Re: <nettime> the great re-alignment

[GM - tedbyfield via nettime-l <nettime-l@lists.nettime.org>]

I actually, really, specifically studied the history of apocalypticism, 
so...basically, no.

If there’s one area of theology that’s uniquely resistant to the 
etymological approach you propose, it’s probably apocalypticism. 
Pretty much from day one (as it were), the concept — which encompassed 
far more than just that one word — had two radically different 
aspects. There was no “original sense.” There was the outward 
fire-and-brimstone-type stuff, and a quasi-mystical emphasis on 
immanence, and lots of variations and mutations in-between. There has 
*never* been any broad or stable consensus on the first aspect — what 
it means, what it looks like, when it’ll happen, or any other facet of 
it. And mystics have a hard time figuring out whether or not they agree 
😹 so there was never a consensus about that aspect either.

The reason for this is simple: it depends on how you interpret a handful 
of ~biblical texts (or, for some, non-canonical apocrypha and/or 
pseudepigrapha). If you interpret them “literally” you can get 
material destruction, but if you interpret them figuratively you can get 
whatever you want. And what you want can be very slippery indeed.

My favorite example:

Conventional histories report that Charlemagne was crowned Holy Roman 
Emperor in the year 800 AD (now more often called CE), but it was 
Charlemagne himself who imposed (not ‘invented’) the Anno Domini 
calendar as, basically, the “official” calendar of the HRE. Prior to 
that, calendrical systems were much more heterogeneous and often 
regional (e.g., “the sixth year of the reign of King Abgar the Dark of 
Edessa”), and were based on numbers drawn from all kinds of sources, 
ranging from the Bible to various monarchic chronicles. Those sources, 
particularly biblical texts, were riddled with variations, 
discrepancies, etc, so the resulting calculations could be extremely 
inconsistent.

To our modern sensibilities, not knowing what year it “really” is 
might seem odd, but there is no “real” year — it’s all 
imaginary. And why would anyone need to know what year it “really” 
was anyway? With a bare handful of exceptions (like Clement of 
Alexandria), there was really only one answer to that question: to 
predict when the end of the world would come.

How or why would adding up a jumble of numbers tell you when that would 
happen? Because a pretty widespread exegesis (at least among millenarian 
movements) was based on a Genesis (the Lord created the world in six 
days on rested on the seventh) and Psalm 90:4 / 2 Peter 3:8 (a thousand 
years is a day in the eye of the Lord). So, the argument went, the world 
would last for six thousand years, followed by a “sabbatical 
millennium” or millennium of rest. As always, that was interpreted and 
presented in wildly different ways, ranging from outward material 
cataclysm to inward immanent transformation.

So how does this all fit together? The year 800 AD/CE was, in the most 
common pre-AD system, the year 5999. IOW, Charlemagne was crowned ONE 
YEAR before the end of the world. Less, even, because his coronation was 
on Christmas Day. So, while we don’t exactly have a smoking-gun memos 
from his advisor Alcuin to Charlemagne spelling it the pros and cons of 
reframing time itself, it seems pretty certain that he did so *in order 
to pull the rug out of under millenarians*! Basically, they said 
“It’s 5999!” and he was like “Uh, yeah, nah, sorry, it’s 
really only 800!” Top-notch liberal social engineering. 😹

Charlemagne’s hack worked pretty well until the year 1000, but 
that’s another story, with its own funny history — with some 
scholars depicting peasants cowering in fear as not-yet-invented clocks 
ticked to midnight, others emphasizing how pietistic movements 
restrained warring potentates and laid the basis for various 
renaissances.

I agree with Felix: Christian’s comment didn’t really do much for 
me, and I don’t see much cause for upset. Though calling people 
cryoto-nazis on a list that’s publicly archived should be a no-no. I 
hope this digression was interesting, or at least better than people 
freaking out on each other. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

Best,
Ted
On 8 Nov 2024, at 20:37, John Hopkins via nettime-l wrote:

> Christian --
>
> A deeper etymology of 'apocalypse' is 'apo' (away, to remove), and 
> 'kalupsis' (a veil covering the eyes [of the bride], a covering). That 
> usage is roughly contemporary with the Book of Revelations of St. John 
> the Divine documenting his prophetic vision on the island of Patmos. 
> So 'the apocalypse' is a clearing of vision, that one might see the 
> world as it is, unencumbered by the limitations of corrupt 
> incarnation.
>
> Seeing things 'as they are' is, of course, an idealistic and 
> unobtainable vision, given that the nature of reality is very much 
> indeterminate. However, clearing ones vision is possible, though the 
> way to do so is itself not so clear.
>
> So, 'apocalypse' in its original sense is more a personal process of 
> (positive) evolution versus a societal fabrication of wide 
> destruction.
>
> Cheers,
> John
>
> On 11/8/24 12:34 PM, Christian Swertz via nettime-l wrote:
> > thanks for the precise overview. I also like apocalyptic 
> > perspectives. The apocalypse is - according to the Wikipedia - 
> > translated to revelation in Christianity. Apocalypse describes the 
> > revelation of divine knowledge. In other terms: Your description 
> > promises the approach of the final truth. Didn't we pray for this all 
> > the time? Redemption is near! And we will see it happen. That's 
> > great! We should storm parliament to get more momentum to the 
> > movement. See you Sunday after coffee at the Parliament?
> >
> > On the other hand: Governments have been collapsing since I remember 
> > political events. That makes me a little suspicious. But maybe this 
> > time it will work. To be on the safe side, I will pray to god and ask 
> > for speedy salvation. I just have to choose the god to pray to. One 
> > moment please - I think I have to google that briefly ...
--
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: https://www.nettime.org
# contact: nettime-l-owner@lists.nettime.org