This reminds me of a movie about ten years ago called Pleasantville, in which the world was black and white, and then a couple of teenagers began to see color, and then everyone else began to as well.

Because Socrates is one of my inspirational figures in my life, I would definitely try to explain to others what I had experienced. Of course, it would be extremely difficult to try to express to someone what color was--probably much like trying to describe tone to someone that is gravely tone deaf. Most other people would probably think that I was insane if I tried to tell them what the color experience was. Some would want to understand and can't, others would kind of understand, a few would get it and see this color as well, but the majority wouldn't care. But the ones who want to understand but can't would likely get very jealous and be able to convince many that just don't care to kill the messenger.

Sounds like a 'savior' metaphor.
One becomes 'enlightened' and runs to spread the word, which is, generally, in our nature. We are gregarious, and the upliftment of society, is the 'upliftment' the larger self.


One could not, through language, as there is no experiential/cognitive 'common ground'. One can only point out the 'way' (ie; meditation, 'exercise', whatever...) with which one is familiar. All 'ways' are 'valid'...
But to communicate with language, there has to be common experience/understanding of the words/concepts used. In the 'color' case, there can be no language transmission.
There can, of course, be an empathic transmission.
'Explanation' implies 'why'; 'causality', which is an obsolete way to see the world. What is, is. I would use language in whatever crafty subtle ways that I can to describe (scripture?), not explain or draw any conclusions. I can only offer my 'context' when having this 'enlightening' experience so that others might synthesize a similar 'context' and, perhaps, success.
(Why 'scripture' is not 'meant' to be taken literally!)


" Again and again some people in the crowd wake up,
They have no ground in the crowd,
And they emerge according to much broader laws.
They carry strange customs with them
And demand room for bold gestures.
The future speaks ruthlessly through them."
Rainer Maria Rilke

"Each progressive spirit is opposed by a thousand mediocre minds appointed to guard the past."
-Maurice Maeterlinck

A short look at Xtian mythology, amongst many other myths, speaks well to the reception of a 'savior/smartass'! Perspective... heh


Moral; don't diddle the kiddies!

A Ritual To Read To Each Other

If you don't know the kind of person I am
and I don't know the kind of person you are
a pattern that others made may prevail in the world
and following the wrong god home we may miss our star.

For there is many a small betrayal in the mind,
a shrug that lets the fragile sequence break
sending with shouts the horrible errors of childhood
storming out to play through the broken dyke.

And as elephants parade holding each elephant's tail,
but if one wanders the circus won't find the park,
I call it cruel and maybe the root of all cruelty
to know what occurs but not recognize the fact.

And so I appeal to a voice, to something shadowy,
a remote important region in all who talk:
though we could fool each other, we should consider?
lest the parade of our mutual life get lost in the dark.

For it is important that awake people be awake,
or a breaking line may discourage them back to sleep;
the signals we give, yes or no, or maybe
should be clear: the darkness around us is deep.
-William Stafford

This language community would have the equivalent of color vocabulary in the greys. Most likely beginning with light and dark. Even in color vision societies there are languages with only two color references, that of light and that of dark. they live just fine without direct references to color. The language would just adapt to refernce their communal experience. The following answer to the thread questions will assume a small language community isolated from the larger color seeing world. The answer would be totally different if the situation is everyone in the world see black and white and all of the sudden one person doesn't.

As for the actual questions asked.
If a person found a method to see color s/he would likely be seen as crazy for trying to teach it until there were enough color cult followers who see color as well to start a religion of sorts. The color seeing method would likely be treated as a mystic tradition. The lack of vocabulary and shared cultural color experience would make it so, where only the esoteric and eccentric can achieve the state of "color enlightenment". Color vision itself would likely be considered a form of enlightenment, because I'm assuming the method to see color vision is not a simple one or color would probably have been seen by everyone in inspirational flashes or accidental flashes. The lack of suitable language to express that of color to those who do not have it would furrther cement the enlightenment nature of seeing color. This would relegate color seers to a Monkish/Mystic/Shamanistic subgroup of the population that would only see color by an eventually institutionalized apprenticeship method. One might see this as securing a prestige/elite position for the color seers and it will do this in a sense, however the real situation will likelty be that the mass population will either not believe that it is really possible to see color, or they will not believe that nthey can see color even though they believe its possible. This in effect will force the color seers into their outlier monkish prestige position.....

now I'm just rambling so I'll stop

[SIZE="3"]

I might take an approach similar to that of the Buddha, which would be to teach the exercise that produces color perception (i.e. without theorizing color will be found), and then let people discover color for themselves. That way I could avoid the whole issue of belief or non-belief in color perception.

