Jon, I don't know, but your questions as to the parts of a diagram of the possibilities of "color" and the relationships between those parts don't seem all that problematic to me. Such a diagram might be rudimentary categories — black, blue, brown, green, orange, purple, red, yellow, and white — or it might be extended categories of colors — such as my computer can display. Or, the diagram might be infinitely divisible into sequential wavelengths within a certain range. Or, it might be the artist's palette with different colors and various combinations smeared together. All of these allow us to identify, distinguish, and/or produce colors.
The trouble comes with your question about the object. If we mean "object" in the sense of what is this thing "color" which all these diagrams ostensibly refer, the question becomes either what is this thing-in-itself, i.e. the reality, or which of these diagrams is right, i.e. the reality. Peirce, via the scientific community, seems to be on the side of evolving diagrams, but personally, I wonder why we bother. Aren't these particular diagrams useful, real and general enough, for us? Do we really need to know the thing "color" directly or an absolute, one-size-fits-all universal diagram? Tom On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 8:31 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Tom, List: > > It is no intrusion at all, I welcome your input! > > I think that both "red" and "color" are universals, or rather generals as > Peirce typically preferred to call them. Each names a continuum of > possible instantiations, and the one for red is part of the one for color, > consistent with his definition of a continuum as "that which has parts, all > of which have parts of the same kind." Both 1ns and 3ns are general, but > in different ways; Peirce called them "negative" and "positive" generality, > respectively. > > I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on your suggestion that a > concept is "a diagram of possibilities." What is the object of such a > diagram? What are its parts? What are the significant relations among > them that the diagram embodies? How does such a diagram mediate between > red things and the consequences of being red, such as primarily reflecting > broad-spectrum light at a wavelength between 620 and 750 nm? > > Thanks, > > Jon S. > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
