Fairy Tale Creatures

By: Jonathan Seidel

Basile vs Perrault: fairy tales in renaissance Italy and post-reformation France: naturalism and mysticism. 

There clear difference between Basile and Perrault is not their style but their influences. Both tell similar stories but Perrault resorts to mythical creatures while Basile sticks with natural suggestions. Given, the Italian fictional history, Basile’s Renaissance inspiration altered his presentation of stories to a scientific column than supernal oddities. 

There is a question whether the original story was embellished with mythical creatures to bring more animation to life. To mythologise the stories to fiction. There is a positive element and a quasi-negative one. The mythical assessment fictionalises the story. Dwarfs and unicorns do not exist. Importing fairies into the plot line is a conductor for the story than an actual precedent. The use of witches in Macbeth retroactively play more a thematic purpose than a realistic precedent. Educating the blasphemous nature of fate. An unsolvable quest. Yet folklore at the same time does feel the same way. Mermaids were probably manatees. Seemingly beautiful women in the starved near death sailors compromised intellect. Though the modern novelist may use the characters of Middle Earth to procure motifs does not negate the acceptance amongst ancient cultures. Fiction is known to be fiction but fables do not always hold these fictional beliefs to be genuine. 

Ancient Mesopotamia wrote about dragons and werewolves. Greece introduced cyclops, griffins and sirens. It is possible they were using absurd pictorials to convey a theme or they were presenting a false perception of what they believed they saw. Herodotus mentioned a tribe who transformed into wolves which given the harsh climate and fur for warmth, it is not impossible. It is also possible that many of these creatures are based on fossilised dinosaur bones or hypnotised by real creatures. Whether that be whales or elephants. Myths were originally orally transmitted. Just like a game of telephone, if heard incorrectly deviation is likely. Especially if the story is told by a sage publicly. The sage may incidentally tweak the story adding new supernal elements. Once it was codified by Hesiod and Homer, these myths became the constitution of accurate history. Even sirens passed on to become mermaids. The evidence of original inspiration is neigh. It may have been dinosaurs or dramatic flare. Fear of the unknown embellished tales of organisms with treacherous consequences. Then again europeans thought giraffes were fake until imperialism drowned that myth out. 

Human imagination works on both sides of the aisle. Whether it be a ruse after a long journey for a juicy story or over exaggerations of historical landmarks. The human mind seeks to explain everything. Prior to the empirical assessments in society, the intellect was used. In a supernal syllogistic way. The presocratics saw the world and naturalised it. Using their intellects to rationalise. To reduce the possibility of celestial charm. Traditionalists did the opposite. They clung to their exaggerations. Adding mythical elements to explain the difficult phenomena. If imagination is the cause it also harbours a distinct attempt to translate the science of the world. Even if people thoroughly believed in the origin stories. Believed Zeus and Hercules to be historical figures does not take away from the explanation. It may be unscientific from an empiricist point of view but it is not impossible. It is unfalsifiable and attests to a cultural concern than a historical format. The mythological prose captures the concerns and curiosities of the ancients in one fell swoop. Translating the unfathomable into comprehensible with fantastical elements and illustrative beauty. 

Thales and his crew out in Ionia began to reshape the vision of mythology. Without erasing the mythic prowess, they transitioned the wisdom to natural conclusions. Using empirical elements to denote a new perspective on reality. While estranged from the modern mechanistic view, the hellenised view worked organismically. Pondering with the intellect over the religious notations. Using their brains for seeking instead of simply listening. Engaging in mathematics to decipher the secrets of the universe. The mythical was sidelined for “secular” thinking. Christianity aided in removing the mythical promises of Greece. With Roman culture spread throughout Gaul, christianity spread to England. Converting many pagans to their beliefs. Removing much of the mythical hold for theological recommendations. Yet these pagan factors never subsided. Halloween and Christmas combined Christian and pagan ideas into a unified religiosity. Enabling more natives to adopt Jesus into their heart by also holding onto their heritage. With the rise of medieval mysticism at the turn of the millennium much of these folklore creatures resurfaced. The demonic became more realised in literature. Long ignored pagan myths were rising to the surface. Like zombies they infected the public. Reinvigorating a spark in their belief. Mysticism bred these revamped relics even through the enlightenment.

Scary monsters just couldn’t be put to bed. No matter how much science and rationality progressed, folklore remained strong. Legacy was through and through. Till today these ideas are still on loop. Yet it is media that has passed these ideas to the public eye. Vampires only became prominent in the eighteenth century and its current popularity is due to cinema. Literature and film brought ancient creatures to the forefront. Supernatural regurgitated ancient demonic creations. Movies about Dracula and Twilight further the dominance of vampires in popular culture. Lord of the Rings made elves and dwarfs canonical in a foreign land. Even science fiction has presupposed futuristic possibilities whether that be aliens or robots. Rolling the tape of constant mythical cinema that includes mermaids or unicorns traces from horror, teen drama, to children’s television. World War Z was horror, The Vampire Diaries was a teen drama, and Hotel Transylvania was a children’s movie. Circulating these ideas around children is only perpetuating the myth. Unlike Santa and Tooth Fairies, these are more popular amongst adults. From the Grimm Brothers to other fable collections popularity has only multiplied in the pursuit of profit. Much of the imaginative fancy has cradled the public. The same recycled for the eagerly bloodthirsty public. 

