|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 2, 2022 10:05:25 GMT
I don't know for sure, but one book is reading by me at the moment tells that colours are what only living things can see. This means that non-living things can't access the colours. The world is not what only living things see.
Anyway, there is a big problem for any objects accepting this theory as a base: if there are no colours how any two objects are different to each other? Where are the barriers or the limits for them to each other?
It seems like they're sharing the same space, and to divide or to separate them - is the ability of ours. It can be imagined that the whole space is totally united, but our perceptions or feelings cut it into pieces.
I'm totally surprised by it, because metaphysically for an object it must be different to another object to exist. If no object cannot be divided by it necessary, nobody can state metaphysically that there is even one object.
Colours bring skeptical view to us. They don't let any of our images of this world to represent it fair enough. Any of such interpretations are limited by our own views... And the idealistic theories are winning due to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 2, 2022 17:18:41 GMT
I don't know for sure, but one book is reading by me at the moment tells that colours are what only living things can see. This means that non-living things can't access the colours. The world is not what only living things see. Anyway, there is a big problem for any objects accepting this theory as a base: if there are no colours how any two objects are different to each other? Where are the barriers or the limits for them to each other? It seems like they're sharing the same space, and to divide or to separate them - is the ability of ours. It can be imagined that the whole space is totally united, but our perceptions or feelings cut it into pieces. I'm totally surprised by it, because metaphysically for an object it must be different to another object to exist. If no object cannot be divided by it necessary, nobody can state metaphysically that there is even one object. Colours bring skeptical view to us. They don't let any of our images of this world to represent it fair enough. Any of such interpretations are limited by our own views... And the idealistic theories are winning due to it.
Remember The Song, Love, Love, Love, Love Love Love, LoveLoveLove, Makes The World Go Round' As They Recolor The Colorless? |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 2, 2022 19:21:49 GMT
I don't know for sure, but one book is reading by me at the moment tells that colours are what only living things can see. This means that non-living things can't access the colours. The world is not what only living things see. Anyway, there is a big problem for any objects accepting this theory as a base: if there are no colours how any two objects are different to each other? Where are the barriers or the limits for them to each other? It seems like they're sharing the same space, and to divide or to separate them - is the ability of ours. It can be imagined that the whole space is totally united, but our perceptions or feelings cut it into pieces. I'm totally surprised by it, because metaphysically for an object it must be different to another object to exist. If no object cannot be divided by it necessary, nobody can state metaphysically that there is even one object. Colours bring skeptical view to us. They don't let any of our images of this world to represent it fair enough. Any of such interpretations are limited by our own views... And the idealistic theories are winning due to it.
Remember The Song, Love, Love, Love, Love Love Love, LoveLoveLove, Makes The World Go Round' As They Recolor The Colorless?This indeed a good additional point I didn't even remember, when I was typing my post. Actually, I don't really care about any culture things, because of their instability and surface-like existence. Each culture is willing to position itself as the one and the only for the eternity, but usually the next generations falsify the ones. We live in the world where the colours are fighting against black-white & so on. I think the example of yours is representive for such a case. No, unfortunately (or fortunately) I didn't watch that movie or something, so I don't know the context. The most funny thing is - that black or white are also colours. Whiteness - underlines the intensivity of presence of the other colors together, while blackness - represents the lack of that intensivity of presence of colours. That's why as black so white are both colors. And by the way I remember another movie that also underlined that: "Pleasantville" (199?). The battle of colours was positioned as the war between 50's and 60's (or ~55s and ~70s?). Reducing the brightness we can shadow any colors, and intensifying the contrast we bring the colors their intensivity. Some say that a color is just a patters. So, one sequence of dots is one color, and another sequence - is another. But for a color it's important to have a structure. And there is a draw line where the theories break: how can it be that an eye is watching something that is outside of it? Doesn't it mean that the eye is just a catcher, or a receiver? Or the eye is modifying, reflecting, and changes those structures? Or maybe this is a mixed form of structures that appears as some kind of a chemistry process when melting patterns of the outside join the pulsating patterns inside, and their union create something in that strange symbiosis of their co-work? And if it is so, and this process is a combination, why then we see some stability? Why those processes are being repeated inside us? From one point of view it makes sense since all the nature is a gathering of the tiniest elements, and the movement of which is quite stable by zooming it out - for an eye to see them. That's why they can be accepted as waves, and as waves they repeat the most simple patterns - the ones which are seen by us. You know, even this text demonstrates it: you read not only black-white symbols, but also pulsating tiny pixels. Those pixels are like waves, but we see them as stable. If to use a microscope we can see many mini-lamps on our screen, and each of those looks more like a street lamp in the evening... So, both pro-black-white and pro-colors are wrong. There is nothing, but colors. Colors are everywhere where is the sight. |
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 2, 2022 20:16:30 GMT
It's A Metaphor, Not A Literal Statement. They Mean The Living Appreciate Color, In The Same Way In That One Episode Of Powerpuff Girls With The Black And White Clown Ruining The Colored World For Others, Or Businesses Making Workers Out As Binary Slaves With No Personality.
