Wednesday, January 13, 2021

"Magenta does not exist"


This statement contradicts our immediate, first-hand empirical experience.

How is it, then, that science-journalists have come to propagate such a patent lie?

Well, the answer is; materialism.

You see, the first step you take as a materialist is to imagine a molecule, or wave, as being the only thing that really exists. You then conflate the colour with the molecule, or wave.

Step two, you discover that there is no magenta when you shine a beam of light through a prism.

Never mind that Goethe demonstrates that there is indeed magenta when light shines through a prism - only, you have to project a thin beam of shadow through it instead of a thin beam of light (see diagram bellow)

But you are a materialist. Only what is positively THERE can be considered real. So naturally, only the light is real, not the darkness. You then automatically conclude that magenta is a composite of blue and red wavelengths - in other words, you arrive at a lie - that magenta doesn't really exist.

As a materialist, you over-look the fact that, according to your own metaphysical assumptions, ALL colour is not "really there" - but never mind that, you aren't particularly interested in thinking things through - after all, thinking "isn't really there" either.

 I state all this so-as to illustrate a point. If science journalists can propagate such absolute non-truths as "magenta is not a real colour" as a result of their materialistic delusions, imagine what catastrophes of misinformation they are capable of when it comes to health.

Top diagram shows the classic prismatic colours, where a thin beam of light is shone through a prism.

Below show's Goethe's inversion of the above; where a thin beam of shadow is "shone" through the prism. Here the prismatic colours are inverted, with magenta in the middle.


  1. That's strange - I though magenta was one of the real primary colours you needed to make the others (e.g. with ink or paint), and not red. I hadn't heard of the idea that it wasn't real.

    From curiosity - have you done the above experiment yourself? When I was a kid I had some prisms, but I didn't have a good light source (nor a way of making the room dark enough) so I was limited in what I could do.

    1. Yes, I have done the experiment myself, and indeed one gets the magenta just as the diagram describes. Sunlight in a very dark room is really the only way to go. But of course that isn't easy to set up - especially in this country. I did an extensive study in colour and optics a few years ago.

      here are a couple of examples of science saying non-truths

      This guy opens by saying you'll never see magenta in a rainbow. Which is demonstrably not true.

  2. That's good to know.

    I find it strange that people would post negative and false youtube vids on this subject without a reason - it would be interesting, and perhaps enlightening - to know why people want to lie about magenta. Maybe it will become clearer at some point.

    (I battled against certainly wrong science 'fact's and concepts for many years - and there was usually a strong economic-socio-political reason for the wrongness.)

  3. "it would be interesting, and perhaps enlightening - to know why people want to lie about magenta"
    You prompted me to do a superficial survey on the subject of what magenta symbolises, and according to one source, "Magenta doesn’t tolerate hypotheticals and what-if scenarios. Instead, it focuses on reality. This practical approach does away with anxious thoughts and negative thinking. According to magenta, we should only be focused on the here and now. Otherwise, we’re bound to lose common sense."

    That was the first thing I found on it.


The Archetype of all Ideas

  Our capacity to think about nature objectively is at the same time natures capacity to express itself as IDEA. Our capacity to then think...