| |

Copernicus was never right…

ByDeaf 21

Copernicus was wrong – like so many human aspirations are. On a lot of levels there is a great likelihood that humans could possibly never be right about anything. There is, for a start, no ideal comparator with which to compare the species and its mistaken, yet prevailing, notion of a special place in the universe adds considerably to the problem. Even humanity’s notion of how the planets work and rotate around the Sun could well be very wrong is yet another thing and the notion of centrism as touted by Copernicus 1 is problematic. How do the planets work in fact. Well instead of working in circles (or orbits) they’re essentially working in spirals, but on another level they’re not even spirals but rather squiggles, circles, ovoids, twisted torus and even a Möbius. What it means is the planets are here, there, everywhere and nowhere almost all at once.

From a centrist viewpoint the solar system just looks like a series of orbits and therefore that is all there is to it. Simples! On a small scale (eg humanity’s very limited viewpoint and indeed its sheer compartmentalisation of many ideals) there seem to be what are perceivably orbits and in the main (from this centrist viewpoint) its what the planets are doing – but It would take a long lecture to describe what the picture really is. Copernicus would have crapped his pants had he known his idea of centrism had been so wrong!

Fascinating video showing how things really move – yet its not even a full picture for the orbital planes (eg the galaxy and its rotation) also change massively – and its very hard to illustrate that as well.

What is centrism? Its a belief that humans have some special system in their favour. Its a quite unique human perspective and can be backed up by politics, belief, worship, faith, or any other sort of rhetoric or ideology. The fact Copernicus believed the Earth was at the centre of the planetary system (things like the Milky Way and the distant stars were not yet in our consciousness) therefore humans were especially placed at the centre of everything. The brain thinks big but does not realise how small and insignificant it is in the totality of the full picture – besides the brain is not even any sort of microscopic dent in the totality of the cosmos – ironically the brain does not have a single clue as to which direction it is moving in. Its difficult to even discern the one singular direction everyone is moving about in on Earth itself.

Thus what the human mind does is it dumps a lot of complexities and goes for the simples. It is easier to categorise rather than offer a vastly broad sweep of ideas and possibilities – because even to do the former is hard enough anyway and the latter, well, for a start everyone would have to go back to school and learn a lot of new stuff!

Even so, things are still quite complicated. Its why there is a centrist viewpoint. Few people have the time even for anything other than a fairly precise view of how life and the world works. Thus our relationship with the world is not even what we deem it to be. We cant understand chaos for start, even though some will understand to an extent the notion that butterfly wings on one side of the world can cause a tornado elsewhere but even so the parameters are far more complex than this simplistic notion first offered in the 1960s.

Essentially humanity is so wrong on so many levels even with the most conceptual and most rightfully established theories that have been created. Its why we should never assume any sort of special place or any sort of special belief in anything. Not even politics or society. The fact we have leaders and political systems and indeed other systems is quite problematic. These are of course constructs and they have evolved on what we believe and think, not on what is practical and possible. That is massively wrong of course but as humans we think we are massively right. Hence there’s a paradox.

The centrist view of oralism

In terms of the direction of this particular enquiry it must be said humanity even has a massive problem in how it views itself and the animals kingdom. This is important for things such as its relationship also with the Deaf – more of that later.

The human–animal relationship is ancient, complex and multifaceted. It may have either positive effects on humans and animals or poor or even negative and detrimental effects on animals or both humans and animals. A large body of literature has investigated the beneficial effects of this relationship in which both human and animals appear to gain physical and psychological benefits from living together in a reciprocated interaction. However, analyzing the literature with a different perspective it clearly emerges that not rarely are human–animal relationships characterized by different forms and levels of discomfort and suffering for animals and, in some cases, also for people. The negative physical and psychological consequences on animals’ well-being may be very nuanced and concealed, but there are situations in which the negative consequences are clear and striking, as in the case of animal violence, abuse or neglect. Empathy, attachment and anthropomorphism are human psychological mechanisms that are considered relevant for positive and healthy relationships with animals, but when dysfunctional or pathological determine physical or psychological suffering, or both, in animals as occurs in animal hoarding. 2

In terms of the above if one were to replace the word ‘animals’ with the word ‘deaf’ the concerns being espoused would not be so terribly different. Paradoxically there is a movement that essentially supports a notion in much a similar way to how others support and condone animal abuse. This happens to be oralism. It rotates around the belief that humans are superior and it does that by way of comparing animals and humans and decreeing that humans are superior and then it considers communication and the rest of it and that humans have a superior communication system. The human mind equates animals with inferiority and since animals do not have communication it follows that the Deaf must be inferior too.

Oralism begin life with the centrist belief that the ‘deaf and the dumb’ were not of God’s creation – or if they were it was in fact some form of punishment. And in a large way they are too seen as little better than the animals. In other words they were beings whom the main body of humans (those who spoke heard and harboured particular beliefs) deemed they had express rights upon. In those early days this led to all sorts of debates on the treatment of the Deaf – especially because it was the religious institutions who believed it was their right to lead the Deaf to better pastures by way of correcting any form of defect in hearing and speech. This lead to a notion that it would be best to teach the Deaf to speak hence anything animalist about the Deaf (including signing and making mere guttural noises) had to be abolished. The Deaf had to become hearing.