That also fits with what we might predict "Socrates would do," because his method was to lead people to their own insights through the dialectical exchange (interestingly, if one studies the Buddha's recorded sayings, he is often found relying on the same method of questioning students that Socrates used).[/SIZE]

I wished to point out in my OP the difficulty that anyone faces when they try to introduce something very new to the general population. So I guess there is a great similarity between Socrates and Galileo in that regard.

Excellent conundrum.

One would perhaps find people already interested in excercise, they would be most able to appreciate and aspire to what you have found.
On the other hand, if you found people that were interested in unusual phenomenon, they could also be persuaded to try.
It might be worth trying it out on people that had nothing going for them, but still had the spirit of discovery lurking within them somewhere.
You could reach out to people who are in trouble, help them, and when they wish to repay you, tell them to try the exercise.

No sure recipe for teaching new things. Most of this would possibly not work.
Many people would not appreciate it, even if they could see it.

Many people would deliberately try and thwart you by pretending not to see it, purely because they are jealous that you found it and not them. (The other exercise fundis) Many would try and put you to death; like a musicians guild would fear that you were going to take all their supporters away from them with this new-fangled art-form.

Ironically, it could make you quite sad that other people are so deliberately blind to new ideas.

One could find other people with new ideas, but if your idea was a bit better than theirs, they could hate you even more.

You would start to really see how deeply troubled the world really is.
You would speculate that many others had even better ideas than this, and that those had been squashed by the morass of willing ignorance out there.

You may even be tempted to get militant because of it.

You could also be lifted to a new height of understanding and self-belief, and pursue all sorts of things you previously thought did not exist. You may find even better ideas, and your problems would increase.

You may get so sad, that you would allow the musicians to execute you so that the world would know how foolish it had been.

No doubt the legal system would prevent the media from anouncing it unless you gave them all you owned. People with new ideas may be lining the streets of the destitute. Broken in spirit.

The mistake would be to see it as an end in itself, instead of a catalyst to greater things. The elders may even deliberately avoid your idea in order to try and get you to push harder and come up with even better ideas. They would then back-date legal work claiming the ideas were theirs to begin with, and then instigate the musicians to be rid of you so that they could keep all the glory for themselves.

In the end you would just have to laugh at how pathetic people really are.
You would be forced to be extremely patient, and good humoured, or the tide of blindness could overwelm you.

But, knowing that you discovered color would cushion the blows. If you could infer from your discovery that the universe was transcendental, (an argument for a creator from design), you would be rest assured that the afterlife would give you great reward.

As your mind would be in tune with the design of the universe, the notion of afterlife would be close to you.

Non sense... He did not understand Athenian society so what ever he sought to save in Athens resembled more the society of the peloponese..

Perhaps i'll just keep it to myself.
Many people who tried to prove something they were either rejected by the society, or were killed.
"The majority says the truth" so i guess i'd rather keep what i saw or believe in to myself. And when the society or the culture is ready for a change, ill state my theory.

No guts; no glory... The fact is that the world is ready for a change now, and usually is; but do you really have something to offer??? My guess is that history moves by fits and starts just like the earth, building up forces until something gives way... One has to be careful adding force where it is not needed and should not be applied...In a sense, when societies change, no one knows how it will turn out... And speaking as a revolutionary, it would be better and safer if change was expected, welcomed, and came at a constant rate....In a very real sense people change their forms because they must; but what all people do is accept forms that resist change because they naturally hate and fear change... So reaction is always resistent to force, and so reason should be applied rather than force...

The greatest impediment to change is self...As the Muslims say: If you would change the world, first change your self...That should give everyone an idea of what they are up against with change... But to change anything, one must be open and accepting of change, and the possibility that you might be changed rather than achieving the change you set out to achieve...So it is not easy... Who said it was???