Hyder Husain Arastu

Author: hyderhusainarastu

  • Social Media and Nimrod of the Giganti

    Social Media and Nimrod of the Giganti

    Since this is not meant to be for an academic audience, forgive the lack of detailed argumentation. I have said all that is essential, the rest is wholly intuitive. Feel free to contact me if you have any objections or questions.

    Vico describes in his Scienza Nuova the principles of the universal history of nations in which are foundational the institutions of religion, burial, and marriage. History to Vico takes place in cycles, moving through the ages of Gods, Heroes, and Men as the Ancient Egyptians describe it. Through these ages nations develop in their corso and fall in their ricorso.

    The corso of the first nations whose history we have begins after the universal flood. Of the period between the universal flood and the first thunder from which came the first word – Jove, there came the giganti.

    In Chapter III of the second book of the New Science we are acquainted with their origin: “Mothers abandoned their children”, he says, “who had to wallow in their own filth”, these children would absorb the nitrous salts from their filth, and “without that fear of gods, fathers, and teachers which chills and benumbs even the most exuberant in childhood. They must therefore have grown robust, vigorous, excessively big in brawn and bone, to the point of becoming giants.” (NS 369).

    Vico’s giants seem absolutely absurd to any serious ‘scientific’ inquiry, but we must note that the new science is wholly poetic, operating in the imaginative genera, universal class concepts that “with our civilized natures we [moderns] cannot at all imagine and can understand only by great toil”, to the imaginative genera Vico says the first men reduced “all the particulars appertaining to each genus; exactly as the fables of human times…reasoned out by moral philosophy” (NS 34, 412-427).

    I now attempt an interpretation of the poetic wisdom which speaks of gigantic as describing a particular aspect of the current state of our nations.

    If we are to look at our history, we will see that we cannot at all be in a corso. We are certainly moving towards a barbaric age. The age of Gods is characterized by the first word, Jove. The ricorso of civilization then must be identifiable by a forgetting of Jove, losing the primordial fear that gave birth to ‘reason’. Second, a ricorso will mark the loss of the foundational institutions.

    Nietzsche describes in his work how we have moved past the need for God, or more appropriately, why God has died. Zarathustra remarks “Could it be possible! This old saint has not heard in his forest that God is dead!”.

    The three institutions have as consequence begun to fade.

    Let me not waste more time, and move to describing why we are returning to these Giganti.

    The mothers who have abandoned us are those who have let us roam free within our own thoughts in the forest. The forest that we speak of is the internet, where like the primordial forest we live like beasts, free to pursue our passions in whatever bestial manner we choose to.

    In this primordial forest, we see our filth- those ideas of ours that stem from our passions. Without the fear of God, we are left alone in the forest with these passions and like the excrement that those abandoned babies absorbed nitrous salts from, we absorb the same deranged ideas.

    The idea that it is their own excrement that the babies absorb until they grow until they have become giants, can be understood only through analogy.

    Without Jove, we left alone in the forest absorb our own excrement- social media algorithms which show you only more of that which you look at in a never ending cycle where your darkest appetites are constantly reinforced in a feedback loop- until eventually you become one of the giants like Nimrod (a giant) who in the 1856th year of the world – 200 years after the universal flood in the year 1656 of the world built a tower towards Jove which brought about the confusion of languages.

  • Man’s First Word

    Man’s First Word

    I present here a recollection of a section of a conversation. The flow of thought- I attempt to preserve, but of its accuracy no guarantee is provided. The general ideas discussed remain true.

    This is a heavily condensed version of the conversation that took place, in doing this the transition from one topic to the next is obscured. I have included here only that which I found most interesting.

    As discussion proceeded we happened upon the question of freedom. Why is freedom so valued I wondered, what do people who want freedom really want?, I asked. They cannot wish for anarchy, that would be absurd, because without government there cannot be freedom-

    I could not cultivate my fields if they are constantly a battlefield, no that cannot be it. They must speak of freedom as concerning particulars. Someone who says they wish for freedom must answer what it is they want freedom from – perhaps from a tyrant. That is the freedom they speak of.

    But that is not what anyone says, people want ‘freedom’, not a particular instance of it. This is likely a product of modernity. The christian inversion must hold credit. God became man, this displacement created secular society as it is, the drive towards freedom is a consequence of this. God is no longer distant, if god himself is man, then we are the ones who can choose.

    There is something to that. Nietzsche speaks of it, freedom is a consequence of the slave morality. This provides us the capacity to hold the nobles accountable.

