An Essay on Time

From Chronos to Kairos:

An Examination of Time Concretion
as the Narrow Gateway to Eternity

Kari Risher
May 6, 2010
EWP 9109:Gebser and Aurobindo
on the Evolution of Consciousness
Professor: Dr. Eric Weiss


In his landmark book, “The Ever-Present Origin”*, Jean Gebser emphasizes the importance of time in the transition from the mental mode of consciousness to the integral mode of consciousness. As we stand on the threshold of a four-dimensional notion of reality that threatens to shatter beneath our quivering legs, it is of paramount importance that we contemplate the form that time, or rather time-freedom, will take in the coming mode, as well as the nature of the intensity represented in the mental mode as time. This paper will explore these issues, and examine the narrow gate through which we must pass in the mutation from our current mode of consciousness to the future one; to make the great leap into the perceived abyss that lies before us at this moment in time.

What is time, really? In our society, we understand time to be a passing flow, much like water in a predictable river, always carrying us at a constant rate, ticking by in clearly defined and commonly experienced segments. But Gebser makes it clear that this is not the whole story when it comes to the phenomena we experience as time. He claims that time, as mainstream society in the modern age has perceived it, is simply an extension of space, which only abstracts a partial perspective of the experienced phenomena, portraying it as a quantitative phenomenon that can be “mastered”, rather than the complex and fundamental intensity that it truly is. “Chronological time is but one aspect of a more encompassing phenomenon: it is the mental aspect of that constituent of the world which manifests itself, not as space, but as a basic phenomenon of space” (Gebser, 284). The Greeks referred to this form of time as chronos. A British online encyclopedia defines it as “chronological or sequential time”. Kairos, on the other hand, was an altogether different form of time that was acknowledged by Greek civilization. This understanding of time embraces its qualitative aspects, and is described in the same source as “a time in between, a moment of undetermined period of time in which `something` special happens”. This paper will explore how the mutation from the mental mode of consciousness to the integral one, in terms of time, can be understood as a transition from chronos time to kairos time, from measurable time to time-freedom, from time-space-bound mechanism to dwelling in the realm of the infinite.

Gebser identifies time as the central issue in the mutation to the integral mode of consciousness, in which we are currently participating. The task at hand, in order for the mutation to occur successfully, is to accomplish the concretion of time into our consciousness, to experience it fully for what it truly is, rather than perceiving it from a wary distance, as we do currently. It is difficult, from this position on the evolutionary spiral, to apprehend the true meaning of time as it is meant to be experienced in the integral mutation; nevertheless, we must try, as conscious involvement in the mutation can help it to be that much more successful, peaceful, and fulfilling. Time is an intensity, as Gebser points out. It is “an ‘ever-present abundance’ or plenitude, spiritual and not psychic in nature”(Gebser, 357). It is a fundamental element in the universe in which we live, and in our relationship to origin, the most fundamental aspect of all. “It turns out that time … indeed is a world constituent” (Gebser, 286). In fact, it is likely that time arises fully and directly from origin, and may even be characterized by the flow of origin into human life. As humanity has undergone each (known) mutation of consciousness, we have ventured further and further away from origin, so that the light of our own consciousness has been able to grow brighter and brighter. As we have emerged into the blinding light of our own consciousness, our engagement with the ultimate realities of the universe (rooted origin) has become more and more abstract. This abstraction has allowed us to portray the universe in terms that we can conceptualize and synthesize in order to function; however, it has left us viewing life and our position within it from outside a window, so to speak, rather than engaging with it directly and fully. It has been only in the mental mutation that time has irrupted into our consciousness. The intensity that we experience as time, however, has taken on different forms throughout each mutation of consciousness. We can examine the ways it has changed as we have traveled away from origin, in our further attempts to characterize it in its more pure form.

In the magical mode of consciousness, Gebser writes that life was experienced as “a weakly conscious somnolent and trance-like state of magic space-timelessness” (Gebser, 163). The magical mode of consciousness is characterized by its one-dimensional nature, in which the human conception of the world is “point-like [and] unitary” (Gebser, 48). Although there is a vague demarcation of the material world from within origin, there is not a separation from it per se. Gebser indicates that at a place of unity, time serves no function, and indeed, does not even exist. “He becomes one with the unity to which all differentiation is unknown. There spatial boundaries and temporal limits are suspended” (Gebser, 163). This seems to indicate that time does seem to be at least partially characterized by separation, or some sort of self-other relationship between humanity and origin, which implies a dependence upon separation.