Mystical growth in Europe was idolised in the west and remained there. The renaissance opted for a different layout. The humanistic elements sought for natural focus over the mythical arts. The empirical assessments left the intellectual mind. At least in the mind the fables could still be believed. The rational mind was deciding the course of metaphysics. If the supernal was a highly debated theme so too was the mythical folklore. Mysticism entered the fray and remained a part of celestial conduct. Yet the humanistic conquest differed. Renaissance thought wasn’t entirely empirical. It was more in the later half that led to the British empiricists of Bacon and Hume as opposed to Descartes upholding age old rationalism with a nuance away from scholasticism. His work was aligned with the reformation. Further synching rational thought with traditional religiosity. Cultivating mystical experiences with a logical flow was an ideal. Yet for the humanists of the Renaissance that precedes him. Da Vinci famously argued for empirical findings over authoritarian legitimacy. A realistic style of writing initiated by Machiavelli and experiential music theory prompted by Galilei (Galileo’s father). Running counter to Aristotelian themes sought to end the mystical persona of ancient celestials.

Humanistic empiricism was a start to the scientific revolution. A new mechanistic outlook laid out by Copernicus and eventually realised by Kepler and Galileo. The mechanistic outlook sought modelling and experimentation. Divvying reality into parts and parceling the world in sections to be classified. The mechanistic outlooks stemmed from the revolutionary shift. Empiricism overrode previously held claims. Hume as a part of the group store for an anti-metaphysical stance. Only further leading to pragmatism and the onto-theological critique of Heidegger. Science took a big step in analytical philosophy in the renewed humanism in anglophone countries. Mathematics and linguistics were applied to philosophy. With the latter defending the empiricists from the German idealists. The scientific approach had its ups and downs through the last half millennium but it all dates back to the renaissance. Perceiving the world through experimentation over syllogistic conclusions provided more concrete dedication. The renaissance looked to a new version of thinking. While it was pushed back upon in the subsequent years, it opened the door for a new scientific revolution. The anthropocentric character of conjuring realistic phenomena to produce inventions was a sacrilege but also a semblance of human capability. No longer was man under the whim of divine order but human interventionism.

While the Renaissance did away with much of the mythical arts in favour of a naturist approach, the same cannot be said of western Europe. The presence of mythical fables and mystical education only furthered folklore into the spotlight. Beyond greek mythos was Platonic myths. Plato’s philosophy became more necessary following the Renaissance. Aristotle was more liked by scholastics but even his influence could not erase folk tales. Nor did he wish to. He saw them to be false but useful for philosophical speculation. Thus the case of Maimonidean demythologisation is a clear Aristotelian theme. Yet Maimonides was berated for such an approach. Aristotle was more heavily beloved under Islam than Christianity. Christianity found more mystical relation stronger. While Aquinas meshed Aristotle with Christianity, it did not bear the influence nor reflect the commoner’s perception. Yet Plato’s mythos did affect the societal fabric of reformation Europe. The continued adoption of Islamic metaphysics with the Cambridge Platonists who engaged in christian Kabbalah. Many of whom were reformers. The reformers were rationalists like the ancients. Following the Renaissance’s reverting to the ancients for advice. Yet instead of using it as a bedrock they used it to further their cause. Descartes and Berkeley both produced rational philosophies synthesised with their religiosity. 

Metaphysics remained apparent into German idealism. The rational effort, the mind as the source was at times advanced for the average folk. The commoner maintained his mystical relation and the mythical notions that attached to it. The reformation did not cease the myths but instead touted a nuanced outlook with myths united. Informing on their platonism as a correlation to the mystical sides. Whether this included mythical creatures may be nought. Yet it not shocking that Descartes and Berkeley both produced novel rational philosophies predicated on existence. To a point that questioning their own being was on the menu. They took the opposite approach of the empiricists who strove into the jungle to deduce otherness. How many lions are there, what type of minerals complement one another which material is stronger. The reformation sought inward salvation at the expense of the dogmatic church. The empiricists rejected it all and put their mind in the field. Mechanisation over intellectualism. A way of overturning the old pervasive nonsense for articulated conclusions. The early rationalists toward the idealists were not huge fans of mysticism. Meeting their empiricist friends half way. Spinoza and Hobbes led to Kant’s synthesis. Rational thought included mystical elements from Descartes Leibniz and most notably Kabbalah in Spinoza but Kant wished to rid it. 

Along with other enlightenment thinkers mythology took a back seat but not for long. The aggressive erasure of metaphysical elements from Protestantism by Locke was one such case. Hume quickly followed suit and Kant brought it to fruition. Yet following Kant was a reactionary movement. The romantics overwhelming Hegel sought a novel style replenishing the mystical. The re-emergence of platonic thought and artistic expression. Spiritual freedom and individual creativity. Literature advanced mystical themes in the writings of Poe and Hawthorne. Themes of this sort prompted the Grimm Brothers to publish their collection of folk tales. In line with the darker gothic elements of its era. The brutality removed in the Disney versions are contextually relevant. Jacob Grimm even wrote an academic work on German mythology. All literature was open and available to be enjoyed. The overjoyed relation to meddle in art and mystical features sentenced an attachment to folklore. Despite its oddity and fictional plot lines, they were metaphorically useful. Fairy tales were necessarily credible in their existential input. It is thus no shock that romanticism led to existentialism. As much as the metaphysical portraits had begun to lose their edge, the mystical style referred to the self. Continental philosophy derided rationalism for experience. Though internal experience rather than empirical experiences. Kierkegaard and Nietzsche found the ancients to be wise with much to say against the Neo-Kantian rationalist industrialisation. 