Remember The Song, Love, Love, Love, Love Love Love, LoveLoveLove, Makes The World Go Round' As They Recolor The Colorless? This indeed a good additional point I didn't even remember, when I was typing my post. Actually, I don't really care about any culture things, because of their instability and surface-like existence. Each culture is willing to position itself as the one and the only for the eternity, but usually the next generations falsify the ones. We live in the world where the colours are fighting against black-white & so on. I think the example of yours is representive for such a case. No, unfortunately (or fortunately) I didn't watch that movie or something, so I don't know the context. The most funny thing is - that black or white are also colours. Whiteness - underlines the intensivity of presence of the other colors together, while blackness - represents the lack of that intensivity of presence of colours. That's why as black so white are both colors. And by the way I remember another movie that also underlined that: "Pleasantville" (199?). The battle of colours was positioned as the war between 50's and 60's (or ~55s and ~70s?). Reducing the brightness we can shadow any colors, and intensifying the contrast we bring the colors their intensivity. Some say that a color is just a patters. So, one sequence of dots is one color, and another sequence - is another. But for a color it's important to have a structure. And there is a draw line where the theories break: how can it be that an eye is watching something that is outside of it? Doesn't it mean that the eye is just a catcher, or a receiver? Or the eye is modifying, reflecting, and changes those structures? Or maybe this is a mixed form of structures that appears as some kind of a chemistry process when melting patterns of the outside join the pulsating patterns inside, and their union create something in that strange symbiosis of their co-work? And if it is so, and this process is a combination, why then we see some stability? Why those processes are being repeated inside us? From one point of view it makes sense since all the nature is a gathering of the tiniest elements, and the movement of which is quite stable by zooming it out - for an eye to see them. That's why they can be accepted as waves, and as waves they repeat the most simple patterns - the ones which are seen by us. You know, even this text demonstrates it: you read not only black-white symbols, but also pulsating tiny pixels. Those pixels are like waves, but we see them as stable. If to use a microscope we can see many mini-lamps on our screen, and each of those looks more like a street lamp in the evening... So, both pro-black-white and pro-colors are wrong. There is nothing, but colors. Colors are everywhere where is the sight.
Black = Absorption Of All Colors.
The Photo-Receptors Inside Everyone's Eye Were Formed Millions Of Years Before The Eye Itself, Let Alone Humans. The Eye Is The Universe Experiencing Itself In A Vessel That Is Being Trained To Be Housed In An Environment That Treats You Better Than This One. The Same Reason You Wouldn't Let Thugs In Your Home (Especially With Family Or Animals), The Universe Has To Train Souls To Make Sure They Are Ready For A Better Place, Instead Of Trashing It And Ruining It For Others (Like On Earth).
If You Look Closely, The Pupil And Iris Represent The Nebula Structures Of The Universe And The Pupil Is The Sun + The Moon Eclipse, As Everyone Has A Solar And Lunar Energy That Co-Exists To Function As Duality Itself, Hence A Brain Is Split Into Two Hemispheres.
The White Represents Purity, The Black Represents Impurity In Many Cases, Every Night White Stars Get Along With A Black Canvas, So Truly There Is A Context To Consider, In Spirituality, Any Blackness Makes The Heart Blind, While Whiteness And Purity Makes It Stronger, But Black Skin (As A Person), Or Black Soil Can Be Rich And Contradict The More Common Negatives Of Black. Context Is As Important As Color.
|
|