In the mythical structure of consciousness, time in some sense begins to exist, but is experienced as what Gebser calls temporicity. Temporicity is a form of time-awareness that is still completely space-free. As the light of humanity’s consciousness begins to dawn, it illuminates the images of the world governed by the psyche. The rhythmic motion of these images is likely the original cause for a sense of time. The sensations accompanying this sense of time correspond to the emergence of the soul, which, conceptually, is inextricably tied to time. “There must have been a far-reaching connection between the discovery of the first perceptions of regular, that is, periodic movement and the discovery of the soul. These movements were first discerned from the night sky, and the correspondence between its movements and man’s own rhythm and dynamics may have brought about man’s first sensation of time” (Gebser, 165). Again, we see that time, even in its earliest forms, appears to arise as a result of a separation from origin. In a state of complete unity with origin, the human soul has no reason for existence, but as consciousness begins to awaken and separate from origin, the soul is distilled from within origin, and develops its own life, co-emergent with the experience of time, and whose experience is described and defined by time.

As human consciousness approaches its peak of separation from origin, mutating into its mental form, time as we currently know it emerges. Time as we know it in our society is marked by, first and foremost, directionality. It is a constantly moving flow that we cannot escape – moving, it is important to note, from a beginning towards an end, from the past towards the future. “It is this directional character of ‘time’ which underscores its mental nature and therefore its constitutional difference from natural-cosmic temporistic movement which is mythical in nature” (Gebser, 173). But what is the true nature of this directionality, and again, what can this analysis tell us about pure time as a fundamental constituent of the universe?

Gebser discusses the notion of mental time as a divider, which gives us an idea of how directionality emerges. Time is associated with the dividing of the perpetual twilight of the mythical world by the light of the sun of day. The mythical world is associated with two-dimensional polarity, which acknowledges wholeness, but stretches its aspects into opposites that swirl around one another (as represented so clearly in the yin-yang symbol). As the mental mutation is encountered, the light of human consciousness grows brighter, cutting through the polarities and making of them dualities, separated elements of the whole. The human experience of reality thus becomes abstracted from concrete reality, that is, from origin. This abstraction, a partial capture or extraction out of a facet of origin, is by definition only a partial representation of reality. “Only concretized parts can be integrated; the abstract, and especially the absolute, always remain separated parts” (268). An abstraction cannot be whole, because it is not connected with the whole. In this way human thought has become unbalanced and thus directed, and, as the soul is with temporality, this is co-dependent with the form of mental time, oriented in a direction. “This world of virtual yet still sheltered movement, which was motionless, as it were, since every movement returned upon itself and cancelled its effect, burst apart when oriented thought temporarily halted the course of the sun: … With this, our “time” and “space” were born: orientation and direction, which the circle, being without beginning and end, was lacking. Only movement, that is, directed motion, could give rise to our experience of what we today call ‘time.’”(Gebser, 166-67). This form of time, according to Gebser, has given rise to the concept of three-dimensional space. “Our mentally oriented conception of ‘time’, the divider of mythical movement and the partitioner of the circle, severs its two-dimensionality and thereby creates the possibility of three-dimensional space” (Gebser, 177). Our reality has (in the mental mode of consciousness) become dependent on the three-dimensional conception of reality that our consciousness has built from our mental abstraction from origin. This matrix has arisen as a creation of our own conceptions of the universe for the purpose of orienting ourselves, and so that we can function with a (false) sense of security in this partial and directed existence, which is mistaken for ultimate reality, but is truly nothing more than a product of our own abstract musings. Thus, even time has become completely abstract, and entrenched within our spatialized notion of the world. We view time as a line, firmly entrenched within the three-dimensional grid that we take to be reality, stretching from past, through present, to future, able to be divided cleanly into uniform segments and thus analyzed and conceived of in mental terms. However, in a strict sense, past and future do not exist. Truly all that exists, always, is “now”, as the uprising of origin into human existence. The deadening of time in the mental mode of consciousness, making of it a mechanical, quantified spatial concept, is a direct consequence of the attempted mastering of time (along with every other phenomenon in the universe), which has occurred as a result of the mental mutation’s over-spatialization of the human conception of the universe. “For perspective-thinking man, time lacked all quality. This is the decisive factor: he employed time only in a materialized and quantitative sense…” (Gebser, 284).