Therefore in the entirely of the above it is also what happens is animals do not fit in to the human scheme – and those who do not communicate therefore do not fit into the human scheme and are essentially not human. Many reasons are given for that including that some deity has decreed a punishment of some sort such as making these humans silent or deafened. In consideration of that reasoning there’s also the ‘punishment’ for being blind. Its why they often say the ‘deaf, the dumb and the blind.’ The reasonings behind that are so numerous and continue to make great impression upon many humans who are centrist – and none of them are right.

But humans like to be right, even though they are impressionably wrong. Inequality is one reason why ‘right’ is very wrong. Inequality arises because certain numbers of humans (cultural, linguistic or creed for example, or even denominations etc) decree they are special. For example the West saw itself as special whilst those in the Occident were less so. Even so its difficult to assert exactly what because as always the parameters move when trying to define a particular thing. A person, nay anyone in fact, is never in a fixed mode. They are not like a stone. They are transmutable and ever changing. Heraclius said life is like a river, and the same river cannot be stepped into twice.

The oralists however emergent or not they are (the visibility with which they can be seen – because its a far more subtle ideology these days) – and the paternalism that follows as part of that quite obscure doctrine – plus the subtle and not so subtle messages which ensure (such as encouraging the Deaf to take up implants, conducting experimentation, and building up a multi million dollar industry (which too depends in part on vivisection) and can be considered a comprehensive endeavour that jockeys the Deaf as part of an eventual objective whose aim is assimilation with the result being no more Deaf one day) is in its total entirety too part of a centrist doctrine. This is audism, or the speech society. Despite the many variations and beliefs ideologies etc, its main prominence – which consists of billions of humans – is down to one thing and that’s speech and hearing.

Of course humans set themselves by that very notion which makes for the idea that anything that does not have this ability is ‘dumb’ and essentially no better than the animals. But again, to consider that the animals are lesser or of far less intelligence is perhaps one of the greatest crimes humanity continues to perpetuate. And even so, humanity would turn around and say ‘crime, what crime?’ as it continues its unabated genocide of the animal kingdom and processes the deaths of billions in order to stock supermarket shelves with tangible, even tasty, goods and the entire project is essentially a insidiously exploitative system that rides on the back of the animal kingdom.

The human mind cannot separate this brutality from the essence of its existence thus humanity gives itself a special reason to operationalise this sheer brutality. It enables humanity to look away from this massive genocide and also it gives humanity its notion of a special place in the cosmos – this being that the animals are here for the purpose of humans therefore its humans who have a right to decide the fate of the animals. The animals do not argue back nor protest against this abhorrent charade – all the better because it means humans can comfortably perpetuate an abject evil.

Speech and hearing are the litmus of what it means to be human, and therefore its a definitive. Its a massive movement and its one that, for all its debates and ideas, cannot see itself as the world’s most dominant paradigm, in fact the number one oppressing system. It is hard for humans with this ability to see themselves as not part of a centrist system and that is because speech and hearing is the very glue, the very bricks, that make up this ultimately centrist and even hugely biased society. In the same sense as the previous paragraph humanity thinks because the Deaf show little sign of opposition it can be considered too that the Deaf have lesser rights and basically little or no integrity. But then again humanity, especially those who are stoic oralists or audists, have a notion of a greater superiority and this is massively problematic.

It is also wrong on many levels too. Let’s forget the Deaf for a start and see what else is wrong with the reasoning – especially the direction which the whole thing heads. One thing that comes to mind is the written and visual languages (but not only these). Such communication means shows that speech (and hearing) are not the central pillars of the human world – even though many like to think so. In a simplistic way, to assume a centrist, supremacist, ideal is totally and utterly wrong, but few humans would ever in a million years consider their ways, their beliefs, and even their politics to be totally in error.

Its why ‘oralism’ fucks up the world….

In a sense this is why democracy – in spite of all its apparent advantages – cannot properly work. Its why discrimination wont go away. Its why inequality will never end. Humans by way of their existence and the ways and means of establishing such certainties means the misery that is effected will go on and on. Even the establishment of any ideal provokes opposition and that is problematic because yet again of the centrist stance many humans have. On top of that the law is an ass and it can only be resolved by making new laws which essentially work no better than the old ways. One cannot force a human to exactly toe a very thin line of a given length for its entire duration – whether its 100 meters or 5 kilometers.

Evidently so much’s cantered around the very thing the oralists love – and that’s speech. To give some examples a political party has decrees and beliefs and participants who believe strongly in its constitutions and manifestos, etc. Sadly a political party can never be what it truly is – unless it becomes what could only be termed a dictatorship. Even then there will be those who totally oppose the ideals (and that even if the dominant paradigm happens to be a powerful oppressor) of that party so in essence powerful ideas and powerful movements are for the few – and not for the many who exist outside of it.

