|
Post by karl on Aug 16, 2020 18:08:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 27, 2020 10:29:20 GMT
karl No, not exactly. "Weaponry race" had been started in Renaissance. Individual: If I were the last man one the Earth, or I would be alone in the Universe, and I had nuclear bombs, there would be no offenses, no calms, no hysteria about it. I just had it, and that's all. Another story the nuclear bombs in society. Weapons and some tools are the reason of panic in societies. "The weapons" is just an example. By it I wanted to say that the technology is not so dangerous as you typed in the pre-previous comment. You said: So, about this I've been talking about. It is not the computer technologies who overtakes us, is - namely - a society. I think here is the most common-shared mistake appears: Usually we think that *a hammer* is a cause of death. The real cause of death is not *a hammer*, it is a human being. (** - any tools can be put here).
I agree that it's not technology that threatens us, but how society employs technology.
My favourite quote from the gospel of Thomas goes something like this: "He who has found the world has found a carcass, and he who has found that carcass, of him the world is not worthy."
The collective thinks in what I refer to as vegetative tracks of thoughts, which only resemble actual thought processes. Their thinking is associative. If an action can be associated with a word with negative connotation, then it's bad. If it can be associated with a word with positive connotation, then it's good.
For example, if a representative of the collective doesn't like your statement: "Stop being social, start being an individual.", he/she can just refer to it as "elitist". And since elitism is a word with negative connotation, it's therefore demonstrated that what you wrote was bad, and if it's bad it can't be true.
Although I believe empathy plays an important and positive role in society, it's not lack of empathy that is the main threat to civilisation, but the lack of will to acquire insight.
Soemthing bad is happening with my browser, so I can't normally type. I'll try to answer later.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Aug 27, 2020 12:07:53 GMT
The ending of what you wrote confused me a bit. It sounded like you prefer the old European pagan gods to Christianity. Was that really what you meant? Or did you mean to express that opposite, that since you're a Christian, you wouldn't prefer paganism?
Ah, will it happen in Western Europe? Fantastically good question. Europe has been playing a provincial role in relation to the US ever since WW2. Or, perhaps more accurately, ever since the end of the Suez war. I'd be hard pressed to find Europeans these days I'd call spiritual, irregardless of how much I stretch the definition of that word. And when I do refer to spirituality, I am not specifically referring to religion, but also philosophies that delve into existential questions.
In the world I grew up in, Europeans seemed jaded, with little interest in deeper questions. I'm hoping for that to change, and I'm sure it will eventually. The question is rather whether European will be in the forefront, or let others be the pioneers, for then to absorb a watered down version of it.
I see the interest in pagan Gods as one of many ways by which people attempt to fill their inner void, in a world that offers the individual no sense of purpose and continuity. I don't actually think focusing on pagan Gods will offer people much beyond a connection with the past.
What I really want is a revival of Western philosophy, and I do not wish for people to see philosophy as some kind of antidote to religion. A philosopher needs to ask the same questions as religion attempts to answer, and be open to the possibility that religion might sometimes be right.
When I wrote former I meant the former in this bolded sentence. I would prefer Christianity.
That makes more sense.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 27, 2020 12:45:42 GMT
karl No, not exactly. "Weaponry race" had been started in Renaissance. Individual: If I were the last man one the Earth, or I would be alone in the Universe, and I had nuclear bombs, there would be no offenses, no calms, no hysteria about it. I just had it, and that's all. Another story the nuclear bombs in society. Weapons and some tools are the reason of panic in societies. "The weapons" is just an example. By it I wanted to say that the technology is not so dangerous as you typed in the pre-previous comment. You said: So, about this I've been talking about. It is not the computer technologies who overtakes us, is - namely - a society. I think here is the most common-shared mistake appears: Usually we think that *a hammer* is a cause of death. The real cause of death is not *a hammer*, it is a human being. (** - any tools can be put here).
I agree that it's not technology that threatens us, but how society employs technology.
My favourite quote from the gospel of Thomas goes something like this: "He who has found the world has found a carcass, and he who has found that carcass, of him the world is not worthy."
The collective thinks in what I refer to as vegetative tracks of thoughts, which only resemble actual thought processes. Their thinking is associative. If an action can be associated with a word with negative connotation, then it's bad. If it can be associated with a word with positive connotation, then it's good.
For example, if a representative of the collective doesn't like your statement: "Stop being social, start being an individual.", he/she can just refer to it as "elitist". And since elitism is a word with negative connotation, it's therefore demonstrated that what you wrote was bad, and if it's bad it can't be true.