With all this analysis behind us, we are obliged to again approach the question at hand: what is time in a pure sense? Can we find its meaning amongst the grasping at its character within foreign modes of consciousness that we have undertaken in these last few pages? Time appears to be a quality whose form and character are dependent upon the human consciousness’ proximity to origin. In each mode of consciousness in which it has played a role, it is related to a sense of motion that is initiated by a pulling away from origin, and is indicative of our drawing upon origin for the sustenance of the removed paradigm of whichever realm of reality we happen to be functioning within. Time is a fabrication based on distance from origin (to use a spatial metaphor).

Now that we have a better understanding of the meaning of time as a general concept, we can approach the question of the role of time in the coming mode of consciousness: the integral. Gebser discusses time in the integral mutation as being “concretized”, which refers to it being acknowledged in human consciousness in a pure form, not abstract and deadened, but rather in a living and directly experienced sense. “The coming to awareness of ‘time’ in its full complexity is a precondition for the awakening consciousness of time-freedom” (Gebser, 289). Concretion is the essential summation of the effect of the integral mutation on time, and we will attempt to explore the meaning of this concept here, by attempting to grasp the character and role of time in the integral mode. The most basic characteristic of the integral mode of consciousness is the perception of the universe as a whole; there is identification with the spiritual element of life, which is all-embracing, and a mode of perceiving that allows for all of the modes of consciousness and the process of their unfolding to be made translucent. “The new mutation of consciousness… as a consequence of arationality, received its decisive stamp from the manifest perceptual emergence of the spiritual” (Gebser, 541). Perspectivity will cease to exist as the whole is apprehended. “The whole can be perceived only aperspectivally; when we view things in a perspective a way we see only segments” (Gebser, 289). In the context of time, all forms of time throughout the modes of consciousness will, in the integral mode, be simultaneously experienced, resulting in a state that is perhaps best called time-freedom. There is an acknowledgement of time as a measure of proximity to and flow from origin, simultaneous with a communion with origin, as Gebser points out. “It is from origin, which is not bound to time, that all time forms constituting us have mutated. Origin lies ‘before’ all timelessness, temporicity, and time. Wherever man becomes conscious of the pre-given, pre-conscious, originary pre-timelessness, he is in time-freedom, consciously recovering its presence. Where this is accomplished, origin and the present are integrated by the intensified consciousness” (Gebser, 289). Because of the closeness to and identification with origin, humankind, in the integral age, will experience time as the present. The dynamic of continual interpenetration between humanity and origin is perhaps another way to envision time in this form. “This ‘dimension’ is only today coming to awareness, or, more exactly, is only able to come to awareness when it is no longer conceived of as ‘time,’ ‘movement,’ or ‘timeless being,’ but as the presence of origin” (Gebser, 179). The movement of constant communion between origin and humanity is represented geometrically (as illustrated by Gebser) by the symbol of a moving sphere, in which wholeness encompassing motion is captured abstractly. “The simple sphere is merely three-dimensional; only the moving, transparent sphere is four-dimensional. And only the transparency guarantees the aperspectival perception” (Gebser, 346).

The result of this orientation with regard to origin and the universe is, as Gebser calls it, verition. “Verition is neither a unification, a polarization, a postulation, nor a synthesis, but rather an integration by means of which origin – which places its imprint on the whole – becomes the perceived present” (Gebser, 271). Verition is a knowing, a direct experience of the present as it occurs. Gebser also seems to indicate that humanity participates in the creation of reality as it arises and dances in the space between itself and origin, which he describes as the “a-waring” and “imparting” of truth in the integral mode of consciousness. “[Time-freedom] is an acategorical element of systatic perception which makes possible the completion of synairesis, and thus it is the sustaining, indeed ‘a-waring’ and transparent, spatially incomprehensible amension”(Gebser, 356).

