Can color exist to a blind person?

[anthony]

The division of colors into "warm" (red/orange/yellow) and "cool" (blue/green/violet) is, of course, subjective...

No, it's not subjective, but contextual. The colors that we see in cool areas in nature, such as in shadows, water, snow and ice, are blues, violets and aquas, where the colors that we see in sources of heat, like the sun and fire, are reds, oranges and yellows.

That is only medium warm. A very hot black body will glow white then blue.

ba'al Chatzaf

Fine. We're talking about "warm colors," not "very hot colors."

J

It does seem counter-intuitive that the physically hottest colors of electromagnetic

radiation on the Kelvin scale are blues, and red/yellow is actually the least hot.

Probably traditionally cultural, from when wood fire was as hot as it gets in people's minds. So it could be argued both ways maybe :subjective - primacy of consciousness, or objective -contextual, lacking sufficient knowledge.

The original work of Lord Kelvin is what we should thank for being able to point a color-

temperature meter at a light source, and identify it as, say, exactly 3560 degrees K, requiring

a Kodak Wratten color compensating filter, xx, to 'convert' the light to white, for your photo.

All done digitally in camera nowadays with Auto White balance.

The upshot though is that the colors or hues of light have long been objectively and precisely measurable, whatever the varying, individual assessment of them may be.

[Jonathan]

The whole purpose of science is to bring the different parts of reality to a size humans can work with, whether macro or micro. But in doing so, the specialists often look down on simple human-size human-context experience as a valid source of human knowledge.

I think you're being too kind in calling them "specialists." The proper term is "Poindexters."

Anyway, there is no reason for anyone to be intimidated by such people. The only thing the belittler has for real is snootiness. Vanity. And that's a toothless paper tiger once you've dealt with it a few times.

Probably, but it might not even be vanity, but a sort of social obliviousness. They kind of remind me of Malvin from War Games needing to be reminded when he's being rude and insensitive:

J

[We Erred Rand]

>>>Seems someone does....http://scholarlyrepo...hy_articles/13/

Abstract

In this paper we defend a particular version of the epistemic approach to argumentation. We advance some general considerations in favor of the approach and then examine the ways in which different versions of it play out with respect to the theory of fallacies, which we see as central to an understanding of argumentation. Epistemic theories divide into objective and subjective versions. We argue in favor of the objective version, showing that it provides a better account than its subjectivist rival of the central fallacy of begging the question. We suggest that the strengths of the objective epistemic theory of fallacies provide support for the epistemic approach to argumentation more generally.

The linked paper has to do with "argumentation" and the "theory of fallacies," not color perception.

Now you can explain to us what Leonid meant by saying "color is objective-epistemic."

[We Erred Rand]

>>>The upshot though is that the colors or hues of light have long been objectively and precisely measurable, whatever the varying, individual assessment of them may be.

Yep. That's the upshot.

[We Erred Rand]

>>>Fine. We're talking about "warm colors," not "very hot colors."

In that case, you admit that the color blue is somehow both "cool" and "very hot"?

[Jonathan]

>>>Fine. We're talking about "warm colors," not "very hot colors."

In that case, you admit that the color blue is somehow both "cool" and "very hot"?

Yes, depending on the context, blue could represent coolness or hotness. The point is that, generally speaking, in the context of our daily lives, we associate blue with coolness because more cool things that exist around us are in the bluish hue range of the spectrum than on the opposite side of the spectrum.

J

[We Erred Rand]

>>>No, it's not subjective, but contextual.

Contextual to each individual under varying conditions and uncontrolled circumstances. That rather makes it "subjective."

>>>The colors that we see in cool areas in nature, such as in shadows, water, snow and ice, are blues, violets and aquas, where the colors that we see in sources of heat, like the sun and fire, are reds, oranges and yellows. It is no less objective for people to associate those colors with those entities and their comparative termperatures than it is for Lord Kelvin to randomly choose a substance to heat while observing its colors.

Lord Kelvin didn't randomly choose a substance; he chose a color — black. And he observed the temperatures at which black changed first to orange, then, red, then yellow, then white, then blue. The point of color-temperature is that it makes no difference what material is used (iron, lead, steel, tungsten, etc.) just so long as it can withstand being heated and that it is black.

