbors. Instead of a world where people are privileged beyond reason by their station of birth, we will live in a just, equitable, and peaceful world.

Wireless communications technology is allowing for the construction of a network in a way that is grassroots, bottom-up, and free from censorship and control. This technology grows steadily more powerful, while continuing to decline in cost. There is freedom on the airwaves, now. We are blanketing the planet with an electromagnetic mesh. We have found the frequency of our salvation. We call this innovation the Mesh Interface for Network Devices. Now more than ever, the words of John Perry Barlow ring true:

"The increasingly hostile and colonial measures of terrestrial governments place us in the same position as those previous lovers of freedom and self-determination who had to reject the authorities of distant, uninformed powers. We must declare our virtual selves immune to your sovereignty, even as we continue to consent to your rule over our bodies. We will spread ourselves across the Planet so that no one can arrest our thoughts.

We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before."