Now that a sense of the integral mutation lies more or less before us, the question now is how must we accomplish it? What is the way forward for the concretion of time? This is a complex and compelling question, but one of paramount importance in this age of time-anxiety. Humankind today stands at a very precarious place with regard to our sense of the reality of our existence, as it is rooted in a conception of time-space which is now crumbling under our feet. Gebser explains this phenomenon by pointing out the fallacy of the grounds for security in the mental mode. “He achieved this security by means of his new faculty of directing thought which enabled him to create world-systems and to grasp realities that gave him stability… The security of the mental structure was – in accordance with its nature – purely fictive, that is, a design and projection of security by the ego onto the external world” (Gebser, 288). Because of our recognition of the existence of time, but our inability to grasp its full character, we have conceived of time as a simple extension of the three-dimensional structure of space that we have erected in order to orient our directed thought. But as we have begun to grapple with time in this representation, it has become apparent that “space has absorbed time” (Gebser, 289), and that “time, when employed as a mere divider, dissolves space” (Gebser, 289). The work of Albert Einstein has been pivotal in the acknowledgement of time, and has paved the way for its eventual concretion. His theory of relativity posits space-time as a unified structure; relativity considers time to be a fourth-dimension, coincident with the three spatial dimensions that define the physical universe, and basically an extension of space. In this model, time is quite literally spatialized – quantified in purely physical terms. The problems that arise when viewing this theory through a mental lens reveal the limitations of the mental mode of consciousness. Whereas the desired avenue forward, for Gebser, in terms of the analysis of time is that of the supersession of physical space and towards a dimension of coherence in terms of other realms of the universe, such as psychical and spiritual, the positing of the fourth-dimension in physical terms only expands the physical-focused, abstract paradigm of the mental mind and thus results in disintegration. In the spacetime model, the physical universe is expanding, at speeds approaching the speed of light at its furthest limits. “It was Einstein’s theory of relativity which invalidated the previous exclusive claim of the Copernican world system and replaced it with the space-time continuum. As a consequence we can no longer conceive of the world as being infinite and unbounded but rather ‘finite yet unbounded’.” (Gebser, 287). The structure of space-time is encountering its own limits, and crumbling under its own weight due to its unstable nature. “Einstein’s theory of relativity …had to be conceived of in terms of constant decay and simultaneous renewal, paving the way for a process of expansion, as we might say, in consequence of the dividing capacity of the heterogenous quantity of ‘time.’ This process of expansion is a frenzied rush, pushing ever outward the boundaries of the microcosm as well as of the macrocosm, dissolving – indeed destroying – and exploding rather than overcoming the spatial structure” (Gebser, 353). Despite its discouraging aspects, the notion of a fourth dimension as a relative, rather than a static, absolute (i.e. dead) quality is a step forward in the process of the concretion of time. The fact that it forces the mental mind to face its limits is the most exciting aspect of the fourth dimension in terms of its usefulness as a bridge towards the integral mutation. It cannot be visualized, which points the mental mind towards a new mode of realization, one of verition rather than visualization. However, the fourth dimension must be considered a dimension that integrates, rather than piggybacks onto the spatial structure, as time is the basis for the arising of the three-dimensional matrix, and not a spatialized dimension itself. “Thus time does not curve space; it is open and opens space through its capacity of rendering it transparent, and thereby supercedes nihilistic ‘emptiness’”(Gebser, 353). We must face the crumbling limits of our disintegrating universe, open our eyes, and jump past them, to a deeper, more whole reality that causes our current conception of the universe to fade like mist before the moon. “The irruption of time is destructive only if we fail to realize what ‘time’ actually is. If we are able to realize this, the irruption is not a further and ultimate loss of shelter and security, but rather a liberation” (Gebser, 288).