The romantic style was the grandson of the reformation. Luther’s metaphysics were anew. He planned to bring the bible to the people. A real populist in his own right. Literacy followed the biblical word. People would be the heart of the hermeneutical bind. Similar to romanticism, the people found the meditative onslaught as a redemption to their faith. They were the creators, they were the feelers. Textualising God only furthered a pull from the impoverished to be more connected to God. No longer through a priest but through their own engagement. An idea so relevant to democratisation. Combining his theology with platonism inserted mythical power into the everyday man’s guide to life. Alongside Luther with Spinoza in his pantheistic hopes for secularisation brought forward a new order of thought. One that met the political with the spiritual. While some thinkers were over with God, others personified him with biblical references. France entrenched in mystical lore that prevailed in the high Middle Ages antagonised the church but bought the public hope. Rhenish pietists infiltrated French thinking that reinvigorated with the reformation. The church could not quell the mystical input. France though a catholic centre with close ties with the pope, had strong traces of mystical aspects. Esoteric nature clouded the periphery of protestantism.

All this historical context leads us to Basile and Perrault. Perrault was a French catholic and modernist. The impression of mystical elements may have also adorned the additions of mythical features. While he was a staunch aristocrat with monarchial assurances, his folktales could not escape a seemingly transcendental element. France was not fond of fairy tales so despite the mystical influence it didn’t matter much. Yet to more protestant heavy countries it may have had a stronger pull. To some extent his use of magical elements was a way of patronising the poor. These folktales you know so well are as dubious as the poverty to which you reside. Though at the same time the magical elements spoke to children. They were indeed assets the imaginative children would enjoy. It may not have reflected the reformation at all nor any mystical effort. Simply a way to get his stories to his children. Yet Romanticism jumped at his stories added a grim gothic nature for intellectuals. Folktales were for everyone not just children. Germany in its refuelled mystical arts brought the tales to the forefront to be discussed and compiled. To be rewritten with a new angle. One dually appropriate for adult audiences. 

Basile was a post-renaissance man. The fairy tales he collected were demythologised. Given that Perrault added the magical items, need not take away from Basile adding aspects. Though Perrault was inspired by Basile, so using his stuff he added magical elements that Basile had either removed or never existed. Given the tendency for folktales to have some magical aspects, it is plausible, that Basile did take them out. He even leaves in a fairy for Cinderella but doesn't with the godmother nor the pumpkin carriage. In Sleeping Beauty, he uses astrology instead of a wicked fairy. In Rapunzel, there is magic among other stories with the gore that is famous amongst the Grimm Brothers. To some degree he is different as the predecessor but he also wrote in a romantic era. The humanist demythologising did not cease the storytelling effort purported by his novella. He was a post-renaissance man but he was not an empiricist. Despite living in Italy, he still held to the useful folklore of old. The renaissance imbued storytelling and he brushed it to the brim. Similar to the Grimm Brothers later, he found violence and magic to be perfect conductors to an adult audience yet quite strongly that Perrault attempted to mete out for his children’s circus. Yet Basile does use scientific means of explaining the stories of Sleeping Beauty and Snow White. For the former her son sucks the spindle’s poison out awakening her and for the latter while riding on the horse the poisoned apples is dislodged from her throat awakening her. There his a combination of magic and science or alchemy.  

Basile did not do away with magic but he turned down the volume heavily. Alchemy was still a desired form of proto-chemistry in Italy. The great pioneers of modern science were involved in alchemy and astronomy namely Galileo and Newton. It was thus not unassailable to have magic in stories especially in folktales. While the British empiricists downplayed the mythical aspects that was a couple centuries later. Mystical ideas rang through Renaissance Italy. Neoplatonic arts were relevant to the occults that pervaded during the time. Yet there is a switch. The scientific phenomenon did alter the presentation of fairy tales. There are classic wonders and lore but there are also modern mechanisms. He uses automatons and a telescope. Rather than using magical objects he resorts to scientific inventions. Natural magic as an alchemic branch cousin in fairy tales. Basile did not fully give up on magic. Like Aristotle, he saw fiction as a metaphorical lesson. The marvel was for education. In a Maimonidean scheme he demythologised but held onto the edenic story as educational. Basile’s wonders ponder and grow. Fictional but relatable. Mending the bounds between the old world and the new one. Not on Bacon and Galileo’s side but ultimately synthesising the two.

