Tom: Exactly right, good point.
Jon On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Tom Gollier <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, > > For what it's worth, I think you're right on. > > I would just add that a "diagram" in Peirce's sense (i.e. distinguished > from both images and metaphors) not only would require relations between > the parts (indices) but also those relationships should be such that we can > derive new relationships from them within the diagram. "Diagrams" of > things like sales year to year are more like images than diagrams in > Peirce's sense. > > Tom > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 8:08 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Tom: >> >> A simple list of color *names *does not seem to qualify as a diagram in >> Peirce's terminology, because it does not embody any relations among its >> parts. A depiction of the visible spectrum is probably a better example, >> whether it is a simple color wheel or the discrete (but dense) version that >> you can pull up on your computer monitor to display two million different >> shades. >> >> I would suggest that the object of such a diagram is a range of >> qualities; i.e., real possibilities. Which particular diagram is suitable >> depends mainly on the purpose for which someone is using it. To teach >> primary and secondary colors to a child, the color wheel with only six >> varieties is adequate. Early video games and personal computers made do >> with a palette of just 16 colors. An artist might not want to be limited >> to any finite collection of hues, and thus will freely smear together >> different paints until the result is just right. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> >> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Tom Gollier <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> >>
----------------------------- 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 .
