...

I am not in the mood to write academically, but I need something to get me in the groove. This is how it always is when I need to write things that matter (I think there's some psychological "block" impeding me from writing things that matter, rather than it being genuinely so hard that it makes me procrastinate. In other words, I think there's a "block" external to the content of my serious work).

Anyway, to jumpstart my writing, I'm going to "ramble" about Zelda for a little bit (admittedly, said "ramble" became much more structured than I originally intended). I've always been a fan of the series and theorizing about it. I'm a real Zelda "buff." Recently, the tetraforce theory—that there is a fourth piece of the triforce—has been gaining some steam. I want to make a distinction between types of Tetraforce theories and also respond to a recent proponent of the Tetraforce, @maxderrat.

Tetraforce

The idea that there's a fourth element or principle in addition Power, Wisdom, and Courage has floated around for some time. And many Zelda games have contained things to suggest a fourth piece. These include the elements Wind and Earth, the concept of Time, the color purple, the Dark Realm, and the number four frequently popping up (Four Swords, four Dragons, and so on).

More recently, the character Null from Echoes of Wisdom has given fuel to a Tetraforce. And although interest in Null might be chopped up to the recency effect, its presence does make a solid enough case for a fourth principle. It is a primordial being which lived in the void prior to creation. It wants to take creation back to its primordial state. The Goddesses created the world to "contain" Null. Null is the chaos to the Goddesses' order. There's a great deal of symbolism here: chaos, destruction, primordiality, emptiness or lack, and so on. And we can see the idea: the empty space between the pieces of the Triforce represents the containment of Null.

But this on its own doesn't suggest a fourth piece, per se. For example, I can grant that the empty space in the Triforce represents Null without holding the Tetraforce theory. It is not a piece of the Triforce if it isn't a piece at all, even if there's something representing a certain principle. It just needn't have the same status as the pieces of the Triforce.

So, I suggest a precisification of the Tetraforce theory. This would be:

This contrasts with:

The weak Tetraforce gives a nuanced reading of the Triforce symbolism which acknowledges there are different types of things represented in the Triforce. In the present case, the Goddesses are the only entities with corresponding pieces, whereas Null (as lack and void) is represented by the lack. The Triforce is creation (the Goddesses gave the Triforce after creating the world) whereas the empty center represents what is not. As such, this is not a strong Tetraforce theory.

One way to characterize the difference between the strong and weak versions is to understand "the same type as" as an ontological difference between the three principles and the fourth. This difference is between existence and non-existence (in this case, considering that Null is the fourth principle, between creation and non-creation).

Let's step back for a moment. Is this just a philosopher splitting hairs? I think not. There are two reasons for this. First, it seems that previous Tetraforce theories were strong ones, and the introduction of Null as the fourth element requires a different, nuanced take on the Tetraforce not present in previous theories. The leading Tetraforce theory prior to Echoes was to identify the fourth piece as Time with its corresponding Goddess. Positing an additional Goddess is a hallmark of "primary" Tetraforce theories (as suggested by the Wiki). But an additional Goddess on par with the other three has the fourth element and piece on the same ontological par as the other three, and as I suggest, strong Tetraforce theories.

To elaborate on what this distinction tells us, what of additional theories about the Tetraforce (the ones classified as "other propositions" in the Wiki)? Consider we identify the fourth piece as shadow or the Dark World (whatever this means; I admittedly struggle to understand these theories). I will grant that there's some trickiness here. It does make the proposed fourth element dependent on a privileged creation. However, does this make it a different ontological type than the other three? Link can travel to the Dark World. But, granted, Link also fights Null and seemingly interacts with the void.

Now, we needn't commit to the only weak Tetraforce theory being the Triforce's representation of Null. Perhaps this "Null Hypothesis" is only one version of the weak Tetraforce theory and that there are additional weak Tetraforce theories. Plausibly, there are a spectrum of Tetraforce theories in regards to the strength of the ontological difference between the three principles and the fourth. For instance, the Goddess Hylia is a lesser deity to the three Golden Goddesses. The Dark World exhibits a dependency relation. Null might be a contrasting force altogether.

I will acknowledge that classifying Tetraforce theories in the way I suggest does push towards the Null Hypothesis as the most pure weak Tetraforce theory. By this, I mean that it gets points for simplicity. If the fourth principle of the Triforce would be a lack (which is a plausible and common interpretation of the symbolism), it seems that the theory with a principle most opposite to the other three is very plausible.