Color-temperature is an objective description of color because someone in Alaska can call a stranger in Florida and say "The color blue I have in mind is achieved by taking a piece of iron and heating it to 5500K" and the two strangers will both have exactly the same color blue. The blue corresponds to the temperature, and the temperature is something that appears on a thermometer that can be read optically or, if need be, converted to voice-data, or perhaps made to vibrate when it reaches the required number of degrees Kelvin. In other words, the color can be associated with repeatable objective events so that even a blind person would be able to reproduce the color simply by going through the steps necessary to produce it.

Totally different is the situation in which the fellow in Alaska calls the guy in Florida and says "The color blue I have I mind was achieved by doing ice-fishing last December 15th at midday, while wearing polarized goggles, and with my view slightly obscured by the smoke from the chimney of a nearby cabin. I almost forgot to mention: I have some slight macular degeneration and a touch of red-green color-blindness, so please take that into account when reproducing the color "blue" that I have in mind."

Sounds subjective to me. Try telling it to a blind a person and see how far he gets.

Anyway, I hope this post didn't use any words that insulted you by the use of more syllables than you're accustomed to.

[We Erred Rand]

>>>The point is that, generally speaking, in the context of our daily lives, we associate blue with coolness because more cool things that exist around us are in the bluish hue range of the spectrum than on the opposite side of the spectrum.

That would be relevant if objectivity were a matter of summing up the individual subjective experiences (what you flatteringly call "context") of the majority of individuals. But that is neither science nor objectivity.

That's merely a form of social metaphysics.

[Selene]

>>>Seems someone does....http://scholarlyrepo...hy_articles/13/

The linked paper has to do with "argumentation" and the "theory of fallacies," not color perception.

Now you can explain to us what Leonid meant by saying "color is objective-epistemic."

No, you have the affirmative position my dear.

Since you stated, in post #64 supra that:

>>>> Color is objective epistemic.

I have no idea what that means. Why not simply say that color is subjective?

Nevertheless, several questions come to my mind in the manner in which you have chosen to interact with this forum:

1) are you familiar with the forum's programs wherein you can link your reply to the paricular post, supra that you are "replying" to?;

2) are you generally supportative of Ayn's general analysis of philosophical issues?; and

3) what is your purpose in joining this forum?

I have many more questions, however these will suffice for now.

A...

[Jonathan]

>>>No, it's not subjective, but contextual.

Contextual to each individual under varying conditions and uncontrolled circumstances. That rather makes it "subjective."

No. Contextual. Period. The context of viewing specific objects on a specific day under specific conditions is no more and no less individual-dependent than any other context.

Color-temperature is an objective description of color because someone in Alaska can call a stranger in Florida and say "The color blue I have in mind is achieved by taking a piece of iron and heating it to 5500K" and the two strangers will both have exactly the same color blue. The blue corresponds to the temperature, and the temperature is something that appears on a thermometer that can be read optically or, if need be, converted to voice-data, or perhaps made to vibrate when it reaches the required number of degrees Kelvin. In other words, the color can be associated with repeatable objective events so that even a blind person would be able to reproduce the color simply by going through the steps necessary to produce it.

Totally different is the situation in which the fellow in Alaska calls the guy in Florida and says "The color blue I have I mind was achieved by doing ice-fishing last December 15th at midday, while wearing polarized goggles, and with my view slightly obscured by the smoke from the chimney of a nearby cabin."

How do you imagine that the second situation is "totally different"? You've just described a specific, controlled environment, and if anyone else duplicates the environment, he will be able to match the color. Dolt.

I almost forgot to mention: I have some slight macular degeneration and a touch of red-green color-blindness, so please take that into account when reproducing the color "blue" that I have in mind.

If you're going to add macular degeneration and color-blindness to one of the participants in the second scenario, then, for the sake of scientific consistency, you also have to add it to one of the participants in the first. So, when we equally taint the black body experiment by giving the Alaskan macular degeneration and a touch of red-green color-blindness, he and the Floridian will not end up with the same color. Retard.

Anyway, I hope this post didn't use any words that insulted you by the use of more syllables than you're accustomed to

Not at all. I find that I can't feel insulted by people who can't think their way through a couple of scenarios of observing color without recognizing that they're tainting one of the scenarios in an attempt to confirm their biases. You're such a Poindexter.