All of these are in essence Copernican. In a sense they can also be Euclidean. That is the idea that everything is in a fixed line and the direction taken is the absolute right one. But it is not possible, unless again there is dictatorship or some form of oppression. Many like to shout their allegiance to one idea or one party or one movement but again many are not understanding of the full fall out of such ideals – and sadly those who speak and hear are the ones who run quite disagreeable and very oppressive systems. What this means is a fixed notion is always imposed no matter what. No-one can take a variable line of any sort.

Again it amounts to a huge cognitive error that humanity seemingly likes to perpetuate. Progress is anything but. This is what oralism (nay even audism) likes. It has to think that those being Deaf are not fit for the human world, so their view of the world is they, like every one else, should speak and hear. No Deaf here please!

Paths have to take the route of least resistance and sometimes it involves going the long way round – and even at the ‘ultimate’ destination there is still little certainty. Essentially straight lines are curves therefore definitive constructed in the human mind do not exist and nor can these exist in reality. There can only be a belief that a fixated forward view is being undertaken and that one’s ideals and stance are unmovable from that. But again, its error after error and that in turn means more problems. In the 21st century we should by now have recognised this and be moving on to new and better ideals (and even new forms of politics) that do not involve fixation, oppression or some other sort of overbearing empiricism.

The notion that leaders can orate and lecture and dictate and give ‘clear ideas’ of the future happens to be a fallacy too. The current Labour government under Starmer has for example both decreed and put forward so many ideas for when they got into power – and yet they have basically turned everything they stood for pre election on its head. They are the complete opposite of what they had made themselves to be. Its without a doubt one of the most shocking ‘turncoat’ revelations ever seen in recent times. They are essentially for themselves and not for the people – thus the current Labour administration are not a lot of difference from the preceding Tories.

Politics needs to be grassroots not top down. But will that ever happen? Possibly not. The current political scene is a disease that does not seem to want to go away. The centrist notion of governing and of rule and order is most problematic but because its established as such, it will never be given up. Its like so many things in human life – a centrally perceived notion cannot be forsaken for an extremely diverse ideal. Its because the machinery of politics doesn’t want to run on uncertainty. And that in a nutshell is why governments are wanting to know more about its subjects. What better than to scrutinize every single movement and every single communication that is said? Evidently the more precise the ‘measurement’ of people becomes, there’s a bigger assumption that an exceedingly precise amount of finesse can be practiced.

A single step means a massive uncertain leap…

Yet very sadly, uncertainty happens to be the true ruler of the world. One cannot assert exactly what they will be doing in five minutes or even the next day. Each step of life is prompted by what appears to be an orderly series of events that have gone by and what looks to be an orderly series of steps to come, but again that is centrist. In true terms, one stepping forward means they have taken a leap that amounts to a distance of around one hundred and fifty miles at least. Walking down the road say a hundred yards will no doubt mean they have shifted their body in the order of three hundred and thirty three thousand miles. If one is truly inertial even, the same distances will be achieved. These distances are simply how far our solar system moves – and we too move with it! Recent findings however suggest it is moving three times faster, 3 thus us mere humans think we know leaps and bounds but we do not have a single idea what ‘leaps and bounds’ could truly mean!

What it means is in every second that exists, everyone on this planet is neither here nor there. They will be somewhere, but exactly where is something that simply cannot be said. But from humanity’s centrist perspective, there is exactitude and if one has stepped a mere foot to one side, that is indeed what one has done.

Human life is like a river. Oralism (and namely audism) embrace a particular notion that is problematic and has be so every since the conception of these ideologies. Interestingly these ideologies are not even contrived but are rather emergent and that because of the observations made by humans that somehow ‘special’ humans are at the centre of things – and other sort of, well, what can be considered less complete human beings, such as the deaf, are not.

Its why Alexander Graham Bell had a particular stance against the Deaf and he thought his ideas of speech elucidation and the eradication of the Deaf were absolute ideals. The man could not have been more wrong, and yet the very advocates of those systems, the oralists, continue to stand by Bell’s ideals as if they are unmutable and fixed. What it means is they’re people with a massive problem in their heads – basically they’re modern day Copernicians who harbour notions that are doubly contrived and problematic.

  1. Spacecom: Geocentric model – The Earth-centered view of the universe [Accessed October 2026] ↩︎
  2. Prato-Previde, E., Basso Ricci, E. and Colombo, E.S. (2022). The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding. Animals, 12(20), p.2835. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12202835 [Accessed September 2025]. ↩︎
  3. EarthSky: Our solar system is moving 3 times faster than expected [Accessed October 2026] ↩︎

This post’s first draft was more than a year ago in August 2025 – hence it refers to Keir Starmer rather than the current incumbent who is Andy Burnham.

Similar Posts