    That seems correct, the heroic kingdoms lacked private law. A personal wrong was not criminal, Aristotle speaks of theft in heroic kingdoms as absent any moral wrong. Its why duels where commonplace. The notion of freedom is certainly a recent one.

    Here I paused and wondered of the origins of the notion of freedom, we discussed briefly the pragmatist conception of freedom. “It really is all language, isn’t it? Conversation all the way down”, I commented at the close of this discussion.

    I asked then of the modern use of freedom, when did we shift from speaking of liberty to speaking of freedom?

    Liberty comes from French.

    Does that come from Liber? As in book?

    Perhaps, the latin may hold some clue. I suspect though that even this takes root in the greek luc, as in lysis, to loosen.

    Interesting, what of freedom? What is free?

    Well German has Frei which I suspect comes from the goddess freya.

    That’s fascinating isn’t it? That concepts stem from the Gods.

    Definitely is.

    The most basic thoughts must hold root in mythos, and mythos must hold answers to our most fundamental truths. Vico speaks of Jove being the first word, Jove. We started with fear. Then isn’t it funny that Freya is what we are after, and not Odin? But why Odin? Why is Odin the most powerful? He could not have been the first, Thor is Jove, isn’t he?

    Not Thor, Tiu, as in Tuesday. The God of the sky, like Zeus and Jupiter. Ju pater… as in Sky Father. They all come from the same sound – zu, ju, tu…

    That can’t be right, lightning is prior to the sky. Lightning was the first word.

    I don’t think so. The first word must have had a reference, lightning was an occurrence, but I suspect it was dusk or dawn, that is what we would have noticed.

    But lightning struck fear, it held an emotional weight that dusk or dawn do not.

    I don’t think so, lightning was noticed yes, but I find it unlikely that it was prior to dawn and dusk. Sure lightning might have elicited more of a response though.

    So lightning is the first thought?

    I wouldn’t say that, but there is definitely something there.

    What separates us from animals? Animals have calls, that’s distinct from our language. Isn’t it interesting that none of our words are simply screams? Because screams already mean something. Words are different.

    That makes so much sense. Thunder. The first word was thunder, not lightning. The sky spoke to us, it screamed at us. It is why we tremble. The lightning accompanies thunder. Once you notice Thunder, it is impossible not to realize lightning, and that it is of the sky. The first word was still Jove, lightning. But Jove does not need to be the most powerful, Jove brought language, but once we had language, we are able to move beyond it.

    bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonner-ronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthur — nuk!

  • Parts, Wholes, and A Thing Greater Than Any That Can Be Conceived

    Parts, Wholes, and A Thing Greater Than Any That Can Be Conceived

    There has crept into my mind a certain skepticism that now takes up the greater part of my thought. I am not unsure that this is a worry I am merely restating and which has been brought up on numerous occasions in many discussions, but given its effect on me, I will share it nevertheless.

    There are parts which make wholes. But it appears to me now that this may not be the case. I will waste little time in explaining my worry, for I think it straightforward.

    If it is the case that it is the parts that make wholes, then statements of the form ‘1+4=5’ must be of the nature that nothing can be learned from them, but it is the case that knowing that ‘1+4=5’ is more than knowing ‘1’ or ‘4’ alone, so it must be the case that something new is added when a ‘truth’ of this kind is learned, it must of course be learned.

    The ‘union’ of particulars then is greater than the particulars themselves, and though it is the particulars that comprise the object, their synthesis results in something greater than their mere union, its is not the case that the summation of ‘1’ and ‘4’ results in simply x = {1,4}, but it is instead something else than contained in x, which seems to go against all intuition.

    So far, I have said little that is of surprise. It is here that I am conflicted, a natural question arises of the limits of this notion of wholes being greater than their parts, and I must inquire as to how far it applies.

    In an attempt to explore what this comprises, I thought it ‘wise’ to approach it negatively, to explore where the notion is not contained. A natural place to start would be one where a statement is made that contains its own self, an analytic judgement. Of course this is entirely unhelpful (even if we were to ignore the problems with the category of judgments on a whole) since analytic judgments do not contain parts and wholes, since they are by their own definition contained in themselves, applying this line of thinking could not yield anything of benefit.

    Since I can conceive of no manner of judgement (thought) wherein it is meaningful to say then that the whole is equal to its parts, I am forced to conclude at this time that this universally applies.

    What occurs now to me is the Cartesian assertion of the third meditation, where it is claimed that an effect must have at least as much formal reality as does the cause, but this cannot hold, since if parts make wholes, and it is the case that the wholes are the effects of their parts, then it is necessarily always the case that every effect is greater than its cause.