Although I believe empathy plays an important and positive role in society, it's not lack of empathy that is the main threat to civilisation, but the lack of will to acquire insight.
(Because mostly I typed not correctly in English, and it made my words be messy, I decided to use ggl tranlsator this time, but it failed.) Ok, first things first, the quote of Thomas is brilliant! Thank you for posting it here. To my shame I almost forgot the one. Exactly this phrase costs a lot, because somehow it's pointing at the words of Christ: "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another" (John 13:34). I know the reference is a bit far, however, I guess it's pointing at we have to understand how to relate with each other, how to build our lives being in a society. If there would be just Adam, there would be no need for such rules. I think it's axiomatically truth. But when it happens for us to live in a society the rules may have been changed completely. So, under "Stop Be Social..." I meant not elitism, moreover, I denied it, because if there's a society we need to polite to each other. However, individualistic style is not selfishness anyhow. It's a way for a person to become one till a society is done. In other words, the rules must be softly when there's no individuals, because if there are no individuals, there cannot be any good society. And it leads to a question what makes a person be a person? And what makes a person become a stronger one? How can a person get an autonomy that allows one to be independent for a living by oneself? (I mean not just an "autonomy or independence", but something more - it's kinda spiritual; I'll try to explain it now.) So, I guess that developing of our tools and weapons, its modifying, and also advancing skills of ours (our carcass is needed to be fixed and developed too) - all of this are what allow a person to be made. There's another side of this. Self-developing is a way to become a person that is independent and has a personal autonomy (comparably to a society), but this is not that allow a person to master oneself in more higher way. If there were no gods, I think this rule (of advancing a person) would be ultimate truth. However, now we know that it's not just like that. And this makes us to do something more. And I think that it's not enough to have such skills. We need to find a path to love each other, help each other, care about each other, and so on. There are many things we need to overtake. So, in general. In my opinion, the more person in a society, the more stronger this society is. Developing of a person can go through mastering skills, techniques, and so on (to live autonomy, separately, independently). But to become a real person, the true Christian (not only Christian; it's true for many others religions and good-citizens views), it's not enough to become a person, and for reaching it we have to find a way how to relate with each other in a correct, ethical way.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 27, 2020 12:51:09 GMT
karl Hmm... I want to add, that for a thought that "humans want to play God" I can say the same thing too: societies are what hide the danger. Alone human being is out of any dangerous. The one can be confused by some nasty rumors, and that is what may bring everyone troubles. The same is about parenting, education. If a person is screwed up, he will be tainted with the plague inside him. It's like to make a person be an atheist. I think there are two possible lines of this: a) we try to find a type of education to make a person be less evil with technology b) not matter what we've found and how we educate someone, the technology makes anyone be evil My opinion is always (a), because the computers are soulless things, and only right and smart care about it, and wise dealing with it can save us from variety of possible evil scenarious "humansVStechnologies".
I'd suggest a slightly different approach. Motivate people to think for themselves. It's always the active thinkers who are skeptical of how technology is being used today. Just inspire people to be active thinkers, and they'll figure it out on their own.
I think we both are agree on it at the same time, because I also have mentioned this in the previous comment. Yes, this is really true. What do you think about the technique as a source of developing (mastering, advancing) skills for a person? (If a person wants be smarter, it tries to advance in technology?) I guess there are more than that, but the technology is probably the key way to become independent. For me it's like to teach yourself to build houses, to locate water, to get food, etc. As an example, I adore this channel on yt, I guess that somehow it links the thought I've said (about being able to create a house by yourself, to get food, etc):
|
|
|
Post by karl on Aug 27, 2020 20:44:53 GMT
I agree that it's not technology that threatens us, but how society employs technology.
My favourite quote from the gospel of Thomas goes something like this: "He who has found the world has found a carcass, and he who has found that carcass, of him the world is not worthy."
The collective thinks in what I refer to as vegetative tracks of thoughts, which only resemble actual thought processes. Their thinking is associative. If an action can be associated with a word with negative connotation, then it's bad. If it can be associated with a word with positive connotation, then it's good.
For example, if a representative of the collective doesn't like your statement: "Stop being social, start being an individual.", he/she can just refer to it as "elitist". And since elitism is a word with negative connotation, it's therefore demonstrated that what you wrote was bad, and if it's bad it can't be true.