Now at the dusk of the mental mode of consciousness and on the verge of a new paradigm, in a sense, we do stand before an abyss. Reality as we know it is the cliff, and it is quickly fading. The question arises: will we fall violently against our will into a new understanding of life and the universe, or will we consciously jump in such a way that leads peacefully to complete transformation, coherent to our best understanding of where we are headed? In what direction should we jump? We know that our new conception of reality must be beyond dimensionality, time-free, and space-free, a communion and dance of conscious connection with origin. But, again, how exactly do we arrive at this place of ‘beyond dimensionality’? Gebser illustrates this concept artfully, using a technique called ‘paradoxical thinking’. A paradoxical statement “mediates between oceanic and perspectival thinking” (Gebser, 259) by containing both rational and irrational elements within it. It draws a conditional inference (rational) between two phrases, while the phrases also seem to contradict each other (irrational). This type of thinking, though not perfect for propelling us into the integral mode of consciousness, does take us beyond the expected point of perspectivity when viewed through a mental lens. Gebser compares this phenomenon to “the axiom of parallels; it states that two parallel lines intersect at infinity” (Gebser, 260). Each of the phrases in the statement is represented by a parallel line, seemingly in proper relationship with one another. But at (the gate to) infinity, they meet, and beyond this point, they cross. And that is when we observe an interesting phenomenon. The phrases switch order, and the statement, when put back together “beyond the vanishing point”, is no longer rational. It instead has an irrational character; indeed, the phrases seem to contradict one another. The paradoxical statement forces the rational mind to go beyond the vanishing point at infinity, by forcing it to acknowledge rational and irrational elements simultaneously. Beyond this point, the mind is propelled into a new paradigm. It is forced to abandon the exclusivity of a perspectival way of perceiving. “It is a synthesis or compromise, a third form of thought in which there is a (consistently unsatisfactory) effort to unify opposites” (Gebser, 260). Synthesis is the only way to achieve resolution in the mental mode of consciousness, which creates dualisms everywhere one looks, as is a natural consequence of perspectivity. We see the importance of synthesis in the trinity principle of Christianity, which acknowledges the necessity of an intercessor to reconcile the abyss that lies between a dualistic conception of God and humanity. Paradoxical thought, in synthesizing the irreconcilable dualism between rationality and irrationality, forces us into a new paradigm at the vanishing point. Much like the concept of the fourth dimension, it begins to help us understand (from a mental point of view) the process by which we may enter into the integral mutation, into the realm of time-free amension, where the whole is regarded. “The disruption of space by time does not lead to emptiness, to nihil, to nothingness or nada, but to transparency… by surpassing dualism, we resolve the division of the world in favor of the whole” (Gebser, 529). However, paradoxical thought cannot make the transition for us completely. The inadequacy associated with it is primarily that it is still conception. The synthesis takes place in the mind, which can only deal with abstract ideas, removed from the living origin. Again, much like with the fourth dimension, it forces us to face our limits, which causes our abstract illusions to fade from view. In this case, we face the limits of the illusion based on the abstract relationship between subject and object. As consciousness distances itself from origin, and becomes more and more based on an abstraction of ultimate, whole reality, identity becomes further abstracted from soul until even it becomes a deadened concept, a collection of concepts, much like time being spatialized. The rational conception of identity is called ego. The ego is instrumental in the mental mind’s perception of reality, and the creation of the space-time structure. The ego also provides the mental mind with the sense that it is separate from the rest of the universe, that it is able to view and analyze is from a place of transcendence, from which its actions do not affect the rest of the universe. In a sense, this perception is correct, since the ego itself is very separate from the coherent wholeness; however, in another sense, this perception is an illusion, as the ego is abstracted from a deeper identity that is intimately connected with the heart of reality. The ego’s sense of separation can be referred to as the subject-object relationship, in which the ego is considered to be the subject, and anything in the universe that is apprehended is considered to be the object. The rational mind perceives the world with a clearly-defined subject-object orientation, but when it encounters the perspectival vanishing point, as it does within paradoxical thought, it encounters its own mirror image, the irrational realm, and the subject-object relationship is challenged; indeed, it begins to break down. Gebser acknowledges this as a productive (in terms of evolution) consequence of the paradoxical statement. “It may well be synonymous with a dissolution of the mirror aspect which is an essential element of the psyche; indeed, even the polarity principle itself may be regarded as a reflective or mirror principle, whose dissolution is the final retraction of a projection… The dissolution of this principle is nothing other than the supersession and concretion of the soul, and this the first step towards its integration (Gebser, 261). The subject-object relationship becomes stretched and stressed under the weight of the attempted reconciliation of rational and irrational elements. It is the point where these meet, and that we must look for the secret wisdom that we must glean for our leap into the new paradigm. It is through the perspectival vanishing point, the point of breakdown of our illusory conceptions, that we must aim, so that we can land squarely into the integral mode of consciousness. In this mutation, we must make of our entire lives a paradoxical statement.

