Color's Kapanadze forum, FE builds circuits and comments

[AlienGrey]

There is no reason for the poor to clean up the trash thrown away by the rich.
Wesley The trash you put out comes from all the equipment you use.
People living on less than a dollar a day have no garbage to put out.
It can be persuasive if you eat one meal a day and discuss population reduction.

What is this DOLLAR imperial greed middle man that's crept in ?
And What is 'garbage' ? do you mean recyclable wast?

[color]

This is called garbage.
The representative garbage that suppresses humans is God.
And he/she will torment humans until they are all extinct.

[color]

Geo, Its and TinselKoala are the most likely members to complete the Ruslan Free-Generator.
It is also possible that it has already been completed.

[stivep]

PART#9
Interesting is to know how many of you are at the level to read it all and formulate your own opinion.
By that you can measure your own value  in format listed below:

What is this DOLLAR imperial greed middle man that's crept in ?
And What is 'garbage' ? do you mean recyclable wast?

There is no reason for the poor to clean up the trash thrown away by the rich.
Wesley The trash you put out comes from all the equipment you use.
People living on less than a dollar a day have no garbage to put out.
It can be persuasive if you eat one meal a day and discuss population reduction.

there are few factors that may create Chaos :
1. food
2. air to breath
3. earth as mechanism containing living organisms.
ad1.
- body is just like a machine.Like an engine burning up fuel, in order to generate the required energy.

ad2.
Air contains some important gases like oxygen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, etc. All living things use oxygen to breathe in.

ad3.
Earth sustains a kind of homeostasis, the maintenance of relatively constant conditions.




summary:
_{(physics, philosophy, psychology official standpoint)}

Mentioned  :Dollars amount or trash is of lesser importance for immediate ( instant) next day survival.
However  when multiplied  at given time frame it becomes problem .(  depleted ozone zone in the stratosphere over the Antarctic,)
Any discussion stops to exist when there is no one left to discuss any longer.
Greed is future of mind as well as Idea
-First was matter
-than  chemical interaction
-than living organism having some form of ( brain)
-than conscious mind , having ideas
-and than was a greed as form of response to electrical impulses ruling chemistry of  a body.

Conscious creature called human animal fought and is fighting now over conflicting  idea of God/Gods
and caring less, for past, while exposed to uncertain future.
__________________________
We all are:
-self oriented,
-self focused,
-self accumulating
creatures and that makes us  incredibly similar to other mammals animals.
Selfishness is :
- mechanism of survival that goes back to our formative, caveman days.
- fear is natural to all mammals including humans.
-fighting with fear is taking  risk of negative consequences.
- all mammals excluding humans never fight for ideas .

However:
psychologist from Yale and Harvard has made a splash with a well publicized claim that
moral indignation is usually an affectation aimed at enhancing reputation and, thereby, gaining personal
advantage. It is nothing more than a compulsive desire to proclaim how virtuous you are, to "advertise" yourself to others.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/psychology-touts-selfishn_b_9659922

Heroism, patriotism, morality and religion are artificial, and fear based
mechanisms created by more prominent human animals  securing their own comfort of live at first.
In practice dead Heroes are less important than $1 in your pocket at this very minute if you were paid  to forget about them  for the next minute.
Patriots are convenient only for given task.
Priests gets more fat and religion is  a business for many.

_____________________

Here is me  called "selfish" by  gentleman nick: Color  .
I explained to you all needed to take world future in your hands.
What do you need me with Dr Hans for?
-Sending energy from A to B is easy
-Extracting it from Schumann Waveguide is little more  time involving but this is exactly the same mechanism
.. only reduced to Receiver only.
https://youtu.be/He5xQOJHlrU

I have  numbered my  comments here so you can read them  easily.
Note: mentioned angle  of incident 45 degrees should be corrected to approx 67 degrees.
some assumptions in the pictures below are early 2017 and not always perfectly correct.
For  wave landing in the interface there is need of  Brewster angle where there is  no reflection and no refraction.
Grating is not  existent and not needed for lower than nm frequencies.