Disney though changed the romance for its childish audience more than Perrault ever did. Removing all the gore they added some charming magical elements for childish persuasion. The prince’s kiss that awakens the princess is a new creation. For Sleeping Beauty nor for Snow White does this occur. For both it’s a natural occurrence. Perrault used this theme for Mother Goose Tales to awaken a princess from a century year slumber and then Grimm Brother’s used for Sleeping Beauty. Now it is used all over. For The Frog Prince and The Little Mermaid and Shrek. The true love’s kiss was added. Quite a frequent theme that was used once in foliates now used all the time. Potentially referring to a Shakespearean line in Richard III it has become the talk of the town. Instead of violence we use love. Undermining the tales of old, childish magic is inserted for positive entertainment. Perrault’s account whether it be supernatural due to the childish mystery or the historical background cannot escape the adolescent interest. The fictional is mind boggling but enjoyable to the imaginative child. Perrault’s words to his children were deeply entertained, despite his contemporaries paying it no heed. The cinematic leap in cartoonish fairy tales. Grimm Brothers along with novel thinkers like Chesterton Dickens and Einstein championed fairy tales for children. Tolkien wrote his own fairy tale drama. The romantic period with the nationalistic efforts brought traditional folklore to the forefront of the nation’s historical legacy. 

Perrault’s account, like Disney can be seen with childish favouritism. Peter Pan a magical land far away is the epitome of this theme. The Grimm Brothers did modify their magical thinking but it was reversed by Disney. Disney found more in common with Perrault. The childish tactics may have had a say in them. Yet the blending of pagan myths into Christian society need not be ignored. Augustine wrote that pagan gods became demons. Fairies were a common supernatural superstition in medieval Europe. Werewolves were exiled individuals who transformed. In the medieval metaphysical thought, magic was possible. Jesus was the prime saviour but that didn’t mean that pagan ideals went away. France had been infested with Germanic lore since the high Middle Ages. Esoteric themes were prevalent in intellectual writings. While not entirely forecasted they did leave their mark. Perrault’s writings are ignored by most as relics. France saw a rise in literary recognition. The era of preciosity for the aristocrats for fame. His lack of altering the older fairy tales disenchanted his audience. Yet it was his way of connecting with is children. To some degree as well as hoping to return to his high position in the court. Speaking to traditional ideas for aristocratic enjoyment only fuelled his own aspirations.

Contrary to the initial trend, it doesn’t seem that the magical elements had anything to do with the reformation. Luther may have held some musical elements but that was a part of the historical chain of pagan inclusivity. Like Disney, Perrault was moved to use extensive magic to appeal to his children. A way of giving the children a model of connection and appreciation. On the other hand, Basile does seem to have been affected by the cultural layout of the renaissance. He added scientific and naturalist elements to his stories. He used magic on a simple level without the hyper-mystical orientations of the past. Yet he was not entirely comfortable with the strong rejectionists of Bacon and Galileo. Their absolutist antagonism was overblown. Instead a metaphorical pattern. One that respected the tale for its education more than its actuality. Using parody to endow wisdom through a hydra or ogres. It wasn’t to confuse people but teach people. Romanticists realised this and rebranded it for that purpose. Fantasy writers do not write to teach actuality but plausibility. To teach lessons through the deepest fictional experience. Liberating the value from the obvious simulation.

A Pair of Duces

By: Jonathan Seidel

The science of binaries and modern fluidity: is emotion corrupting the intellect? (Watts, 26)

Humans tend to see the world in binaries. The world is up/down, left/right north/south, light/dark and on/off. In the modern consciousness spectrum is the standard for fluidity or colour. There may be opposite extremes but there is a lot of room in the middle. Are binaries an archaic uncentered outlet or unemotional honest reflection?

The world is perceived in binaries with some exceptions notably gender and sex.  While people say the world in black and white there is always an argument for the grey in the middle. Whether this is biological or generational it is embedded in human psychology. Something is defined as one or the other. One is either up or they are down. They either turned left or turned right. Despite the appearance of psychological defence, the choice is either or. There is only two choices. When asked if one completed a task yes and no are the only answers. The inclusion of maybe is a cop out to save face. It is lacking memory of the event but when the event is checked it was either done or it wasn’t. Even partial completion is not completion so the answer is no, not sort of. Sort of means no. Even this case where there is room for grey that being a task was partially completed still fits the no category because the task was uncompleted. The grey in between is at times part of the journey, a means to an end. Dusk exists where it isn’t really light or dark, morning or night which is where evening enters. It is a stage of limbo. Yet by design the sun is technically still out so it is day. Moreover even on its own terms it is a stage to night. Dusk is a part of the cycle to pitch blackness. It doesn’t exist in its own right but as a part of the downward process.

The past two examples do display a reverence for greyness in their own right. Partially completing a task has completed a sector of the task so it’s not uncompleted but it also is uncompleted. Though this is simply semantics. The grey is based on the question asked. When one asked was the task completed and one answers yes or partially the task hasn’t been completed. Folding half the laundry and folding all the laundry are two different points. The task was for the all the laundry if it was for half than it was. Terminological use to create greyness is a fool’s errand. It is unpersuasive and solely mental gymnastics. Dusk is a grey area between day and night. Yet its greyness also may result from misdefined characteristics. The appearance of greyness results from aligning certain characteristics with progressing aspects. Evening exists between afternoon and night. It is technically still daytime since the sun is still out. For dusk, since the sun is not out and the light no longer shines, it is the onset of nighttime. Even if there is a rudimentary grey area it is for a second and then moves on. The spectrum idea is the existence in its own right as an end of itself. Dusk isn’t. Dusk and dawn are processes of sunrise and sunset. 