J

[BaalChatzaf]

My claim that absence is a fact is easily disproved; present the means of proving we actually perceive the same color.

We see the "same" color if we agree on the results of a color sorting exercise done with objects that reflect various colors. If we both place the same objects in the "blue pile", the same objects in the "red pile" than regardless of whether the qualia of our color experience is the same or not, we both produce the same color comparisons. So our color experiences is equivalent modulo the comparison test.

It does not matter a whit if our internal experiences are the same or not. We produce the same external results.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tmj]

The merits of naming color schemes by reference to specific processes that cause objects to radiate visible light notwithstanding, color only exists as perception.

Back to the OP "can color exist for a blind person", I think a concept of color for a blind person would only 'mean' an attribute of objects perceivable to sighted entities with the proper sense organs to apprehend. They could not have a concept of 'red', because to form the concept of color as perceived is not possible for the blind.

[BaalChatzaf]

The merits of naming color schemes by reference to specific processes that cause objects to radiate visible light notwithstanding, color only exists as perception.

Back to the OP "can color exist for a blind person", I think a concept of color for a blind person would only 'mean' an attribute of objects perceivable to sighted entities with the proper sense organs to apprehend. They could not have a concept of 'red', because to form the concept of color as perceived is not possible for the blind.

An analog of color can be perceived if color is encoded by sound pitch or by electrical voltage. It is not what is perceived by a sighted person but it would enable the blind to sort colored objects in the same way as a sighted person. That is close enough for government work.

We sighted folks do the same thing. We are "blind" to u.v. light or infra red light. But by using false color encoding we can visualize spatially the location of astronomical bodies that do not radiate visible (visible to humans) light. We use a "color" analog to visualize invisible light. If you log into the NASA site you can get a lot of color coded pictures of nebulas that radiate only in the infra red or in the x-ray frequencies. That is how we "see" black holes because the matter flying into the black holes radiate in the x-ray range at the event horizon of the black hole.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tmj]

The merits of naming color schemes by reference to specific processes that cause objects to radiate visible light notwithstanding, color only exists as perception.

Back to the OP "can color exist for a blind person", I think a concept of color for a blind person would only 'mean' an attribute of objects perceivable to sighted entities with the proper sense organs to apprehend. They could not have a concept of 'red', because to form the concept of color as perceived is not possible for the blind.

An analog of color can be perceived if color is encoded by sound pitch or by electrical voltage. It is not what is perceived by a sighted person but it would enable the blind to sort colored objects in the same way as a sighted person. That is close enough for government work.

We sighted folks do the same thing. We are "blind" to u.v. light or infra red light. But by using false color encoding we can visualize spatially the location of astronomical bodies that do not radiate visible (visible to humans) light. We use a "color" analog to visualize invisible light. If you log into the NASA site you can get a lot of color coded pictures of nebulas that radiate only in the infra red or in the x-ray frequencies. That is how we "see" black holes because the matter flying into the black holes radiate in the x-ray range at the event horizon of the black hole.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I see what you're saying, I'm just having a hard time picturing x-ray frequencies.

[We Erred Rand]

>>>No. Contextual. Period. The context of viewing specific objects on a specific day under specific conditions is no more and no less individual-dependent than any other context.

Except that each "viewing" is done by an individual subject. The percepts are part of each subject's experience, and experience is unique to that specific individual.

>>>You've just described a specific, controlled environment, and if anyone else duplicates the environment, he will be able to match the color.

But I deny the environment in the 2nd example can be duplicated, while the environment in the 1st example is irrelevant. The only thing that needs to be duplicated in the 1st example is temperature in degrees Kelvin and a "black body." Weather conditions and lighting conditions are irrelevant.

>>>you also have to add it to one of the participants in the first. So, when we equally taint the black body experiment by giving the Alaskan macular degeneration and a touch of red-green color-blindness, he and the Floridian will not end up with the same color.

I already specified that there's nothing about a thermometer that, per se, requires one to access its information visually. A completely blind person could, in principle, find a Kelvin thermometer that would beep or vibrate when the number "5500K" was reached. So long as both thermometers are calibrated, both 5500K readings will produce the same phenomena (even if the blind person cannot perceive the phenomenon of color).