It is clear that as we move into the integral mode of consciousness, the subject-object relationship in our consciousness will transform, and it is of interest to consider if and how it will persist in the new structure. In the integral mode of consciousness, although there is an identification with origin, and a perceiving of the whole, there remains an acknowledgment of a dissociation from origin in some sense, not quite an extracted individual “I” that remains to do the perceiving, but rather something in-between an “I” and “non-I”, or rather beyond “I”: something beyond the dualism of the subject-object relationship, yet not resembling a simple unity. If it were in complete unity with origin, humanity would no longer have its own consciousness and time would not exist. Gebser discusses this issue on page 532: “Egolessness is a deficient regression into magic while a mere egotism is a deficient continuation in the mental-rational structure. Only the overcoming of the “I”, the concomitant overcoming of egolessness and egotism, places us in the sphere of ego-freedom, of the achronon and transparency.” (532). He acknowledges that both subject (ego) and object must not exist within the integral mode, in order to “sustain the verity of the whole” (Gebser, 309).

Again we have arrived at the moving and transparent quality of the integral structure of consciousness. It seems that in this mode, human consciousness will continue to exist in a free state, but will be in intimate and clearly-experienced connection, and, interestingly, co-creation with origin. The material world will exist in some sense, but arising anew each instant in the space of creativity sparking between ourselves and origin. “We may regard such [spatio-temporal] materialization as a bridge that makes possible the merging or coalescence …of origin and the present” (542). The nature of this relationship is mysterious and profound. Whereas our consciousness has arisen from origin, we return home to apprehend it, to embrace it wholly, while maintaining consciousness, allowing time in some sense to continue to exist, even as a quality of relationship that can be defined totally by a “present” that simultaneously embraces all of reality. “This implies that preconscious origin becomes conscious present” (Gebser, 356). This sense of the “present” is ultimately valuable, and humankind’s role in manifesting it is crucial. “We too presentiate the whole by realizing that we are to the same degree active as well as enduring and passive, past as well as future. Man is in the world to sustain it as well as himself ‘in truth’, not for his or its own sake, but for the sake of the spiritual present. It is this spiritual present which elevates wholeness to transparency and frees us from our transient age, for this age of ours is not the present but partiality and flight, indeed, almost a conclusion. Only someone who knows of origin has present – living and dying in the whole, in integrity” (Gebser, 273). It is this “present” that we can look forward to fully manifesting in the age to come.

The entry-point to this state of time-freedom, ego-freedom, and dimensional-freedom is a specific point of exit from the illusory space-time, subject-object-oriented structure that currently holds us, which we are now outgrowing. As we surpass this limiting paradigm, we will enter into closer communion with the origin, perceiving and a-waring the whole. The gateway to this time-free realm is narrow and treacherous, and this is expected. Any transition, personal or collective, is typically marked by a sense of anxiety. In fact, on a collective level, anxiety may represent our discomfort with the current paradigm and our readiness for change, and could be the necessary emotional response that leads to the willingness for transition to occur. In the Christian scripture, the New Testament, Jesus Christ said, when referring to the way to the Kingdom of Heaven: “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it” (Matt. 7:13-14, New International Version). The Kingdom of Heaven is a place where time has a different quality – it is a place of eternal time, described with the word kairos. Jesus Christ entered eternal time through an experience of darkness so well represented by the symbol of the cross, which creates a narrow point defined by intersecting lines, as does the geometrical representation of the paradoxical statement. Only when he entered through “the eye of the camel”, surrendering to the process of transition with arms stretched out wide, did he succeed in initiating the “redemption of the world”. Gebser alludes to the resonance of this prophetic myth with his ideas. “Will Christianity, in accord with the incipient mutation, change in keeping with the possibilities which are indicated for it? Will the church of the crucified become the church of the risen?” (Gebser, 339-40). It is only through this narrow point, the perspectival vanishing point, at which we encounter our greatest fear, the end of our crumbling world and our own disappearing self-image, that we can find hope for the transformation of our own consciousness into the next age, and thus for our resurrection into the realm of kairos time.

Although the mental analyses of the gateway principle conducted in this paper are not experiential guides that lead us fully to the integral mutation, they can serve as tools that assist us to use the best of the mental mode of consciousness to responsibly and faithfully transition to the mode that awaits us – the realm in which we will truly know that qualitative intensity known as kairos time, and the thrill of deep communion with the source of life, the origin.


* Gebser, Jean. The Ever-Present Origin. Translated by Noel Barstad and Algis Mickunas. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 1985.










PAGE


PAGE 1
Risher – From Chronos to Kairos