    And yet, ironically enough, though I have directed this towards the third meditation, it in effect provides a similar assertion, insofar as it is the conclusion of the extension of this line of thinking is concerned. If it is the case that everything may be conceived of as a part of something, for it cannot be the case that any object we know of can be but a part of something greater, then it must be the case that there is a whole containing every object that is a part of its, and the unity of every part is a synthesis which must be greater than everything conceivable, for it cannot be conceived, we are returned in this inversion to our original assertion.

    HEHE

  • Culture, Schizophrenia, and Madness

    Culture, Schizophrenia, and Madness

    There exists a schism in culture as it is, resulting in its incapability for remaining an object of value.

    There is a notion, the origin of which I will not at this time spend words locating, this notion concerns a certain valuation ascribed to culture, that it is to be preserved. This though is in itself a contradiction, for what culture requires is its own destruction – parallel to the Nietzschian observation on which it is the values that devaluate themselves.

    If a culture holds in regard such ideas as ‘good’ and ‘respect’, then it inevitably falls into contradiction with the history that defines it as culture. That culture is historic is of little debate, that history is characterized by immorality, prejudice against all manner of people is clearer still.

    To preserve culture then is to preserve this history of madness. It itself though is what rejects this, culture then is a dialectic. The only way out of this is an inversion of exactly that which it is, a reconciliation of the schism created through its negation of its own self.

    The manner of surpassing this schizophrenia is its realization. This inversion that occurs as product of the realization though has not yet occurred, for it cannot happen with the individual, but only through the entirety of the culture. A movement that does not rise from within or even without but in which the whole realizes itself.

    So long as this realization remains merely ideal, the schism manifests itself as madness, a hysteria of the masses, the only parallel that comes to mind is that of an ant death circle, when the ant loses its pheromone trail it begins to follow itself resulting in a cycle where its own self is chased until all in the circle kill themselves. This circle is not the product of any single ant, and a single ant who escapes the circle will result neither in the salvation of all others, nor of its own self- in isolation, the ant brings its own death.

    We have forced ourselves into such a circle, existing in a schizophrenia of culture and of progress, both seemingly invoking the other and simultaneously negating it.

    It manifests itself also on the level of the totality that is each particular which partakes in the whole, presenting itself as a dilemma in every social interaction. An impossible choice between doing what one would do in isolation and what society asks of one, neither of these offering any salvation. The realization on the individual level though cannot be cathartic except through a destruction of the self, the individual is forced into madness. All attempts at escape result only in reinforcing this cycle, a constant alienation.

  • Encountering (the) I

    Encountering (the) I

    The encounter with reality begets the I, the I exists only as the synthesis of that which is not I. Freud describes the first tragedy as the clash of the pleasure principle with the reality principle, the conception of the self is from tragedy. The accuracy of the wider Freudian framework is irrelevant to the subject of discussion. What is relevant here is only that there is no meaningful conception of the I without it being understood as the negation of that which it is not, and what it is not is what precedes it and what succeeds it, this is the nature of the self that is subject.

    This I, the self, the first subject is inevitably annihilated as consequence of the apperception of its own truth. It is in this assimilation of what the self is with what it thinks itself to be that is both the end of the I and the beginning of a greater self. The self which has encountered itself no longer is capable of being the self that did the encountering but is a new self, the encountered self, evolution.

    I return again to Freudian language, for its convenience here. — I hold that any sufficiently developed metapsychological framework will express the same as its ‘essence’. The source of morality, of anxiety, grief, and all else that polices the ego, is the superego, the superego exists only as the mirror of the id, and it is this tension between the superego and the id that presents itself as the conscious self, the ego, I. The tension is irresolvable, but the I attempts reconciliation with the superego, the self attempts a movement towards its ideal. This attempt to be what it is not and can never be results in a second tragedy. It cannot be doubted that such an impossible task will result in disappointment, when it fails to realize, which it always will, it collapses into itself, pushed down further by the superego, by reality. All such attempts are fruitless, what follows is the Nietzschian catastrophe.

    There exists a singular escape, release. There is only one way to achieve catharsis, ending the self, this arrogant, deluded phenomenon must be put to an end, not through a harmony of its parts, for such harmony as we have already discussed is impossible, but through unity within itself. The encountered self is both the end of the former I and the opportunity for an evolved I, one that is not a unity of its parts, but is instead the unity itself from which the parts emerged, the whole.

    To be free can only be meaningfully understood as no longer seeking liberation, no person who is free would seek freedom, for this search then would become itself the restricting structure. To achieve freedom then, one must give up their search for it.