Yet the grey area may also reflect one’s personal perception. Meaning that the binary is instinctive of relative sensation. Turning right or left is relative to the person watching. It depends on which direction one is looking. Turning onto a roadway from the right side is turning left and from the left side is turning right. Though relatively inverted for the observer, the vehicle is stilling turning right or left. Good and evil are classical archetypical elements. Yet what is considered good may change. Killing civilians is bad but killing in war is okay. The grey area that is created by mismatching good v evil attempts to demonstrate that these imperatives aren’t absolute. Accidents happen and extreme measures gravitate to inverted conclusions. Yet this grey area are exceptions not the rule. Meaning that in certain cases situations fall into a middle ground but they are few and far between. The existence of a moment of greyness does not mean that relativity rules the day. It only means that classifications aren’t perfect. So killing in war is good. While that sounds terrible because killing never seems to okay, it is good insofar as it prevails over the enemy. Stealing to survive is considered bad because it is stealing but a legal exception may drop the charge. Just because killing is permitted in war doesn’t make it good, it can still be bad but yet permitted. 

In some regard the greyness is the intersection of misaligned tropes. Good usually goes with permission and bad with prevention but that is not always the case. Still note that these are still binaries just conflated. There may be a third option but that doesn’t derail binaries. The binary is not either or it is what is the best option. Someone may project a binary but that doesn’t mean that reality is a binary. Constructed binaries are different than empirical ones. The choices presented are humanely deduced binaries so there may be more options but one them is either correct or incorrect. These binary of the correct answer on an exam may be none of the above but that is the result of the tester providing a binary picture. To this extant, binaries are wrong. There is more than human restriction would prefer to allow. Something is true or false but the embellished record may add deceptive notes to it. Conspiracy theories are a temporal aspect of greyness. Was 9/11 an inside job? Did the CIA assassinate JFK? It was falsely reported that covid came from a lab. Many pushed back with partial truth claims. This grey area of conspiratorial thinking believed truth but was in the process of unveiling. Whether the public knows or not, it either did nor didn’t come from the lab. Recent revelation seem to suggest in the conspirators favour. 

The world is very complex but many times it is more perplexing that necessary. Using words like better, safer and faster seem to suggest a spectrum. Instead being fast or slow one is faster than someone else. There is the spectrum of being the fastest. While there is no denying the spectrum of speed being faster is binary. The observer sees multiple runners and graphs their time. Yet for the runner he is faster than the guy behind home and slower than the guy in front of him. Compared to those ahead he is slow and they are fast. He can get faster pass them and then he will be fast and them slow. The use of motion to describe one ahead of the other doesn’t discount their own abilities to everyone else. The slowest runner will beat the audience. So he is indeed fast but compared to his peers is slow. Brian Scalabrine responded to the twitter trolls who believed they could beat NBA players with the scallenge. He torched each one of the challengers remarking that he was closer to the LeBron than they were to him. He rarely played in the league and people called him a scrub. On the spectrum of capability he is both bad compared to his counterparts but better than the average Joe. The spectrum itself is relative. It depends who is worse than other professional players but better than twitter trolls. To make the NBA he must be good but against fellow competition he was bad. This is not anachronistic both can be true at the same time without resulting some grey area. There is no grey area, it depends on the variables at hand.   

Relativity does not mean break binaries. The binaries are still adequate it simply depends on the statement at hand. Is NY a safe city? Well it depends what do you mean by safe? Overall based on statistics one could argue yes or no. Then again what is considered unsafe? How much crime reaches that standard? There is a certain complexity. Yet if you ask people they will tell you whether they feel that the city is safe or not. Certain areas are less safe than others. NY is less safe than the suburban areas surrounding it. Does it mean it’s an unsafe place to live? No. Yet in relation to the surrounding suburbs it is less safe. It isn’t safe comparatively. Using words like more or less better or worse to cheapen the blow. Florida is hotter than NY. NY can get hot but NY is not a hot city. Other measures are taken into account namely frequency and consistency. The observer will gather multiple places and determine the safety of the areas. If NY is at the bottom of the list it is unsafe comparatively. It may be safer than other places, it may consider itself safe but relatively it isn’t. Two variables square off and one is mightier than the other. Nevertheless, a city can be unsafe and still live there. There two aren’t mutually exclusive. A city can be safe with the exception of a few bad eggs. Saying a place is kinda safe isn’t very reassuring it seems more a cop out. Though there is an aspect of social engineering into the statistical or emotional magnitude of safety, it is still categorised into binaries. 

These themselves are human projections. Something is safe by brute of human dedication. Qualifications are more arbitrary than scientific certainty. Travelling diagonally, heading northeast is still either a right turn or a left turn. People themselves are right handed and left handed. While there may be some exceptions and others with some interesting imbalance, most are righties. The anti-lefty brigade does push more right handed environmentalism but there is genetic output to a dominant hand. A comfort with a single hand even if the other hand is used for other skills like sports. Though people need both hands and religion has blackballed left-handedness it does necessitate more than projected monism of the scientific binary. Punnet squares provide various sequences. Blood type provides more than two solutions. A parent with type a and the other with type b can still produce type ab and type o. The fact that both parents possess an o allele allowing a twenty five percent chance that a child will be o as well as a quarter for every other blood type. If there are three children, each one could have a different blood type. In this situation the blood type is either of the four. It is not binary that hair will be black or that eyes will be green. Genetics may fumble and provide red hair and blue eyes. Thus the spectrum may be for biological conditioning. Physics may have its binary positioning but that doesn’t mean that biologically people are.

