// No rightclick script v.2.5
// (c) 1998 barts1000
// barts1000@aol.com
// This script and others available free at http://www.lissaexplains.com
var message="keep to urself."; // Message for the alert box
function click(e) {
if (document.all) {
if (event.button == 2) {
// Don't edit below!
alert(message);
return false;
}
}
if (document.layers) {
if (e.which == 3) {
alert(message);
return false;
}
}
}
if (document.layers) {
document.captureEvents(Event.MOUSEDOWN);
}
document.onmousedown=click;
// -->
i realise it is impossible to ascertain whether a person registers a certain colour the same way that someone else does. if someone actually sees red as blue, but was taught since young that the colour he perceives as blue is red, he would never know that what he's seeing is different from what someone else sees, because after that he recognises that same colour and calls it red. it is quite impossible to describe a colour without reference to other colours, so if a person's entire scale of colours is completely off the chart, but each individual colour is held in proportion to the next, he could live his whole life not knowing that what he sees is not the same as what others see. we say red is a fiery colour, exuberant and passionate, but only because the things we associate with those qualities appear red to us to begin with. if for instance fire and roses and blood were blue, it would be perfectly natural for us to conclude that blue is a fiery colour.
come to think of it, this holds true for feelings as well. we recognise the circumstances in which they occur and the symptoms that come together with them, but without these affiliations, what's left of an emotion? what is sadness? is my sadness the same as your sadness?
we prescribe common names to things that could be vastly different, but i'm not complaining; we would not be able to function otherwise.