Imagine being at the pub and hearing two people talk about the colour of Allallt’s shirt. The man is convinced the shirt is purple, and the woman is convinced the shirt is pink. They quibble over different sentences from different posts on my blog and build convoluted arguments about how my syntax unambiguously informs them of the colour of my shirt. Curiousity gets the better of you. You ask them “who is Allallt?” And that is when the proverbial faeces hits the propeller designed for thermal regulation…
Your query seems perfectly fine to you, Allallt has explicitly been presented as a character constructed on an online media platform. You raise the possibility that Allallt is not a real person, but a construct of one or more people to achieve a particular function. What you don’t understand is that Allallt must be real because of the universal significance of the colour of Its shirt (it is meaningless to ask the gender of Allallt).
Allallt’s shirt–despite being only one colour (according to their respective denominations of Allalltism)–stands as the relative definition of all colour. Without Allallt’s shirt all colour becomes meaningless and entire businesses, like Interior Design, would be impossible. The existence of Interior Design proves Allallt and Its shirt are real. If Allallt were dead–as you, the a-Allalltist, were suggesting–then you would have to throw out all ideas of colour, as Nietzsche said. But you colour-coordinated your clothes, so you’re absurd!
They then go back to talking to each other, both using their certitude as evidence for their confidence they were right. Neither presented evidence… you interject again (you fool!):
“We can say with as much confidence as science permits that colour is the result of certain regions of the electromagnetic spectrum stimulating the ocular nerve and giving a signal to the brain. I cannot guarantee you experience the same thing when you see blue, but we are referring to the same input.”
You say, reasonably sure that can’t be a controversial statement.
“Science can’t tell you anything about experience”
The woman replies.
“Maybe not. But that is what I said; science tells us about the stimulus, objectively. We objectively know about the relationship between wave-lengths and different named colours.”
You try to explain patiently.
“No. Colour is not a wavelength. To an Allalltist colour is Its will, to an a-Allalltist it is merely a fashion of interpretation. A-Allalltist science has invented the lie of the electromagnetic spectrum to allow ignorant people to continue to live in their lie.”
He says, clearly interrupting the woman.
“If colour is independent of wavelength, what do we mean when we say the chlorophyll in plants utilises green light preferentially over other bits of the electromagnetic spectrum?”
You ask, somewhat insincerely.
“You, as an a-Allalltist, can’t talk about green. Without Allallt’s pink shirt you have no objective reference”
explains the woman.
Interjects the man.
You excuse yourself from the conversation and go to the toilet. On your way you stop to admire a painting and ponder not the colour of Allallt’s shirt–it is blisteringly obvious that any shirt’s colour is defined by the EMS reflected from it, an objective fact independent of the shirt–but, instead you ponder whether Allallt exists at all.