Conversely, a blind person in Alaska would never be able to comprehend a request to reproduce "a warm beige, somewhere between a great suntan and a Florida navel orange glowing on Miami beach at sundown, just when the sun kisses the ocean." because those are completely subjective criteria, unique to a specific sighted person's subjective perceptual experience, at a specific location, at a specific time, on a specific day, with specific weather conditions, etc. The Alaskan could never reproduce them even if he were sighted, and the Floridian could never reproduce them at some future date. He could photograph it, of course, and he could do his best to retain it in memory; but the original conditions are not reproducible.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I moved a post by "weird Rand" to the Garbage Pile (see here).

Michael

[anthony]

The merits of naming color schemes by reference to specific processes that cause objects to radiate visible light notwithstanding, color only exists as perception.

Back to the OP "can color exist for a blind person", I think a concept of color for a blind person would only 'mean' an attribute of objects perceivable to sighted entities with the proper sense organs to apprehend. They could not have a concept of 'red', because to form the concept of color as perceived is not possible for the blind.

An analog of color can be perceived if color is encoded by sound pitch or by electrical voltage. It is not what is perceived by a sighted person but it would enable the blind to sort colored objects in the same way as a sighted person. That is close enough for government work.

We sighted folks do the same thing. We are "blind" to u.v. light or infra red light. But by using false color encoding we can visualize spatially the location of astronomical bodies that do not radiate visible (visible to humans) light. We use a "color" analog to visualize invisible light. If you log into the NASA site you can get a lot of color coded pictures of nebulas that radiate only in the infra red or in the x-ray frequencies. That is how we "see" black holes because the matter flying into the black holes radiate in the x-ray range at the event horizon of the black hole.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I see what you're saying, I'm just having a hard time picturing x-ray frequencies.

tmj: I'm too late finding out how fruitless it is to debate 1) metaphysics with a theist 2) conceptualization with an empiricist. Ba'al doesn't see the point of concepts outside of

the scientific realm, and has often said as much.

[We Erred Rand]

The division of colors into "warm" (red/orange/yellow) and "cool" (blue/green/violet) is, of course, subjective...

No, it's not subjective, but contextual. The colors that we see in cool areas in nature, such as in shadows, water, snow and ice, are blues, violets and aquas, where the colors that we see in sources of heat, like the sun and fire, are reds, oranges and yellows. It is no less objective for people to associate those colors with those entities and their comparative termperatures than it is for Lord Kelvin to randomly choose a substance to heat while observing its colors. In fact, it is more objective/rational to associate colors with the entities and temperatures that we see in our everyday context than it is to associate them with scientific experiments that hardly anyone will ever perform.

J

>>>No, it's not subjective, but contextual.

The opposite of "subjective" is "objective", not "contextual." All statements regarding perceptions we make about the world — "this is blue", "this is smooth", "this is high-pitched"; etc. — are based on some context or other; it doesn't follow that they are therefore "not subjective" just because they require context to be perceived, thought, and uttered in the first place.

>>>In fact, it is more objective/rational to associate colors with the entities and temperatures that we see in our everyday context than it is to associate them with scientific experiments that hardly anyone will ever perform.

Interesting. I've noticed an odd strain of old-fashioned populism in contemporary Objectivism that wasn't there when Rand was alive. Here, Jonathan avers that because lots of non-specialists make similar kinds of associations between their subjective percepts and an objective event in non-controlled, everyday contexts, it follows that these "collective associations" or "socially aggregate associations" must have more objectivity than the associations made by one self-conscious individual like, e.g., Galileo or Pasteur, in a highly-controlled context: such as dropping two balls of different weight from the Tower of Pisa, and putting a piece of meat in the narrow bend of a swan-neck tube of glass. Yet the first shattered the Aristotelian notion (which everyone simply knew to be true) that objects of different weight fall to the earth at different rates; and the second destroyed forever the Aristotelian notion (which everyone simply knew to be true) that living things are generated spontaneously out of dead matter.

So much for the "special" objectivity of collective percepts by aggregates of non-specialists in multitudes of everyday contexts. Objectivity and rationality are not established by any sort of process of enumeration or counting.

[Jonathan]

>>>You've just described a specific, controlled environment, and if anyone else duplicates the environment, he will be able to match the color.

But I deny the environment in the 2nd example can be duplicated, while the environment in the 1st example is irrelevant.