Wesley

[color]

In the past, I wrote as a lecture material for the Military Academy,
It became weird after passing through Google Translator.


Derrida's critique of Husserl's semiotics focuses first on Husserl's theory of expression.
In particular, Husserl's theory of expression emphasizes that meaning originates from innerness through monologue.
"Amidst the representations of words that accompany and support my still thoughts, I imagine the words spoken by my voice. Here too, my shorthand or normal handwritten letter symbols (Schriftzeichen) suddenly come to mind."
This is where Derrida specifically hits.
First of all, Derrida points out that it is very paradoxical and contradictory to see Husserl's expression as a monologue.
That's why the word "derrida" (Ausdruck)
Although it means'outside painting' ('A'ußerung),
Husserl says that this is because he understands expression as a function of internalization.
In the meantime, Husserl's theory of expression is made useless by saying that the expressions that Husserl says are by no means separate from communication.
We speak of the gap between direct communication and meaning in general.
This is because Husserl doesn't know how to rule out the criticism of'the lonely life of the soul'.
He referred to the general language of the logos as a secondary event under the expressive form itself,
And you will try to think of it as an event overlaid on the underlying and pre'-expressive layer of meaning.
[In that case] the expressive language itself will have to be followed by the absolute silence established in the relationship with itself.
Derrida said this absolute silence about Husserl,
This is expressed as'phenomenological silence'.
And it is said to be converted into words about the word.
Word is an object.
It only makes sense when an active intention inspires a soul into it, thereby moving it from the state of the helpless voice to the state of the body with the soul.
Husserl defined the word as a kind of physical entity,
Derrida reports that this physical reality is said to have life by the soul, the meaning of the word.
In other words, from Derrida's perspective, the meaning of the words Husserl says
Sort of
A soul without a body and a voice without a sound
In other words, it is a voice that keeps absolute silence.
This voice would be a phenomenological voice,
It is the voice of the transcendent subject,
This transcendent subject remains the subject even after the phenomenological reduction to the real world is made.
So, according to Derrida,
In Husserl, the absolute voice of this transcendent subject
It is ringing at oneself forever.
Therefore, the absolute voice of that transcendent subject
It becomes an expression of eternal truth.
Derrida immediately hears the absolute voice
Based on a strange closed experience, it is said that transparent expressive entities such as signification, voice, and concepts are experienced as basic units that cannot be decomposed any more.
When Derrida reports and criticizes Western traditional metaphysics as phoneticism,
The starting point is this Husserl's transzendental theory of expression.
It goes up to Plato, who emphasized the direct ringing voice while pointing out the origin of voice-centredism as well as the harm of text.
Voice-centricism is also logos-centric,
The reason is that the'voix' of the inner voice is a word and cannot be separated from the'logos', which is the essential object of its formal intuition.
But the key to phoneticism is
It is a fact that it is heard and present by the person who speaks the voice.
Because it has not yet been transformed through other symbols
In view of the fact that the intuition for the essential form is fully opened, the present exhibition becomes an important condition that guarantees the filling clarity.
Thus, the present metaphysics is established.
It provides a fundamental basis for philosophical thinking based on transparency.
So, for example,'U'rgen Habermas' (1929-) describes Derrida's emphasis on Husserl:
The ephemeral transparency of the voice passing by quickly promotes the assimilation between words and expressed meanings.
Herder has already pointed out the peculiar self-relationship involved in listening to what you say.
Like Herder (Gehlen), Derrida emphasizes the intimacy, transparency and absolute closeness of expressions that are given life at the same time through my breath and meaning-oriented intentions.
However, Derrida never tolerates but criticizes the metaphysics of the present, based on Husserl's voice of absolute silence of the transcendent subject.
That sure criticism tool comes from Husserl himself.
Husserl's theory of time is that.
Husserl recaptures the past image of the minute moment when consciousness passed.
Retention, consciousness
Protention to capture the future image that will soon come after a very small moment
And I want to clarify the time based on the Urimpression that is given momentarily.
In addition to this, memory with increased grip (Erinnerung) and increased memory (Wiedererinnerung)
