[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by ScottAnfield

I'm sure that you can see threes, but why does the distinction need to be crude? I like your analogy of black, white and grey. Can you see why you need a third? Like you say, black and white are extremes and naturally this means that there is a mean between them, so extremes have to be 3 so that they are not concentrated into either one of the extremes. An elegant balance is needed. If you reason that black and white are on the same side of the coin and the colours are on the other side, why does this need to be? All colours would range in between black and white. Some argue that black and white aren't even colours, just the absence of colour. It is because, although black and white are opposites, they may not be either end of the colour spectrum. If, for instance, two opposites such as red and blue were to have a mean, it would be purple and if yellow and blue were opposites, then green would be the mean. To have all the colours in the spectrum, then you would have to make each opposite either end of the spectrum. However, there are 3 primary colours- red, blue and yellow. If you mix any of these 3 colours in the right proportions, you can make ANY colour. The binary triad, 1/0/1 etc, would allow any colour to be made, but only if there was a third number to represent the third colour. Maybe 0/1/2. To simplify this, you could just say 2/1, which is similar to 1/0, just one number higher for each.

Good arguments, Scott, and I would say there is a lot of fun to be had when viewing everything from this cruder perspective (sorry, the word crude may have a negative ring to it).

In the way we perceive time, for instance, we already have 2/1 (or 2/0) because we count in seconds and not in firsts. Still, even when we look at the aspects of just three colors doing the job (red, blue, and yellow) in reflective light, they do not cover the job when light is the source (red, blue, and green). An example is our television set: there is no yellow, but there is green. Even though it confirms the three-based aspect, it makes the overall delivery more complex than just three, because we must then give this difference a place in our overall delivery. The pyramid theory gives this a place, for the four corners are seen as blue and red as the grounded pair, and yellow and green as the transformational pair. Just like North and South have grounded positions (while retreating fully to their poles), and just like East and West not having grounds to retreat to, the red and blue colors have grounded (and I don't mind if you use the word self-based here) aspects, but yellow and green do not.

In a prism, I like it that blue and red take in opposite positions, while yellow and green are found right-smack in the middle.

In the pyramid of human beings, woman and men are the grounded oppositional pair, and age is the third that contains two oppositional aspects of young and old. If you want, you can see three in that, but I consider it four (with the fifth overall position that is an abstract, such as human being, something that does not exist, and nevertheless exists). It doesn't exist, for no human being can be young, old, male, and female all at the same time. It does exist, but only when we all are (self-based) human beings.

I definitively agree with you that black and white are not each others opposite. White and all colors find themselves in opposition to black (lack of light/reflection). So, next to green, black is also the opposite of red. I see white more as the culmination of the various colors than as a color all by itself.

I am placing black/gray/white on one side, and black/colors/white on the other side simply because they deliver two ways for looking at one and the same view. As in my reply right above, I see a self-based distinction in the scheme of colors/light. The red, blue and green are based on light as the immediate source, while red, blue and yellow are based on light as the indirect source. I would imagine that if the properties are different that we should not mix them into a single scheme (except as an abstract such as a pyramid theory). Same way, I'd like to keep the black-gray-white view separate. Yet I am placing them all on the same coin (though black does actually not belong to the coin itself).

One more thing about abstracts: they are recognizable as singular entities. We say that the nation declares a war on drugs, the family goes to the beach and that god is good. The group in general is seen as a single entity in language. In English there are a few exceptions: one can say that the police are coming, but in most other languages one would say that the police is coming. Abstracts are often general entities containing a plural character, but nevertheless the singular verb is used.

Thank you for asking good questions. I tend to quarrel about issues more rather than ask good questions; a nasty habit. I am working on changing that. I hope you find reasons in my answers to reply your views further.