In his Travels in England Nikos Kazantzakis talks about “rhythm.”

“Τι είναι λοιπόν ρυθμός; Μια κεντρική κίνηση όλο αρμονία, που κυβερνάει το στοχασμό και την πράξη μας.”

“What is rhythm, then? A single central movement, all harmony, that governs our goals and actions.”

My first response to this is that Kazantzakis’s “rhythm” is equivalent to will. To a central (and internal) desire, call, need. Will, however, is sometimes forceful, violent, a violent act, whereas Kazantzakis’s rhythm is quiet and meditative. (?) It does not intrude, it waits, then acts in harmony with one’s internal sense of self and one’s entire existence.

‘Οποιος έχει ρυθμό είναι λυτρωμένος με όλη του την ύπαρξη.

Whoever has rhythm is saved. Whatever he does is right because it is in harmony with his entire existence.

In this sense, is Kazantzakis’s rhythm linked to the existentialist notion of authenticity? To self-recognition? “Authenticity — in German, Eigentlichkeit — names that attitude in which I engage in my projects as my own (eigen).” (SEP)

In functioning according to one’s internal rhythm am I better able to act with integrity to myself, to be what I am, to act out my own choices (and not act in a way that is my duty depending on the role I adopt in my social interactions). If I move according to my own rhythm do I then act autonomously and in a way that only I can be responsible for and in a way that is my concern only? Does moving with this internal and harmonous rhythm ensure that I proceed to make myself what I am?