And he uses expectations, such as Erwartung.
In short, Husserl has only a momentary cause that is given a charge to the present in a very minute moment,
Through grasping and foresight, which is a kind of shadow or trace,
It is said that consciousness grasps the present' (lebendige Gegenwart).
But here, Derrida
The absolute voice of the transcendental subject, which is the basis on which the meaning of expression is established, has no choice but to ride time.
Therefore, the voice is always a gripping or foresight shadow
In other words, it sharply points out that it has no choice but to be established based on traces.
In short, absolute voice is always the result of traces,
It even emphasizes that it is the result of traces of traces.
At the same time, it emphasizes that a difference must arise through such traces.
Derrida's famous concept of trace and difference started
This is fundamentally established in Husserl's original analysis of the theory of time.
Husserl's vivid present is not only an expressive sign,
In fact, everything that exists is a form as a fundamental horizon that can have its own meaning.
However, when Derrida discovered that the vivid present is a chain of traces and differences that are infinitely finely connected in principle,
Of course all expressive signs
The meaning and value of everything that exists must be shaken from the root.
Even the transcendent subject that is the basis of the living present
In other words, even the transcendental consciousness cannot escape the chain of traces and differences due to its fundamental structure.
Looking at it, we can see that this difference, which opens up in the composition of time itself, is not an ordinary difference.
For example, a horse and a cow are different,
The mind and the material are different,
You can see that it is not the general difference between me and you.
In short, it is the difference that makes all the difference.
On the other hand, this temporal difference means that it has its own alteriteity (他異性, alterite).
This is because the same temporal point is already established through a point other than itself.
Strictly speaking, the trace is established through grasping and
Otherness is established through foreknowledge.
Currently given is the grip of the grip
That is, it is established through a chain of traces of traces,
It is not yet because it is waiting for it to be foreseen.
'Not yet' instills the so-called otherness that creates self-denial in the present.
To say not yet is a hold, or a differenter.
"Differer means to time,
This can be seen clearly from Derrida's words, "It means consciously or unconsciously relying on the delaying temporal mediation process of a detour that holds the execution and fulfillment of "hope" or "will"."
However, traces and ties are the two triggers of the difference.
The difference also creates a "chain of traces"
It also creates a "chain of thai sex".
And only through those things, any kind of meaning can only be established.
So, of course, the meaning of Husserl's essential form is dismantled as it collapses from the root.
So this temporal difference keeps delaying all meanings
The so-called so-called chain of traces and traces, which is the basis of their meanings,
The famous Chayeon (差延, differance) is called by the unprecedented name.
In Marges de la philosophie (Les Editions de Minuit), published in 1972, Derrida makes this "cha-yeon" the title of the first chapter.
There is a passage on pages 13-4 that says:
Let's go back.
Cha Yeon, by appearing on the stage before
It makes the movement of meaning de la signification possible only as long as each element said to be'present' is related to something other than itself (autre chose).
At this time, the other is holding the marque of the past element,
It is already pitted by signs that it is in a relationship with future elements.
And at this time, the trace is related to what is commonly referred to as the future as well as to what is commonly referred to as the past.
Meanwhile, the trace constitutes what is commonly called the present,
At this time, the current
That is, it is constituted by itself by establishing such a [past and future] relationship.
[The important thing] is that the present is absolutely not self,
That is, the past, which is even presents modifies
Or it is not even the future.
One gap (un intervalle) works.
This gap separates the present from what is not in order to make the present itself.
But this gap that constitutes the present in the present also divides the present in the present itself.
So this gap is all that can be conceived from the present as well as the present
It divides all tout etants, in particular the entity or subject, in our metaphysical language system.
This gap constitutes itself and divides itself dynamically.
This gap can be called espacement,
It is devenir-espace of time or deevenir-temps, temporisation of space.
It is this present composition that I call the archi-ecriture, archi-trace or difference.
