red
I think that one of the great mysteries of life is the question "Do you see the same color orange that I do?" How can we ever know that what appears orange through my eyes isn't what I'd call green through your eyes? But since we both point at the same thing and nod in agreement while we say "orange," we are comforted in the naming.
Think of how much deeper a problem this poses. We now have the illusion that we mean the same thing with our shared word, but I see something that I don't like and you see something that you do. Maybe it's not just because you like orange and I don't; perhaps it's that we are fundamentally seeing different colors. We are experiencing different senses, although we know that we both mean the same physical object or trait at which we're both pointing, now shouting a little in frustration.
I'm sorry, I just don't like orange.
It goes beyond the simplicity of color. There is so much visual, auditory, physical, odorous data, every moment in time across a wide world. With a practically infinite variability, how can I really understand the same orange poppy on a rolling hill in
We've developed language to try to communicate these things, but perhaps the endeavor is entirely futile because we are not even experiencing the same senses. Maybe that is the reason why this isn't working.
3 comments:
Not that I'm a big proponent of the idea that language can capture very much, but this isn't one of those instances. Are you really interested in the subjective appearance of light at such-and-such a wavelength, or are you interested in the emotional and intellectual associations it triggers? Those can be captured in words. Odds are that you like "eye-searing green" because of your associations with that color, while I do not on account of my own associations -- though when I see one of those horrid greens nowadays it makes me smile because it reminds me of you.
The problem with human communication is only very rarely the inability of language to convey meaning; that's a problem for mystics and acidheads, but not for the minutiae of everyday life. The usual problem is that either one party doesn't hear because they're expecting something else, or else because the other party won't just come out and say it because they anticipate a negative response.
Posted by Eric On Friday, February 02, 2007 at 5:00 PM
Thanks for this, Susan.
The other day I was at a friend's house staring at some flame fractals, and I said, "What if we had words for everything?" Although...even if we did, I wonder how long it would have taken me to describe those patterns.
These are the lyrics of the song I just put on:
Someone in my dictionary's up to no good
I never find the very special words I should
...
You have your fits I have my fits but feeling's good
And confusion's not a kidney stone in my brain
But if we're miscommunicating do we feel the same?
I have been thinking about the ideas you both wrote about here for a few days, and I expect to be thinking of them for days to come. For now, all I can add is words I wrote four years ago:
white walls, white room, white faces
11 January 2003 - 21:12
a thought from a few months ago:
when a being tries to understand an inherently incomprehensible world, what happens? in that situation, all she can get closer to is herself, even if unwittingly.
i had a fantasy then that everything that happened between dave and me (or anyone and me) that made us think we understood each other, these incomprehensible worlds, was merely coincidental, merely seduced us into believing we weren't alone, that we weren't just looking in a mirror ALL THE TIME.
if this were more than a fantasy, i am only extending the charade by speaking of it, because the people reading this would see only themselves, not me, not my ideas. or would they? is it possible that the people who are reading this are the ones who are drawn to it because they have had, on some level, conscious or not, the same ideas, and what enters their minds, is their faithful but slightly distorted copy (i.e., interpretation)?
and if that seems too miraculous, would it still, if the truth were that we sync up so easily because we are not separate?
at that point, there is no such thing as incomprehensible worlds in an incomprehensible world; there is simply one thing looking at itself, changing itself through the attempt to observe, observing once more. incomprehensibility replaced by infinity. completion always delayed.
Posted by Bramble Gamble On Sunday, February 04, 2007 at 10:13 PM
Cory sent me these links:
Goethe, Wittgenstein, and the Essence of Color
Epistemology
Empiricism
Posted by Susan On Tuesday, February 06, 2007 at 3:49 PM
Post a Comment