I reject your arbitrary denial. You seem to want to believe that only the scenario that you've proposed is duplicable, or that since it might be the easiest to duplicate, it is therefore somehow the only objective method of identifying, duplicating and communicating color. If so, you're a fool.

The only thing that needs to be duplicated in the 1st example is temperature in degrees Kelvin and a "black body." Weather conditions and lighting conditions are irrelevant.

Um, a heated black body IS a lighting condition. Weather conditions are merely identifiable and measurable particles between a viewer and a black body.

Anyway, ease or difficulty of duplicability is irrelevant. The point, Poindexter, is that in any set of duplicable conditions, the same color will be achieved.

>>>you also have to add it to one of the participants in the first. So, when we equally taint the black body experiment by giving the Alaskan macular degeneration and a touch of red-green color-blindness, he and the Floridian will not end up with the same color.

I already specified that there's nothing about a thermometer that, per se, requires one to access its information visually. A completely blind person could, in principle, find a Kelvin thermometer that would beep or vibrate when the number "5500K" was reached. So long as both thermometers are calibrated, both 5500K readings will produce the same phenomena (even if the blind person cannot perceive the phenomenon of color).

And a blind person could duplicate more complex conditions and produce the same color results that someone else had produced with the same conditions.

Conversely, a blind person in Alaska would never be able to comprehend a request to reproduce "a warm beige, somewhere between a great suntan and a Florida navel orange glowing on Miami beach at sundown, just when the sun kisses the ocean." because those are completely subjective criteria...

You're confused. They're not subjective criteria, but imprecise or approximate criteria.

...unique to a specific sighted person's subjective perceptual experience, at a specific location, at a specific time, on a specific day, with specific weather conditions, etc. The Alaskan could never reproduce them even if he were sighted, and the Floridian could never reproduce them at some future date. He could photograph it, of course, and he could do his best to retain it in memory; but the original conditions are not reproducible.

Again, that's an arbitrarty assertion. I don't accept your arbitrarily denying duplicability to all scenarios except your favorite one.

But it reminds me that your contrasting scenarios are additionally tainted by the fact that, in the first (the black body scenario), the only element of color that you are reproducing is hue, where in the second scenario (suntan navel orange warm beige), you're demanding reproduction of all three -- hue, saturation and value. In other words, the first scenario employs only one dimension of colorspace, where the second employs all three. The second therefore requires more complexity for duplicability, but you arbitrarily reject the complexity necessary for duplication!

So, for the sake of consistency, let's see you come up with a solution to the problem of making the black body method use all three dimensions of colorspace. Choose a color which is a combination of hue, saturation and value, and then identify the procedure that would be required for anyone, including a blind man, to duplicate it. It's not a difficult problem, but let's see if you can solve it, Poindexter.

J

[tmj]

The merits of naming color schemes by reference to specific processes that cause objects to radiate visible light notwithstanding, color only exists as perception.

Back to the OP "can color exist for a blind person", I think a concept of color for a blind person would only 'mean' an attribute of objects perceivable to sighted entities with the proper sense organs to apprehend. They could not have a concept of 'red', because to form the concept of color as perceived is not possible for the blind.

An analog of color can be perceived if color is encoded by sound pitch or by electrical voltage. It is not what is perceived by a sighted person but it would enable the blind to sort colored objects in the same way as a sighted person. That is close enough for government work.

We sighted folks do the same thing. We are "blind" to u.v. light or infra red light. But by using false color encoding we can visualize spatially the location of astronomical bodies that do not radiate visible (visible to humans) light. We use a "color" analog to visualize invisible light. If you log into the NASA site you can get a lot of color coded pictures of nebulas that radiate only in the infra red or in the x-ray frequencies. That is how we "see" black holes because the matter flying into the black holes radiate in the x-ray range at the event horizon of the black hole.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I see what you're saying, I'm just having a hard time picturing x-ray frequencies.

tmj: I'm too late finding out how fruitless it is to debate 1) metaphysics with a theist 2) conceptualization with an empiricist. Ba'al doesn't see the point of concepts outside of

the scientific realm, and has often said as much.

gotcha, I was just thinking a literal reading of the post would garner even a small lol

[Jonathan]

