December 30, 2010
-
Red
As taken from NASA. (2007). What Wavelength Goes With a Color? Retrieved December 31, 2010, from Atmospheric Science Data Center: http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/Wavelengths_for_Colors.html#red
"The visible red light has a wavelength of about 650 nm. At sunrise and sunset, red or orange colors are present because the wavelengths associated with these colors are less efficiently scattered by the atmosphere than the shorter wavelength colors (e.g., blue and purple). A large amount of blue and violet light has been removed as a result of scattering and the longwave colors, such as red and orange, are more readily seen."
Red is what we consider when we see an apple. Red is what we consider when we look at a cherry. Red is the color of blood. Red is the color of a rose. Red.
However, red is simply an electromagnetic wavelength carried by photons. The human mind perceives this via the eye as a color. In the English language we have named this color "Red." However, is this color "Red" the same for all people? Do I perceive the same red as the next person, or is it that the wavelength I have named "Red" is named "Red" by another, but perceived as what I consider to be "Blue?"
My mind has formatted the world around me so that I can better comprehend and make sense of what it is I am experiencing. However, if even the simple matter of the perception of colors can be brought into question then how is it that the human race can share experiences with one another at all? My sense of touch may come across as what another perceives to be sound, and vice versa.
We correlate our experiences to one another, this is how we communicate and relate to one another. We each say, "hey, this wavelength that my eye perceives will be considered red, do we all agree? Yes, good." Not another thought is said about this. We may argue over the peculiarities, is this crimson, or ruby; is this green a pine green or a snot green? In any case it is green.
If we each have to agree with one another on our very senses then what is it to say that something is "true." Is truth only a matter of agreement on what is not true for any given aspect, and then our absolute belief that this "truth" is true whether we are alone or in a group of people? I look down at my desk and see a book, this is a book because I have accepted the categorical statement that all people agree it is a book, whether I am alone or in a crowd of people, we all agree this is a book. But if I chose to disagree, to say, "NO this is not a book, it is a xylanthiparticulomus!" Would that in turn change the nature of the book? No, the book would still exist as it has since it became a book, it would simply have a new categorical name.
So while my mind is made up of the accepted agreed upon categories that I have been brought up to believe are true, my disbelief in these categories does not in turn change the material aspect of the categories themselves. However, my disbelief may change their aspects.
When I moved to Australia I was forced to accept a new monetary system as a basis for placing value to an object. This required my subsequent denouncement of the American Dollar as a value system for monetary gain. This change has relegated the American dollar to nothing more then a piece of paper and some round metal shiny bits. Yes I still recognize these items as having value in the USA. Nevertheless, they have no value here in Australia, and therefore, are of no monetary consideration to myself.
So I can now name the US Dollar "flaptubels" and know that flaptubels are long pieces of paper with deceased American presidents pictured upon them. These flaptubels are only of value in the United States, where they magically become "Dollars" I might add, and are the cause of both joy and strife. However, for me, flaptubels make nice kindling and can wipe up spills, although poorly.
Red.