Although I believe empathy plays an important and positive role in society, it's not lack of empathy that is the main threat to civilisation, but the lack of will to acquire insight.
(Because mostly I typed not correctly in English, and it made my words be messy, I decided to use ggl tranlsator this time, but it failed.) Ok, first things first, the quote of Thomas is brilliant! Thank you for posting it here. To my shame I almost forgot the one. Exactly this phrase costs a lot, because somehow it's pointing at the words of Christ: "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another" (John 13:34). I know the reference is a bit far, however, I guess it's pointing at we have to understand how to relate with each other, how to build our lives being in a society. If there would be just Adam, there would be no need for such rules. I think it's axiomatically truth. But when it happens for us to live in a society the rules may have been changed completely. So, under "Stop Be Social..." I meant not elitism, moreover, I denied it, because if there's a society we need to polite to each other. However, individualistic style is not selfishness anyhow. It's a way for a person to become one till a society is done. In other words, the rules must be softly when there's no individuals, because if there are no individuals, there cannot be any good society. And it leads to a question what makes a person be a person? And what makes a person become a stronger one? How can a person get an autonomy that allows one to be independent for a living by oneself? (I mean not just an "autonomy or independence", but something more - it's kinda spiritual; I'll try to explain it now.) So, I guess that developing of our tools and weapons, its modifying, and also advancing skills of ours (our carcass is needed to be fixed and developed too) - all of this are what allow a person to be made. There's another side of this. Self-developing is a way to become a person that is independent and has a personal autonomy (comparably to a society), but this is not that allow a person to master oneself in more higher way. If there were no gods, I think this rule (of advancing a person) would be ultimate truth. However, now we know that it's not just like that. And this makes us to do something more. And I think that it's not enough to have such skills. We need to find a path to love each other, help each other, care about each other, and so on. There are many things we need to overtake. So, in general. In my opinion, the more person in a society, the more stronger this society is. Developing of a person can go through mastering skills, techniques, and so on (to live autonomy, separately, independently). But to become a real person, the true Christian (not only Christian; it's true for many others religions and good-citizens views), it's not enough to become a person, and for reaching it we have to find a way how to relate with each other in a correct, ethical way.
I didn't mean that the statement "stop being social" was elitist. What I meant to illustrate was how people in the collective don't really think. They just come up with labels for whatever they like or dislike. So if they don't like the statement "stop being social", they call it elitist. This is the case for both the left and the right. When the right wing in the US didn't like the criticism of the Iraq war, they called the critics "anti-American". If feminists don't like that someone call themselves egalitarians rather than feminists, they may label them as "right wingers", or "misogynists".
I absolutely agree that a functional society depends on strong individuality. The strong individuality of humans compared to other pack animals is due to that our childhood is so long. The longer the childhood, the longer time for our identity to develop, and the deeper, more advanced, and complex it may be. It is my view that one main disadvantage for the neanderthals was that their childhood was about three years shorter than ours. Maybe that is why they never developed beyond living in groups of 15-20 individuals.
Civilisation is a matter of distinctly different individuals having very different skills that allow them to complement each other. I remember translating an old Sumerian story where it was pointed out that a goldsmith didn't need functional feet. Instead of small societies where basically everyone had to master the same skills, for not to be a burden to others, an advanced society allows for diversity. Diversity requires individuality.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Aug 27, 2020 20:50:35 GMT
I'd suggest a slightly different approach. Motivate people to think for themselves. It's always the active thinkers who are skeptical of how technology is being used today. Just inspire people to be active thinkers, and they'll figure it out on their own.
I think we both are agree on it at the same time, because I also have mentioned this in the previous comment. Yes, this is really true. What do you think about the technique as a source of developing (mastering, advancing) skills for a person? (If a person wants be smarter, it tries to advance in technology?) I guess there are more than that, but the technology is probably the key way to become independent. For me it's like to teach yourself to build houses, to locate water, to get food, etc. As an example, I adore this channel on yt, I guess that somehow it links the thought I've said (about being able to create a house by yourself, to get food, etc):
I like the idea of self-sufficiency. And yes, technology is required for that. Even simple things, such as doing photography, would have been a non-option for me if it hadn't been for digital technology, due to having to hand a film over to a photo shop.