Interesting. I've noticed an odd strain of old-fashioned populism in contemporary Objectivism that wasn't there when Rand was alive. Here, Jonathan avers that because lots of non-specialists make similar kinds of associations between their subjective percepts and an objective event in non-controlled, everyday contexts, it follows that these "collective associations" or "socially aggregate associations" must have more objectivity than the associations made by one self-conscious individual like, e.g., Galileo or Pasteur, in a highly-controlled context: such as dropping two balls of different weight from the Tower of Pisa, and putting a piece of meat in the narrow bend of a swan-neck tube of glass. Yet the first shattered the Aristotelian notion (which everyone simply knew to be true) that objects of different weight fall to the earth at different rates; and the second destroyed forever the Aristotelian notion (which everyone simply knew to be true) that living things are generated spontaneously out of dead matter.

So much for the "special" objectivity of collective percepts by aggregates of non-specialists in multitudes of everyday contexts. Objectivity and rationality are not established by any sort of process of enumeration or counting.

Actually, my argument is based on the reality that true color is composed of three elements, and that in everyday life, we experience them all. It is very rare that we perceive only hue, as we do in black body experiments. So, when talking about the objectivity of identifying colors, it is more objective/rational to choose a method which addresses the full context of what we're capable of perceiving, as opposed to choosing a very limited method simply becuase it's easier to reproduce those limited conditions.

J

[BaalChatzaf]

I see what you're saying, I'm just having a hard time picturing x-ray frequencies.

When rendered as white streaks or dots on a photographic plate or an image on a phosphorescent screen you could visualize them just fine. That is exactly what a doctor does when he examines an x-ray image of your inner parts.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tmj]

apparent noncomical idiom use aside, isn't the doctor seeing the results of reactions with those materials and x-rays?

I see what you're saying, I'm just having a hard time picturing x-ray frequencies.

When rendered as white streaks or dots on a photographic plate or an image on a phosphorescent screen you could visualize them just fine. That is exactly what a doctor does when he examines an x-ray image of your inner parts.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

apparent noncomical idiom use aside, isn't the doctor seeing the results of reactions with those materials and x-rays?

I see what you're saying, I'm just having a hard time picturing x-ray frequencies.

Any way you put it, it is visualization.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Tony,

It's not pointless to debate others who think in a manner that is vastly different than you do. It all depends on what you want to achieve.

If you want to convince them--with a simple interaction--that your way is right and all their years of thinking up to now is seriously flawed at the root, I guess it is pointless. That's a hard sell to anyone--even to you.

But if you want to be more selfish, if you want to check your premises to test your thinking, these people will throw stuff at you that you will not come up with on your own. Some of it will get in and hone and polish your views with rich nuances. Some of it will make you actually change your views by correcting mistakes. And some of it you will reject outright.

Think of this. If you want to use the "identify then evaluate" system of thinking, a discussion with such people will provide you with what they think in their own words, not in the words you would attribute to them according to your frame.

I believe this kind of identification is valuable when you disagree and are certain. You can use it for all kinds of things. You can find common ground easier. You can play gotcha (if you're feeling ornery). You can study thinking and valuing processes as epistemological examples. You can see common patterns across very different bodies of ideas and approaches. Lots of things.

There's a whole lot of good that you can obtain from a discussion--yes, even of metaphysics, conceptualization and all the rest--with a person who does not think as you do.

The key is goodwill.

If you discuss important ideas with a person of goodwill, the value is tremendous. If you discuss these things with a manipulator or conceited fool, I agree it can be fruitless (although, even then, since I am studying human nature, persuasion techniques and propaganda, such a discussion can be valuable as a real time case study).

If you are centered and secure in your own thinking, it's great to have really smart people of goodwill around who disagree with you. In fact, I like having people around who are smarter than me in general.

There's a price. No one likes to look at another and feel dumber. That's uncomfortable. But I do it anyway. it makes me raise my bar. And maybe my perspective will shed light on something in their thinking, too.

Voila.

There you have a stream of win-win disagreements on fundamentals. The outcome? Individual people of goodwill can and do improve their thinking--at least in terms of perspective.

What could be better?

Preach and ye shall be of barren tribe. Think and the world floweth with riches.

(How's my olden style? Huh? Huh? Think I'm ready to do a sacred book of aphorisms? )

Michael