If genetics can be construed in a multitude of ways then the binary falls. Though binary may simply mean entrenched categories. Even if there are multiple categories namely blue brown hazel or green, it doesn’t mean that it is therefore non-binary. Binary doesn’t necessarily mean the spatial symmetry between two possibilities but the established foundation of scientific reflection. Attributes to humanity differ in scope. There are various magnitudes which point to a spectrum approach. The world at large may be binary but that is not the same for the individual themselves. The complexity of DNA and execution aids this cause. Yet to some extent it still falls. It is all relative. It is still either or. Whether one has this colour or that colour. Whether one is compassionate or not. Cheerful or not. Could they be projected on a spectrum with others to demonstrate their elevated quality, certainly. Yet this is itself a marker of construction. Who is more compassionate is decided by selected variables. Yet in the same breath from the compassionate person’s perspective they are while others are not. It is a rather clear motivation. It isn’t about demonisation but realistically recognising the clear rationale for proper attributes. Though emotions may have more a spectrum since they are fluid in their own right. One who is not happy is necessarily unhappy. Neutrality does exist insofar as unhappy means sad. Though unhappy more as being not happy is a binary. It all depends on the definition. There is a binary matter. There is a spectrum to levels of happiness but the individuals execution is in line with the sentence or not. Are they happy or are they, it is a simple yes or no question. Cheerfully smiling whispering maybe is an obvious ploy at truly being happy but undercutting it with mystery and humility. 

Someone whose skin colour is half-white and half-black will synthesise at times but also many times look more like the white or black parent. They may call themselves half-black and half-white but don’t look it. If someone didn’t look like their parent, they would deny such a statement. Genetics doesn’t always synthesise into a mixture of the two. Some children look more like their parents and others do not. Some are tall others short. It measures by the replication and evolution. DNA is complex but it also categorises itself. Just because much of reality is diagnosed into binaries does not mean that everything must fit into it. There are exceptions and there are adaptations. Evolutions and revolutions mark a new dawn in the complexity of the universe. It is through human initiative that this is even possible. Forced to develop and adapt to new environments. The freedom to act is itself the intellectual monstrosity to decide the universe’s fate. The classical religious projection of binaries displays their categories whether it be god or no god, truth or false. Yet these binaries apply everywhere. Against Galileo they asserted they were true and he was false but in reality it was inverted. The logos defeated the ethos. Even if Galileo’s approach has been mistaken to some extent that would just falsify it and a new alternative will argued in its place.

The ability to seek beyond the binary is the freedom to do so. Once the world is constructed almost anything can be argued. Though at the base level binaries help categorise. Something is good or evil, east or west up or down. All these fit into whether something is true all false. Even the non-binary fits into the binary itself. The category it is placed in may be more fluid on a spectrum just like speedsters but then again the non-binary nature attempts to establish an entrenched model not a directional process. Non binary fits into the binary of binary and non-binary. Though this creates an explosion of seemingly miscalculated aspects. How masculine or feminine is a binary to determine behavioural types most associated with a certain group. There may be exceptions but clear majority takes shape. Binaries can be made more complicated by adding more words like evening or dusk. Definitionally, if the sun is up it is daytime and if the sun is down it is nighttime. Though the argument of intersex is quite peculiar given that it is a rarity and at times a general defect. A mistake in the evolutionary process. Yet beyond this suitable misunderstanding exceptions exist. The capability to resist the classical uses does not undermine the binary motif. Terminological gymnastics are frequently used to decide whatever people desire. Homosexuality and transgenderism both accept the binary, wishing to be partake in the binary of their choice. Freedom to choose instead of fated to endure. 

Thus the empirical binary is namely that which is inherited by the majority of the group. The famous lioness lion has a hormonal surplus that gives her a mane, looking like a lion though entirely female similar to bearded ladies. It is evolutionary but it is also rare and an exception rather than the rule. Other animals are non-binary in the strictest sense of the word though my ignorance precedes me. Clownfish can change their sex but it is in dire circumstances and cannot be reversed. The XY chromosomal element is adherent to the mammalian creature. For humans to look to reptiles for fluid inspiration it seemingly a long shot. Though to my knowledge, the transgender critique seeks to alter one’s biological chemistry to be the other so accepts the binary. If anything it seems that gender fluidity undermines transgenderism. The gender issue further becomes difficult when exceptions are used to garner a rule. Hey there is an animal that this, it exists therefore it must be normal. Just because something is a reality does not make it truthful in the same regard as it exists. It is not about demonising but accepting that exceptions due to prevailing circumstances are not the same as emotionally choosing to act differently on the basis of this foreign species. 

Reality’s complexity does not deny the faults of cultural histories nor the constructed efforts generationally. Yet in many respects the call to demonstrate more diversity is through emotion. Freedom enables exceptional undertakings. The debate over the LGBTQ community is less about binaries and more about accepting those destined binaries. If one is born a christian shall they remain christian or born an American. Can a girl change her hair colour or a small boy take hormones to grow taller. It is altering biochemistry but it isn’t derailing the binary. It is simply seeking a new outfit. Deciding one’s own destiny. Given the car and repainting it. Adding some new accessories with joy and glamour. The binary isn’t the problem it is the way it is phrased and many time dogmatised to oppress others.     