I would like 3D printers to become more versatile. Recently I thought about making my own coffee cup, but learned that the material used by 3D printers wasn't safe for that.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 27, 2020 22:03:48 GMT
(Because mostly I typed not correctly in English, and it made my words be messy, I decided to use ggl tranlsator this time, but it failed.) Ok, first things first, the quote of Thomas is brilliant! Thank you for posting it here. To my shame I almost forgot the one. Exactly this phrase costs a lot, because somehow it's pointing at the words of Christ: "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another" (John 13:34). I know the reference is a bit far, however, I guess it's pointing at we have to understand how to relate with each other, how to build our lives being in a society. If there would be just Adam, there would be no need for such rules. I think it's axiomatically truth. But when it happens for us to live in a society the rules may have been changed completely. So, under "Stop Be Social..." I meant not elitism, moreover, I denied it, because if there's a society we need to polite to each other. However, individualistic style is not selfishness anyhow. It's a way for a person to become one till a society is done. In other words, the rules must be softly when there's no individuals, because if there are no individuals, there cannot be any good society. And it leads to a question what makes a person be a person? And what makes a person become a stronger one? How can a person get an autonomy that allows one to be independent for a living by oneself? (I mean not just an "autonomy or independence", but something more - it's kinda spiritual; I'll try to explain it now.) So, I guess that developing of our tools and weapons, its modifying, and also advancing skills of ours (our carcass is needed to be fixed and developed too) - all of this are what allow a person to be made. There's another side of this. Self-developing is a way to become a person that is independent and has a personal autonomy (comparably to a society), but this is not that allow a person to master oneself in more higher way. If there were no gods, I think this rule (of advancing a person) would be ultimate truth. However, now we know that it's not just like that. And this makes us to do something more. And I think that it's not enough to have such skills. We need to find a path to love each other, help each other, care about each other, and so on. There are many things we need to overtake. So, in general. In my opinion, the more person in a society, the more stronger this society is. Developing of a person can go through mastering skills, techniques, and so on (to live autonomy, separately, independently). But to become a real person, the true Christian (not only Christian; it's true for many others religions and good-citizens views), it's not enough to become a person, and for reaching it we have to find a way how to relate with each other in a correct, ethical way. I didn't mean that the statement "stop being social" was elitist. What I meant to illustrate was how people in the collective don't really think. They just come up with labels for whatever they like or dislike. So if they don't like the statement "stop being social", they call it elitist. This is the case for both the left and the right. When the right wing in the US didn't like the criticism of the Iraq war, they called the critics "anti-American". If feminists don't like that someone call themselves egalitarians rather than feminists, they may label them as "right wingers", or "misogynists".
I absolutely agree that a functional society depends on strong individuality. The strong individuality of humans compared to other pack animals is due to that our childhood is so long. The longer the childhood, the longer time for our identity to develop, and the deeper, more advanced, and complex it may be. It is my view that one main disadvantage for the neanderthals was that their childhood was about three years shorter than ours. Maybe that is why they never developed beyond living in groups of 15-20 individuals.
Civilisation is a matter of distinctly different individuals having very different skills that allow them to complement each other. I remember translating an old Sumerian story where it was pointed out that a goldsmith didn't need functional feet. Instead of small societies where basically everyone had to master the same skills, for not to be a burden to others, an advanced society allows for diversity. Diversity requires individuality.
