Hey there!
So I recently read a really interesting quote by Socrates in a research paper on shape recognition. It goes like this:
"Figure is the only existing thing that is always found following color"
Now, I have not googled this yet, but the following is what I figure it means (Oh wait, that last sentence sounds like the quote itself *lol smiley*).
We can visually comprehend shape only because it delineates a color or shades of color. So shape/figure has essentially followed color.
Unsolicited philosophical musings upcoming:
I suspect we have a tendency to imagine that color is filled within a given boundary. But this quote essentially suggests that when color comes to a stop, or you could say when it ceases to flow, boundary is formed. This is like the elder sister of the who-came-first-hen-or-egg dilemma. What came first? Shape or color?
(Some of you may not agree with the parallelism as figure does not produce color/color does not produce figure like hen produces egg, but you will see soon why I said so)
You should pause here and allow me to throw my biased opinions on you.
Any area in space is formed by putting very thin boundaries together - think of the boundaries as elements we consider while integrating for center of mass. These boundaries come together to form a blob or shape of color. Ah! There it is again. So each boundary must have an inherent color right? And clearly, the structure or formation of boundaries cannot change color. So each elemental boundary is also perceived only because of its inherent color, and the more macroscopic shape clearly is.
Uh oh, I might have resolved the dilemma for myself atleast. (There goes the dream for sparking a worldwide controversy *lol smiley*)
But continue wondering!
Tata. :)
So I recently read a really interesting quote by Socrates in a research paper on shape recognition. It goes like this:
"Figure is the only existing thing that is always found following color"
Now, I have not googled this yet, but the following is what I figure it means (Oh wait, that last sentence sounds like the quote itself *lol smiley*).
We can visually comprehend shape only because it delineates a color or shades of color. So shape/figure has essentially followed color.
Unsolicited philosophical musings upcoming:
I suspect we have a tendency to imagine that color is filled within a given boundary. But this quote essentially suggests that when color comes to a stop, or you could say when it ceases to flow, boundary is formed. This is like the elder sister of the who-came-first-hen-or-egg dilemma. What came first? Shape or color?
(Some of you may not agree with the parallelism as figure does not produce color/color does not produce figure like hen produces egg, but you will see soon why I said so)
You should pause here and allow me to throw my biased opinions on you.
Any area in space is formed by putting very thin boundaries together - think of the boundaries as elements we consider while integrating for center of mass. These boundaries come together to form a blob or shape of color. Ah! There it is again. So each boundary must have an inherent color right? And clearly, the structure or formation of boundaries cannot change color. So each elemental boundary is also perceived only because of its inherent color, and the more macroscopic shape clearly is.
Uh oh, I might have resolved the dilemma for myself atleast. (There goes the dream for sparking a worldwide controversy *lol smiley*)
But continue wondering!
Tata. :)