Paradigm Shift

By: Jonathan Seidel

Gender and function: classified by action (Foucault, order, 144, 152)

Animals are grouped into various classifications. Which part of the animal kingdom, phylum or species they belong to. In recent centuries more scientific research has divulged deeper layers of connection as well as genealogy. Classifications did exist in the ancient world but it was more function than appearance. Such classification was not necessarily out of scientific ineptitude but scientific attitude. 

Ancient civilisations lacked the technological advancements of today. They didn’t have cars or computers. With our advanced transportation and microscopic capabilities we have unearthed more knowledge that previously known. Yet there are also inventions that we still are ignorant to. Greek fire, Roman concrete, and Damascus steel. These inventions were close to the heart of the maker so with the fall of the empire so died its secrets. Secrecy was of utmost necessity. Deriding the taboo of ancient stupidity though does not claim genius. Nor comparable to the modern day. Even some of these lost treasures were archaic to the technology of today. For greek fire whether a flamethrower or napalm we’ve reached it. Nepenthe was an ancient painkiller, yet today we have opium and hemp. Finding these clues today are interesting historical facts but aren’t necessary for implementation with the exception of Roman concrete. Almost all others can be replicated better. There is a genius but the current technological frame is overpowered.

Modern inventions overwhelm the old. The ancients pale in comparison but conventionally were incredibly innovative. Arguing about a thirty point game twenty years ago versus today is an imbalanced relation. Today’s game is faster more possessions three point shooting and offence heavy. Scoring 30 points out of 120 point win versus 30 points in a 90 point win is a different animal. There is no fair quota because even the percentile fails to cross generational bounds. Some teams focused on team play while others had a single scorer. Accolades are great but when it doesn’t translate to victory what is the purpose. Are players better than their predecessors? Presumably yes. They are more skilled. Could a young Jordan apply the same marks today as he did in the 90s? Yes. Could LeBron do the same? Yes. There would be struggles. Modern players would suffer with the stiffer rules back then whether it be hand checking or dribbling. Older players would suffer from pace and new rules. Stephen Curry is not the first shooter but is the most recognisable in a game that has became a shooter’s game. Jerry West and Rick Barry preceded him. Skill has grown but it doesn’t change the capability of old. 

It all comes down to the rules of the game. Ancients were not privy to modern advances. Microscopes and time to indulge in the molecular aspects. Could Aristotle and Einstein switch places? Yes. Would they thrive? Yes. Would they put up the same equations? Not necessarily but they would find success anyway. Genius is not a product of time but a product of resources. The rules of old saw the world in a vastly different format. Context is heavy but capability synonymous. Modern ignorance to ancient inventions is due to extinction. Experiments are attempted but it is shooting blind. Unlike modern inventions that occur with the evolution of technology, ancient inventions are trying to recreate the old. An academic exercise for a YouTube channel. One is for fun the other for enhancement. Interesting facts or helpful knowledge. The resources privilege the present. The application of scientific fact was at times mistaken. Spontaneous generation for example though some still dispute this. Heliocentrism began with Pythagorus thought fully instated by Aristarchus of Samos. Late antiquity India and medieval Islam gradually developed heliocentric perspectives. This was all theory since no one had been to space. Even Ptolemy’s qualms with the theory were scientific. Using the tools he had he hypothesised incorrectly but syllogistically sound. 

The modern age with the enlightenment expanded scientific inquiry into modes of holistic expansion. Using Newton’s outlook of a complex machine there are many different parts. Each cog can be deduced in its own right. Many of the academic movements in sociology and philology sought to determine the objective past in all its parts. A more mechanistic picture that sits alongside Kant’s divine idea. The world is an assembly of parts to be connected. The body is not a holistic sector but broken into pieces. Each piece to be evaluated on its own terms. Western medicine works in such a mechanistic division. Science has its own expertise as it prevails in decoding the nuances in reality. The westernisation is foiled into mechanistic idealism. It is simply a different way of arriving at the truth of the world. For example, either mathematical formulas or pictures from space will provide the necessary solution that the moon revolves around the earth. Healers may provide different remedies based on their knowledge of the body whether it be a specific part or the interaction with other parts of the body. Snuff or caffeine will startle you awake. It is the practice of experimentation no matter the resources available. 

Ancients are seen as pseudoscientific mystical fantatics. They sung hymns and told stories. Myths are fables. They are not real science. Yet the astrological core of mythology may point to illustrative truths about the world. Fantastical stories veil the truth behind the curtain. Creationism is a type of Big Bang. While literalism has undermined the mythological prose, the narratives convey a deeper truth beyond the fable liturgy. The transition to rational logic from religious mythology was not all too foreign. Presocratic philosophers living in Ionia, Asia Minor received scientific education from their Egyptian neighbours to  he south and Indian neighbours not too far west. Mythology or religion for that matter are symbols to articulate values. Removing the mythical phenomena transformed science into a numbers game. It became more empirical than historical. Outside the confines of the greek deities. Removing the deified characters and awesome movements. Nature became central. Thales was to Hesiod as Maimonides was to Akiva. Demythologising and de-personifying the transcendent into an intellectual account. The mission was the same, the variables different. Existential inquiries were nothing new but mathematically accounting for them. Stripping them of divine flesh was revolutionary. 