I apologize if i got things wrong. I didn't want to say that what you had mentioned was to change the meaning of the phrase into "elitism". - You just brought an example. And this helped me to open my view wider. So, thanks you for such examples. Unfortunately my views, especially political ones. I barely know something about it: no reading history makes my vuews to be narrow, and even twisted sometimes. It's really fun about many feminists or the pacifists. In their own way they are needed to be heard and have some compassions, 'cause the way where they are going to is kinda emptiness. Such feminine mobs as "Femen" are just ridiculous. Without a doubt they are paid and controlled; at home the girls live completely different lives. I wonder what serious purposes lurk behind such "creepy" reality shows are being shown? Are we just wool puppets?.. So the same about their rhetoric: just like scripts from soap operas. Complete agree on most of the rest of your comment. Overpopulating is bad. Newborn science as archeoastronomy and biorythmology study the calendar. I read not much of it, however I got something about the ancient's views on the calendar (Maya, Egypt, mainly). They tried to fill it absolutely: adding the time of reap and blossoming, when to have sex and when to die, when the cows give mill and when they are needed to be killed... So, such a calendar must have answers like how many inhabitants should live in a certain trube/community. Now such views are back in style too, but without such a serious. Feminism or some others are funny and queerly. The elders were smarter, than us?.. So, I join the view about the number. This is what is worth to be studied. Well, must say that this view is the most healthy, and at the same time, mathematically there might be different scenarios. Variations are what depend on our functional vision, isn't it? Russell in "Philosophy of Logical Atomism" (ch. V) told (his listeners) that regarding of how complexes are built: two, three, four or more constitutions are required in a proposition with the central controlling verb - we may achieve base phrases that allow us to say about differences and similarities. In other words, depending on laws of logic (inclding or excluding the law of excluded third, for example) we might get different types of tools of manipulating with external relations, i.e. observable behaviour of some things... (I apologize for such clunky description of it.) Anyway, I wanted to say that "the identity" is what under the series of serious talks. It must be discussed too.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 27, 2020 22:23:40 GMT
I think we both are agree on it at the same time, because I also have mentioned this in the previous comment. Yes, this is really true. What do you think about the technique as a source of developing (mastering, advancing) skills for a person? (If a person wants be smarter, it tries to advance in technology?) I guess there are more than that, but the technology is probably the key way to become independent. For me it's like to teach yourself to build houses, to locate water, to get food, etc. As an example, I adore this channel on yt, I guess that somehow it links the thought I've said (about being able to create a house by yourself, to get food, etc): I like the idea of self-sufficiency. And yes, technology is required for that. Even simple things, such as doing photography, would have been a non-option for me if it hadn't been for digital technology, due to having to hand a film over to a photo shop.
I would like 3D printers to become more versatile. Recently I thought about making my own coffee cup, but learned that the material used by 3D printers wasn't safe for that.
Yeah, the stuff for the printers didn't make me a tiny happier either. I guess that it can be made in few steps: a) firstly, creating the model; b) finding the material to create a cup (it can be not necessary the cup, and not necessary made up with porcelain); c) finding the material that can be 3-D printed, but a bit more solid; d) finding a material that is not so hard and solid, but more hard and solid, than the material from (c); e) finding the final material (porcelain, for instance); f) printing the model using mat. (c); g) putting the printed model to the material of (d); h) putting the material of (e) into material of (d). I did the sequence or the algorithm to be rough enough. The main idea is to separate the process into different laps and each lap material must be fitted for a form to get the final one. 3-D printer is awesome. I wish I had one. And not so good that after I turned 30 all the ideas had been washed away... The sense of life had been modified. I'd like to print an integral microprocessor or something. Also, various sensors or registrators may be gotten. What about... so, the power of 3-D is really powerful. All you need is to: 1) have a large enough printer; 2) have plenty of material.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Aug 28, 2020 16:44:41 GMT
I didn't mean that the statement "stop being social" was elitist. What I meant to illustrate was how people in the collective don't really think. They just come up with labels for whatever they like or dislike. So if they don't like the statement "stop being social", they call it elitist. This is the case for both the left and the right. When the right wing in the US didn't like the criticism of the Iraq war, they called the critics "anti-American". If feminists don't like that someone call themselves egalitarians rather than feminists, they may label them as "right wingers", or "misogynists".
I absolutely agree that a functional society depends on strong individuality. The strong individuality of humans compared to other pack animals is due to that our childhood is so long. The longer the childhood, the longer time for our identity to develop, and the deeper, more advanced, and complex it may be. It is my view that one main disadvantage for the neanderthals was that their childhood was about three years shorter than ours. Maybe that is why they never developed beyond living in groups of 15-20 individuals.
Civilisation is a matter of distinctly different individuals having very different skills that allow them to complement each other. I remember translating an old Sumerian story where it was pointed out that a goldsmith didn't need functional feet. Instead of small societies where basically everyone had to master the same skills, for not to be a burden to others, an advanced society allows for diversity. Diversity requires individuality.
