I’m lazy by inclination (lazy defined as “not likely to do things unless they are enjoyable”). Luckily, one of my strengths is making myself find things enjoyable, it’s the main way I accomplish things. I’m not athletic by inclination and I’ve not had much success making myself find exercise enjoyable. I like biking. I guess.

I need to exercise despite not enjoying exercise. I’ve been going to the gym somewhat regularly for a while again now, trying to stay disciplined. Not just going to the gym, but going to the gym and getting a cardio-vascular workout. I find lifting weights easier because I need it less. I’m in greater need of cardio-vascular fitness and so I find that kind of workout less enjoyable. One way I try to stay motivated is by distraction. Without distraction, I count the time as it passes on the treadmill, thinking something along the lines of “oh man I hate being on this stupid thing I can’t believe it’s only been two minutes so far.” With distraction, it takes much less effort to stay on the treadmill. To distract myself, I try to think while on the treadmill. Like, to think about things, and stuff.

Today I thought about the topic of a paper draft my friend Matt sent me. The paper is on the theme of kairos in Negri and Agamben, among other things. Several things struck me on this. First, it struck me that it seems easy to think of kairos and jetz-zeit in non-kairological ways. Similar to singularity and difference. What some specific X which is a singularity (kairos/difference) has in common with every other thing which is a singularity (kairos/difference) is not very interesting and cuts against the attempt to pay attention to the specific X.

Second, it struck me that there are two approaches to kairos, which I’ll call objective and methodological.

The objective approach is to think that there are kairos moments (kairoi?) and non-kairos moments, like the time of collective struggle vs that of waged labor. This is appealing in a way, but it implies that time on the clock can only ever be homogenous time, which is simply false and inhibits our ability to understand how certain kairos moments come about. That is, the objective approach retains a thought of empty homogenous time. This I think relates to the ‘non-kairological’ thought of kairos, since sorting moments into kairos and not kairos involves appeal to the qualities of kairos as such.

The methodological approach is to think from the point of view of kairos and jetz-zeit, which supplants thinking empty homogenous time. It doesn’t involve claims about this or that time or sorting – here’s empty time, here’s jetz-zeit – so much as a sort of orientation toward time in general. This has downsides – time on the clock as jetz-zeit?! – but it doesn’t involve the retention of empty homogenous time.

(No citations cuz the books in question are in the basement.)