The second reason why this isn't just a philosopher splitting hairs is because theorists acknowledge the importance of the existence of a fourth piece and principle on the same par as the other three. For this, I'll refer you to @maxderrat on YouTube who is a major proponent of the Tetraforce theory (with a video with almost 500k views). He recognizes the importance of asserting the existence of a fourth element the same type as the other pieces. As a proponent of the Tetraforce theory from the presence of Null, Max identifies the fourth piece and principle as the element Earth. The element Earth he associates with materiality and the origins of creation and life. This gives the fourth principle a kind of existence on par with the others. Granting that the other three have their elemental correlates (Power as Fire, Wisdom as Water, and Courage as Wind), this gives substantial existence to the fourth piece. This is the necessary step from a weak to a strong Tetraforce theory, and a step he takes a great deal of elaborating on (and a step I will elaborate on in the next section).

Therefore, the weak and strong distinction between Tetraforce theories is a valuable one and can help clarify theorizing about the Tetraforce in the future.^[1] It helps to classify different Tetraforce theories, and presents a major question for any Tetraforce theory in the future: How does the fourth piece relate to the other three?

Max's Strong Tetraforce

Next, I would like to spend some time responding to Max's Tetraforce theory. Before reading this, I suggest watching his video (it is about 20 minutes and very much worth your time). His argument is complicated and respectable, and it draws upon a great deal of philosophy, from Ancient Greek thinking to Chinese thinking to psychoanalysis. However, there are some major issues. We might already suspect overgeneralization on his part, and there is a great deal to raise eyebrows in his analysis. I will identify two misinterpretations in his understandings of Eastern and Western philosophy which make his thesis that Null is the fourth principle of a strong Tetraforce implausible.

I mention two caveats: first, I am not an expert on Chinese philosophy, but I will try my best. Second, Max is primarily concerned with the psychological and narrative features of the Zelda series (and media in general) which suggests a contrast between Threeness and Fourness. This is all fine and well—but granting his Jungian premise that there is a ubiquitous contrast between Threeness and Fourness in human thought, it is quite plausible that we can find traces of it in the Zelda series. His specific analysis of how it manifests in the series is interesting, and I (again) suggest you watch his video.

Taoist Interpretation

Let us begin with Max's Taoist inspiration and interpretation of Null's place in the Triforce. Max interprets Null as the primordial entity from which the Goddesses sprouted from, or from which the world was sculpted. Max's interpretation of chaos as the formless material from which the world arises, he suggests, comes from Chinese philosophy and Taoism in particular. But we must be careful.

We must distinguish two concepts here: Wu Ji and Qi. Wu Ji is the ultimate nothingness and infinite potentiality from which the universe arises. However, it is wrong to identify it as "material" or "matter" as understood in Western thought. In the West, there is the concept of formless matter in the Greeks, and also in Jewish and Christian thought (waters of creation). But, strictly speaking, there is no "matter" in the way that Greek and Jewish, Christian thought understands it.

The closest connection to matter, from what I can tell, is Qi. Qi is life force and the closest counterpart to our Western understanding of formless "matter." Qi is dynamic and alive, in stark contrast to more inert understandings of matter.^[2]

Furthermore, both Wu Ji and Qi stand in contrast to Yin and Yang, which are principles of order and creation. Yin is passivity and Yang is activity, complementary forces that are really one. But Max misinterprets Yin and Yang. Max claims that Yin is the material chaos from which the world arises, but Yin is a power of creation in contrast to Wu Ji and distinguished from Qi. The association that Max makes between Yin and materiality is due to Yin's stable, passive, condensing nature.

Now, Yin is certainly associated with "materiality" in some sense of the term. But this runs afoul in two ways. First, it is unclear whether we can apply materiality and matter to Yin at all. Second, the evidence that Null is primordial matter supporting its identification with Yin at least flattens the distinction between Qi and Yin. But, really, it more strongly supports that Null is Qi.

But this shouldn't serve as evidence that Null is supposed to be Qi. Qi is vital energy, and it is patently incorrect to identify Null with it. It is far more plausible that Null is Wu Ji instead. Wu Ji is the chaos and void prior to creation, although it is not material. Null does want to bring the created world back to a "stable" state. But Null wishes to bring this to a state prior to creation, and therefore non-existence. And again, this is clearly not Qi. Furthermore, this is not Yin. Yin is not non-existence, but a passive state of existence.

Therefore, identifying Null with Yin is tenuous at best. It seems that there are good reasons to resist this identification, and even better reasons to identify Null with Wu Ji. If this is the case, there are two lessons to draw from this. First, this discussion supports a weak Tetraforce theory by way of Taoist interpretation. A Strong Tetraforce theory would have Null and Goddesses embodying a Yin/Yang where they are contrasting but complementary forces. But Wu Ji and its opposite principle Tai Ji are two different forms of existence. These are therefore not the same type, and therefore a weak Tetraforce. I will reiterate, however, that I am not an expert and far more could be said about this theory. The second is that the supposed connection between Null and materiality is unsupported. If there was a potential connection between Yin and materiality and Null, it is bunk. At the very least, it requires some more textual support. This has consequences for his argument that Null is connected to Earth, which is the topic of the next section.