I apologize if i got things wrong. I didn't want to say that what you had mentioned was to change the meaning of the phrase into "elitism". - You just brought an example. And this helped me to open my view wider. So, thanks you for such examples. Unfortunately my views, especially political ones. I barely know something about it: no reading history makes my vuews to be narrow, and even twisted sometimes. It's really fun about many feminists or the pacifists. In their own way they are needed to be heard and have some compassions, 'cause the way where they are going to is kinda emptiness. Such feminine mobs as "Femen" are just ridiculous. Without a doubt they are paid and controlled; at home the girls live completely different lives. I wonder what serious purposes lurk behind such "creepy" reality shows are being shown? Are we just wool puppets?.. So the same about their rhetoric: just like scripts from soap operas. Complete agree on most of the rest of your comment. Overpopulating is bad. Newborn science as archeoastronomy and biorythmology study the calendar. I read not much of it, however I got something about the ancient's views on the calendar (Maya, Egypt, mainly). They tried to fill it absolutely: adding the time of reap and blossoming, when to have sex and when to die, when the cows give mill and when they are needed to be killed... So, such a calendar must have answers like how many inhabitants should live in a certain trube/community. Now such views are back in style too, but without such a serious. Feminism or some others are funny and queerly. The elders were smarter, than us?.. So, I join the view about the number. This is what is worth to be studied. Well, must say that this view is the most healthy, and at the same time, mathematically there might be different scenarios. Variations are what depend on our functional vision, isn't it? Russell in "Philosophy of Logical Atomism" (ch. V) told (his listeners) that regarding of how complexes are built: two, three, four or more constitutions are required in a proposition with the central controlling verb - we may achieve base phrases that allow us to say about differences and similarities. In other words, depending on laws of logic (inclding or excluding the law of excluded third, for example) we might get different types of tools of manipulating with external relations, i.e. observable behaviour of some things... (I apologize for such clunky description of it.) Anyway, I wanted to say that "the identity" is what under the series of serious talks. It must be discussed too.
Is your point that it's difficult to come to terms with what identity, and hence individuality, really is?
I see humans as all having a direct access to an inner world of universal concepts. And individuality is to access these on one's own. Another way to put it is that those without individuality are either mirrors, who reflect the opinions of others, or they just act with defiance against anyone who goes against what they wish to believe. Opposing authority without understanding, or dismissing academic consensus without understanding, need not be a manifestation anything but a rebellious, empty ego. Inner freedom comes from acquiring insight.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Aug 28, 2020 16:54:36 GMT
I like the idea of self-sufficiency. And yes, technology is required for that. Even simple things, such as doing photography, would have been a non-option for me if it hadn't been for digital technology, due to having to hand a film over to a photo shop.
I would like 3D printers to become more versatile. Recently I thought about making my own coffee cup, but learned that the material used by 3D printers wasn't safe for that.
Yeah, the stuff for the printers didn't make me a tiny happier either. I guess that it can be made in few steps: a) firstly, creating the model; b) finding the material to create a cup (it can be not necessary the cup, and not necessary made up with porcelain); c) finding the material that can be 3-D printed, but a bit more solid; d) finding a material that is not so hard and solid, but more hard and solid, than the material from (c); e) finding the final material (porcelain, for instance); f) printing the model using mat. (c); g) putting the printed model to the material of (d); h) putting the material of (e) into material of (d). I did the sequence or the algorithm to be rough enough. The main idea is to separate the process into different laps and each lap material must be fitted for a form to get the final one. 3-D printer is awesome. I wish I had one. And not so good that after I turned 30 all the ideas had been washed away... The sense of life had been modified. I'd like to print an integral microprocessor or something. Also, various sensors or registrators may be gotten. What about... so, the power of 3-D is really powerful. All you need is to: 1) have a large enough printer; 2) have plenty of material.
The problem is that you need an oven capable of over 1200 degrees to make porcelain. It's the same problem with clay. Only for decorative purposes can one use polymer clay, which can be dried in a regular oven.
I want to be able to make my own coffee cup that doesn't require me buying a special oven capable of very high temperatures. I have thought about making a cup out of clay and placing it inside my wood burning stove, but in order to be able to drink from it, it also needs to be glazed.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 9, 2020 13:30:52 GMT
karlI do apologize it took so long to answer... Now to remember the central idea makes my head hurts in real. In order: A. I guess that what can be called as "individual" (itself) is hard to realize as difficult as to utter a phenomenon. Perhaps, the real individual presents itself through phenomenological experience or i.e through our intentions (literally, within them). So the problem that supposedly lies here the same to metalanguage/language one: constructing rules doesn't equal to make descriptions. (Sorry that I passed a comment of how'd you see this problem. Because of my absence I can't get it now.) B. Anyway I'm positive on it. If all what I have is clay, then to get A-clay I need to get Z-clay, Y-clay, X-clay, W-clay... first. It's similar to how our ancestors dealt with iron: they mastered rocks before. Surely it's easy to say than to do, but it's likely to be the way out. When I broke a nice cup and intended to repair it I faced the fact that only I had to do was glueing it. (Are there any other ways at all?) The same idea might be used in making other cups... I guess...
|
|