ABSTRACT
Furthermore, if red and green are themselves differences, red becomes the counterpart of green and green that of red.1
But this mutual dependence is vicious. For then red will be equal to not-green and green to not-red. So red will include green and green red. In that case they could not be different. It may be said that the cognition of red requires, only when regarded as difference, the knowledge of green. But even when regarded as difference, if not-green constitutes the form of red, there is no use denying that red, even when cognized by itself, includes green. For red is always of the same form. If it is said that its form changes in the two cognitions, then how can we maintain that the red is the same?