    Prerequisites to moral high ground is the collapse of the notion of a moral high ground, so long as one holds an awareness (a deluded one at that) of their superiority, one cannot be so. To let go of this seeking is impossible through a will for it, it is achieved only through the movement of the I along the stages following which it births itself anew as the freed self, the stages it must go through revolve around the encounter with itself. The ultimate act then is not a willed act, but a realized act, realized through tragedy.

  • On Authenticity

    It is turning out to be that what I speak most of concerns ethics, I am perhaps then deceiving myself in believing that this is not my primary interest… Does that make me inauthentic, and consequently my actions immoral?

    A question that plagues my waking hours at this time is that of authenticity. Within the Aristotelian framework for virtue, to be virtuous is to have your reason disposed towards the kalon (fine), and for your passions to be in harmony with this disposition.

    Further, within this framework, it is the case that to ‘become’ virtuous requires a sort of ‘fake it till you make it’ attitude. That to become virtuous one begins by emulating virtue, analogous to pursuing a craft- in this regard virtue is a craft (tekne).

    But what if reason tells you that to deceive yourself is vice? I cannot but be confident of an awareness of that which is the moral action to take, and this appears to be an orientation towards the kalon; and yet reason asks of me that I do otherwise.

    I am left in a predicament- that either I do that which is kalon, pretending that I do it for the sake of the kalon, and yet with full knowledge that I would prefer to do otherwise; OR, that I act viciously, but do something beneficial.

    Deception cannot be virtuous for it admits of an inadequacy of my own self, and yet to ‘without’ being deceptive to act in a manner that ‘feels’ appropriate is to indulge in what I am confident is vicious.

    How does one reach a reconciliation in a scenario such? It is the reason of the psuche that itself appears to be at odds with itself.

    To act virtuously is in such a regard seemingly impossible. Is it virtuous to be yourself or is it virtuous to pretend to be something you are not?

    Perhaps it is the case that what I feel is correct is to give in to my ‘appetites’, on the contrary, since I cannot decide for certain what is correct and only through reference to that external to me which I take to be instances of virtue that I seem to define what is to be classified as virtue.

    And yet how am I capable of possessing a disposition to the kalon if it happens to be that I can do this only through a priori knowledge of its?

    This reasoning appears circular, it implies that to be virtuous, I must first know virtue. But had I known virtue, why would I need to ‘become’ virtuous? And if virtue is foreign to me, how do I acquire it?

  • On Living

    I had not intended earlier to be writing this, but I have moments prior experienced what is perhaps simultaneously the most frightful and most comforting epiphany.

    As I lay in bed, it occurred to me that perhaps I may not wake up. I realized then that this was not restricted to only the moments prior to slumber, but that it extended to every waking moment.

    If it is the case that each moment be my last, against which I have no rational justification, then it stands to reason that I live this as the only one I have.

    And if I were only to live in this singular moment, then I could not afford to waste it. I understand now perhaps what Nietzsche meant when he said, “My formula for greatness in a human being is amor fati: that one wants nothing to be different, not forward, not backward, not in all eternity. Not merely bear what is necessary, still less conceal it—but love it.”

    I have understood this always as concerning the life that I have lived, but this cannot be sufficient- baked into such an understanding is the indefensible presumption concerning temporal matters, whose basis remains unfounded. Prior’s notion of the present comes to mind here- that the only ‘real’ is the ‘present’.

    If this is the case, then to justify life in terms of either what ‘has been’ done or alternatively in terms of what ‘will be done’ is wholly insufficient. The only way to be capable of living ‘meaningfully’ is to live in the present, and to in THIS moment live as if it is the totality of your existence, for you are ONLY what you are right now. To even conceive of how you will do better tomorrow is incoherent, and to assume that what you have done will redeem you of a ‘mistake’ you make in this moment is equally incoherent.

  • Vice- A Short Thought

    There is much to say concerning this, but for now – I limit myself. In a part of the Nichomachean ethics Aristotle describes a kind of person, in secondary literature labelled the ‘Principled Vicious Person’. What characterizes this person is that his soul is in harmony but not aligned towards the ‘fine’.

    That is to say that he asserts a person who acts viciously, but feels no regret, that his vicious act to him is a noble act, and consequently he is beyond redemption.

    It seemed at first to me impossible that such a person exist, but on further contemplation, I think this kind of person more likely than one who is in conflict with themselves. For is it not more likely that people are simply ignorant of the vicious acts they commit than that they choose consciously to be vicious?

    But how can this be the case?

    Further, is the one who behaves viciously out of the lack of an alternative not more vicious than the one who behaves viciously knowing that they do so?