Ambivalence : Daedalus & The Continuing Archetype

It is truly a wonder to gaze at the night sky and witness the incredible destruction and creation of the stars; the dance of death. It is also a wonder to view the beauty of poisonous frogs and flowers, which evolved their mechanisms of death to avoid death. It appears to be a contradiction in our metaphors to comprehend beauty as something destructive. But this is the very ideology of Hinduism. Kali, the black goddess, whose prime altar is the battlefield. But Kali is only an incarnation of the same deity as Siva (the destroyer) and Brahma (the creator). They are dichotomous and, yet, synonymous. It is only through death and destruction that creation can begin. With every beginning there is an end. This is the very nature of the architect, who must destroy to create. This is the very nature of God and of Creation. This is ambivalence. Not indifference, but disregarding the necessary means to achieve something greater than the costs.

I have spent quite a bit of time analyzing various pop-culture characters and the archetypes they follow. One character that took me quite a bit of time to unravel is Dr. Gregory House. Now, I met Hugh Laurie in New York City a couple of years ago (yes, he is just as cynical in real life as he is on the show), I bought him a beer, and he cued me in on a little trivia about the character House : he is based on Sherlock Holmes. They both have one close friend whose name begins with W and ends in -son (Wilson - Watson). They are both addicted to some drug (House - Vicodin, Holmes - cocaine). They are both geniuses in their fields. They both love puzzles. Both are antisocial and egoist. House's apartment number is the same as Holmes's street address (221B). Watson walks with a cane, House walks with a cane. And the phonetic synonyms of "House" and "Holmes".

The question that had me pondering was : what is Sherlock Holmes's archetype? Then it struck me in my mythology studies, he is based on Daedalus. Daedalus is the Greek mythological character who built the labyrinth to house the Minotaur and the wings for him and his son, Icarus, to escape imprisonment in the tower of King Minos. Now, we often associate Daedalus with being an artists, inventor, and architect (hence the artist periodical Daedalus). Yes, he was so, but he was of the most unusual sort. What he designed, built, and invented were often monstrosities, and the consequences of his inventions were devastating. The Labyrinth was to house a monstrous child of Zeus and King Minos's wife, which adolescents were fed to. The wings of wax resulted in the death of his son when Icarus flew too close to the sun.

The consequences of Daedalus's inventions were of no concern, but only that such an invention could be achieved. This is the nature of House, whose indifference towards patients and colleagues is to no avail in his pursuit of solving the diagnosis. It is the Daedalus archetype that is coherently found in the destructive dance of the stars and in the deadly evolution of poisonous species. It is the ambivalence of nature and the universe that creates the wonders we experience. This natural indifference towards the consequences is what has achieved the greatest marvels (and even very small ones) we experience.

I am here reminded of where this Daedalus figure enters contemporary industrial society : science. I recall the great debate of stem cell research, and the arguments of "having to abandon the research", or "is it God's will?" "What is the cost we have to pay?"

Is human life worth the cost of human life? Must we take life to save life? We say no, but we always forget the military, were we take lives to save lives, albeit this is under a different context. The Daedalusistic ambivalence has apparently lead to curing paraplegics, and most recently curing HIV. Earlier this month it was reported that the injection of CCR5-mutated stem cells has cured at least one individual. Of course, this is not a practical means of curing AIDS, as only a very small percentage of patients meet the criteria for such an procedure, as well as a small percentage of donors can produce the stem cells need. But scientists have made a major breakthrough in preventing the propagation of this fatal disease that has plagued us for almost 40 years now.

So are we justified? Do we need to be justified? Will ambivalence destroy us or propagate our existence? It is natural that all things must die, and, likewise, death augments life. With destruction comes creation. With more destruction comes more creation.

"Are you justified in taking life to save life?" -The Great Debate, Dream Theater