General Resources

Menu

What is your definition of a dragon?

By Rene

Here comes the key factor and the real answer to the question of how I define dragons: I don’t.

I don’t think they’re one of those things that lends themselves to definition very well. To think so is to walk away with a very flat, static, homogenous picture of what dragons are. I’ve yet to see a definition which separates dragons from not-dragons without chopping the dragons off at the knees, turning them into cardboard, and diminishing them. In truth, I can think of things which dragons generally have, but can easily think of dragons which don’t have them. All traits which dragons have can also be seen in humans, hamsters, dolphins and cicadas.

To view the question another way, how do we define humans? What definition would work for all humans that would cleanly separate them from things that are like humans, but not? Would this definition give a good picture of what was really there?

Being a dragon is a concept here not limited by form, though even the forms of dragons are diverse. It’s a concept which transcends the physical, so it can’t be based on physical definers. There are people who view being human in the same way, so don’t get left behind by that much.

Think, for a moment, about how mythology treats dragons. Man makes myths. Man needs archetypal Other. Man makes dragons and casts them in this roll. Dragons are almost always depicted as something familiar but utterly alien. They are unimaginably large, inexpressibly powerful, often old enough to stretch conceptions of time. This isn’t actually a bad way of viewing things, that dragons are something that is not human, but eludes simple definition. That shouldn’t be surprising either; something easily defined would be one dimensional and lack the flexibility to survive in this world.

I say that attempting to define dragons as a whole is a pointless exercise if you take it seriously. I’d say the same for humans, and any other type of thinking race that comes to mind. It presupposes a central Dragon on which all other dragons are based, or a central Human, or a central Intergalactic Cheese Being. That is the problem with this kind of conceptualization; that high on the list, when you’ve composed a fictive Central Thing from which the category comes, the Central Thing begins to strongly resemble all other Central Things, unless the category is very narrow indeed. I’d hardly call “thinking creatures” a narrow category.

And if there were a central Dragon, all other dragons’d have to agree on it, which would never happen. We’re far too independent a lot, uninterested in defining the shape that other people’s lives and definitions take. Anything claiming to be a central thing would probably be attacked, torn to shreds, and incorporated into a quiche. And we’d go merrily on our way. Should it be odd that such a diverse group might show some unity in the face of something we dislike, rather than for some greater purpose? I don’t know…but that pattern sounds oddly familiar.

So if dragons cannot be defined in the conventional sense, what good are they as a category? Do they even exist? And how could a definition of self which sets you firmly apart from other people possibly be a good thing?

To throw something out simply because you’re unable to define it is to loose baby, bathwater, tub, and possibility. There are many undefined things that are still quite real. Including common words; define the word “what”, for example, or “the”. They’re useful parts of speech even if most people would stutter in trying to answer that question. Should we stop using them? And what about cars? Computers? Refrigerators? Should we refrain from their usage if we don’t understand the minutia of how they work? Gravity existed before we knew why, or what it did. Light does, and our definition on that is still up in the air. Lack of concrete definition does not invalidate a thing. We exist anyway.

Any information about the self is a good thing. Simply having that information makes it useful, no matter what the information actually is. So it is with being a dragon. It’s one more piece of information about how you work and who you are that you didn’t have before. That dragons elude definition as a category of things isn’t so important in relation to all this. I can define myself as a dragon, and that’s enough. It’s also important to remember that this is a part of my identity, and not the whole. I’m also an intellectual, an animal lover, slightly shy and hesitant to try new things, a worry-wort, someone who enjoys being excessively silly, and, yes, also someone who’s human in significant ways right now. Being a dragon doesn’t keep me from functioning with the 99% of the world that wouldn’t conceive of dragons being real in any sense at all, even the most playful, let alone the idea that there might be a few dragons living in human bodies. There is NO REASON that one bit of information should alter life enough that you are no longer who you were and cease being functional and happy in society. To put it another way, people who are not able to interact well with others often attribute this to a specific reason. But often, it’s a variety of traits, most of which healthy happy people also posses. People who can lead a functional, successful, happy life won’t suddenly regress to living in the woods and wearing tinfoil hats because they happen to also be dragons. If they do, being a dragon won’t be the only reason.

It’s been posited that the idea of being a dragon alienates you from other people, and that in and of itself is enough reason to not be a dragon. Well, here’s some news. You can’t please everyone; some things about you will always alienate other people. But you don’t have to share all of yourself with every person you meet. Particularly when it comes to spiritual identity, well, I don’t really need to hear about other people’s views on the nature of their soul, and figure every Joe Average on the street doesn’t need mine. There seems to be a conception that since I’m a dragon, I shout it from the mountains, and all in earshot must bow down and obey. Hardly; it doesn’t come up in casual conversations that often and in daily life, not at all. It’s not something that must be shared to be validated. I have this here journal and it’s obvious here, but this is an internal monologue given light of day; it’s not normal every-day interaction.

As an identity, it’s every bit as useful as anything else. And it’s a pretty big chunk of mine, even if the outside world doesn’t see it much. I said earlier that it’s futile to try to define dragons (or humans) and that holds. But I can define myself without attempting to define how the rest of the world lives their lives. And I can define myself as a dragon without telling the masses how all dragons Must Be in order to be Right and Correct. So what are these carefully hoarded and elusive definitions? They’re my own. Go find your own set, ‘cause they surely won’t fit you.