More discoveries have been made but the world is the same it has always been. The distance between Ptolemaic science and Newtonian science is wider than the current shifts. Scholastics and Newtonianism is varied. The enlightenment has had a monolithic expansion. A progressivist direction of experimentation. Such singularity was absent to ancient science. A more organismic model of scientific inquiry. Its combination with philosophical thought displayed a speculative approach. One conjured on potentiality than actuality. It was the potentiality in favour of unassailable authority throughout the Middle Ages, that Ptolemy’s model was upheld. It was only with empirical investigation that his conclusions were overturned. Portuguese seafarers navigated their way finding measurements to be imprecise. The theory was close but not close enough. Obvious justifiable defences were brought up but eventually discarded. Scholastics were apologists for their antiquity ancestors. Even Copernicus who reversed the antiquity answer was more an ancient-minded thinker than a modern one. It is not a measure of accuracy but methodology. Though his disdain for unquestioned authority was quintessentially modern. His greatest ally was Pythagorus. The mathematical formulas work. It need to be solely an empirical onslaught (despite the debate concerning empiricism’s legitimacy) but also a quantitative analysis stemming from the ancients to the moderns.             

Renaissance humanism attempted to reinvigorate the hellenism of old. To spread greek ideas and literature throughout. To educate and evolve. Large amounts of ancient data were utilised to further their ideals. Copernicus borrowed ancient data to validate his ideas. Copernicus is the end of the old era. His line to Newton is evolutionary. A straight line of gradual progress. Humanism updated the ancients. Scholastics had seemingly meddled little with ancient authority. Passing down information, sometimes adding nuance but rarely deviating. It was a return to origin that needed a new perspective. Finding more than one perspective on the matter. Ptolemaic science held a strong leash yet Ptolemy’s predecessors felt differently. It was through a reassessment of divergent ancient opinions that Copernicus revamped a new direction. The ingenious way of toppling the long held dogma was to demonstrate an alternate ethos. One with an even greater historical legacy that being Pythagorus. Hermeneutically outside the traditional acceptance yet still canonically acceptable. Newton followed this newly constructed hermeneutic that led to Kepler and Galileo. The church appealed to their Ptolemaic tradition with religious lacing dismissing the Pythagorean legitimacy. Their high court supremacy decided the truth. Yet Galileo pursued a genuine authoritative position that couldn’t bear their disdain. 

Copernicus was a quasi-ancientest and Galileo a modernist. His science was organismic not mechanistic. It was Galileo who ultimately toppled Aristotle. He who fully outwitted the church to the heliocentric model. Using telescopic observations to finally settle the dispute. The seafarers decades earlier visually discounted the measurements of mapping and Galileo did so with astronomy. Mechanistically the use of observational inventions aided in overturning speculative logic. Empirical conclusions were far more authentic. Witnessing the truth rather than pondering it. Understanding phenomena for what it is without any purposeful intent. No historical lesson for nationalising, embellishing for patriotism. In order to do so, models must be made such as a textbook that academically seeks explanation. A globe or a diagram of a volcano for better illustration. The mechanical view did follow the scholastics. These mechanistic models helped facilitate deeper mechanistic thinking and mechanistic experimentation. Using the ancients as a foundation they derived considerable analysis. Evading the dogmatic scientism that forbade any alterations based on biblical literalism. Magically cultivating mechanical usages. Projecting the natural world upon an experimental lens to produce a scientific conclusion. 

Post-renaissance thinking took a huge turn toward mechanistic thinking. Its former organismic counterpart was all about projection by analogy. Using metaphors whether mythologically or practically. Whether with gods or man. Referring to metaphors beyond human control. Machines took the place of living beings. Fabricating their truth into robotic function. Alchemy produces chemicals beyond the natural frame. Inventions enable unnatural behaviour. Seeing green grass versus producing green shade with blue and yellow. Experimentation allowed scientists to manipulate reality with other matter. Machines could transcend god himself. No wonder Nietzsche declared god dead. Man took over the creation role with his machinery expertise. The taboo has become real. The jester has stolen the king’s thorny crown. Man has deceived and usurped god. The Middle Ages in their religious zeal pressed the Aristotelian physics to the brim. Nature could never refuse God, never betray its routine. Nature is found eternally in its consistent cycle. Natural history was by the book. Educated and relied upon. Yet voyages beyond to new areas criticised with their experience. Adventures added new seas and islands. Instead of denying these claims, it brew a novel experiential position. Pondering discussions was no more, not the visual explorer could argue on the basis of eye-witness instead of theoretical mathematics.  

This shift prospers engineers and artisans to produce new work. Mechanicians are a product of early modern thought. Looking to the past for assistance they toppled the hierarchical force-fed dogma. New science sought to use anthropocentric capabilities to further human knowledge. To dwell in illiberal arts. The British empiricists became huge in diagnosing biology and physics. Experience took priority over education. The experiences of conversos in the inquisition the voyages of early navigators all at the same time. The onset of the second half of the millennium altered the world as we know it. Mechanistic outlooks became noticeable as they developed in the nineteenth century. Academia is a byproduct of altering the educational system. Professors are researchers before they are teachers. They teach for knowledge, they search for objectification. Westernisation grew and grew as its mechanistic outlook fuelled the scientific and economic aspect. Religious mythos were a prime pastime but a new age of dispersed human ideas will conquer the day.