Greek Interpretation

The next part of Max's argument is to identify Null with the element Earth. This is to lend credence to the existence of a fourth piece of the Triforce as a concrete, existent entity on the same par as the other three. Connecting Null with Earth places Null in a set of four with the other three elements in Ancient Greek thought. As the other pieces of the Triforce are connected to four elements, Fire and Power, Water and Wisdom, and Courage and Wind/Air, this places Null on par with the other pieces of the Triforce.

Let us grant an interpretation where Null and the void is the primordial formless matter by which the world was sculpted, arose, or something similar. Max's suggestion is that we can make a connection between materiality and matter and Earth as an element.

However, the assumed connection between matter and Earth is tenuous. Unfortunately, the elements of the Greeks and their connection to matter and form is very complicated. But to make things simple: both Aristotle and Plato gave form (understood as structure or mathematical structure) to the elements. And while Earth does invoke feelings of materiality, it is wrong to identify it with something like Aristotle's prime matter or Plato's forms, the closest correlates to something like Qi or undifferentiated matter. Earth is not matter, but matter is prior to Earth. Earth is form plus matter. Likely, Max is equivocating "materiality" with "solidity," with solidity being clearly connected to Earth in Greek thought. But if this is the case, we should be skeptical that Null as matter can be identified as Earth.

I might be overextending myself here, but Max's identification of materiality and matter with Earth seems to be a Western tendency far after Greek thought. This tendency arose with Descartes and the Mechanists. Mechanists see the "form" of the physical world as arising from chunks of matter bumping into one another. For Descartes and the Mechanists, matter is necessarily extended. This is in rejection of the dominant Aristotelian style of thought which postulated formless matter. This seems to establish the link between solidity and materiality in the way that Max did. But this is not something included in the original Greek conception of the four elements.

Therefore, connecting Null as primordial matter to the solidity of Earth is not warranted. Instead, given that Null is primordial matter, this suggests a theory that Null is primal matter, whereas the Goddesses are givers of form to matter. This suggests a difference in type and another weak Tetraforce theory. This sort of theory is more in my wheelhouse, but would require much more elaboration. I do think it is a plausible theory, however; one worth pursuing.

Before I conclude, what else does Max say to support the identification of Earth and Null? One method Max uses is to articulate a historical association between Earth and the number four in both Greek and Chinese thought. But to use this as evidence for identifying Earth with Null is impotent. We might take this to be evidence for whatever the fourth principle is being Earth, but then considering the disanalogy between Earth and Null (that they exemplify two different senses of "materiality") think that Null cannot be the Earth and therefore not the fourth principle.

Max also suggests the color purple as a connection between Earth and Null. In the Minish Cap, the Earth element is Purple. Color can often carry great symbolic weight, but this isn't clearly the case in the Zelda series. For instance, Earth is not always associated with purple in the Zelda games, nor is purple always associated with Earth. I don't want to spend too much time on this argument, as I am colorblind. I would appreciate an in-depth analysis of the color symbolism in Legend of Zelda games so that someone can help me out. But as it stands, I don't see a strong association between purple and Earth in the Zelda series.

Conclusion

In this essay, I introduced a valuable distinction between weak and strong Tetraforce theory. These are:

Furthermore, I criticized Max's strong Tetraforce interpretation with Null by way of Greek and Chinese philosophy. I found that Greek and Chinese philosophy best supports weak Tetraforce theories.

One might accuse me of pulling apart these two systems of thought while I shouldn't be. For certainly the creators of Zelda games took inspiration from both these Greek and Chinese styles of thought. I think this is a fair criticism, and that both philosophies influenced the game. But from a theorist's point of view, what are we to make of this information? Deciding how they were inspired by both likely depends less on reason and more on particular, contingent facts about the creator's psychology and experience.^[3] By this, I mean that they are free to "pick and choose" which aspects of myth and philosophy they want to use. Their picking and choosing likely combines these systems of thought in ways that aren't faithful to "classical interpretations" of these theories. But how, then, can we adjudicate the correct way that these frameworks are combined? Perhaps the only way to do this is to ask them. Alternatively, we can use textual evidence and arguments to support a particular way they are combined. But unless a better argument can be made from a textual analysis of the Zelda games, we can't do much more than ask what the creators of this fiction had in mind. And this assumes that they all agree.

What's Next?

When I get back to writing casually, I have an argument that a coherent Zelda timeline is impossible. The metaphysics of time and time travel in Zelda show that some games cannot be placed on the same timeline. This argument, I'll admit, is very complicated. Nor do I think the way I present it will be decisive. And while I think that it is somewhat boring to say that, "it's all just legends," I think that's the best interpretation. But that's all for now!