This constitution du present
It's "originaire" and non-reducing, so it's not a simple synthesis.
Therefore, it is a synthesis that is not fundamental, strictly speaking through the signs, that is, the traces of phages and foresights.
The difference is (at the same time) interlacing (and) temporalization (is).
It is not an exaggeration to say that the important concepts of Derrida's philosophy are "intactly contained".
It contains concepts such as difference, trace, gap, interlayer, source-writing, source-trace.
However, it can be seen at a glance that the core is also based on Husserl's temporal theory.
Of course, the Husserl's temporal theory was not immediately transferred,
I depend heavily on my idea.
The'present composition' is playing a central role.
There are tons of things that can be said to be around us.
The types of objects, images, words and letters, texts, etc. are also very diverse.
Among them, some entities have been treated most importantly from ancient times in philosophical history.
There are also subjects that have been constantly being discussed since modern times.
To all of this, Sartre says that are existants.
Everything that exists is based on the greatness, the consciousness that makes existence the basic way of being,
It is sartre to see that it is established depending on the temporal style of the grandfather.
In Sartre, the presence of the great man
They say'it is not self, not self.'
Already Derrida from this notion of Sartre's existence, in this quote,
The current element is already
It can be said that it contains content that the movement of meaning can be performed only as long as it is always in a relationship with others.
However, it can be said that Derrida's original use of the word 'trace' is derived.
When the 'mark' for the past and the 'mark' for the future dent the present,
Those dents must be traces.
When looking at this in itself, it is said differently as the word "gap".
The present is established only through the gap.
So,
The present is divided into what is not the present in the present. It's not that I can't point it at all right now.
The moment you say'now!' is already a different now.
And the moment you say'another now!' is already another now.
This continues.
This is exactly the way Sartre speaks of existence.
The present itself, which can be called now, is already
It is established through a gap that can only be said to be more fundamental.
Everything we know exists is
This "present composition by gap"
It can only be said that it exists meaningfully based on the mystery of time.
The entity and the subject are no exception to this.
Needless to say more of the essential shapes.
In this way, Derrida's "differential philosophy" is
It cannot but be said to belong to Sartre's "existing philosophy".
However, Derrida is the core
Hitting the concept of "gap" in a positive direction
This is called "between" or "space of time-becoming"
It is also called "time-becoming of space",
It is also called "origin-writing",
It's called 'Geunwon-trace,' and otherwise's 'chayeon'
It can be said to be great in that it emphasized and exposed its ontological origin and power.
Now traces are not traces of any origin or roots,
Rather, it becomes the driving force that gives birth to origin.
"The trace is not the difference that is already forming
It is a pure action that makes a difference before everything is decided.
The pure trace is the difference.
It does not depend on anything that is audible, visible, vocal and literal.
On the contrary, traces become conditions for such things."
And everything is the play of differences by this difference (jeu),
The structure of the games, that is, the text, is established.
In the process, gaps are revealed, and espacement or espacement by the arrangement of the gaps
This is the creation of deevenir temps de l'espace.
Derrida's ontological? The epistemological difference philosophy
Is it a kind of political so that it can be called the philosophy of the other? It also has ethical implications.
Derrida says in a conversation titled "Insanity should watch over the reason."
In short, there is no primitive nature or an opposition between nature and culture,
There is only'difference' from one to another.
In other words, the text where the name of the other is absent is concealed? Deleted and almost always like censorship.
It's violent and unpretentious, or both.
Even if the batter's name doesn't appear, he's there, he's screaming and moving
Sometimes they cry and become more self-righteous.
Why is Derrida's philosophy of difference affecting so many people?
This is the point where you can gauge how popular it will become. Oddly enough, modern French philosophers are intensively interested in'difference' and'other'.

These two concepts are required in the capitalist system.
I think it is because I think that it can fundamentally reverse the exclusive property based on the subject of identity.
By the way
This difference newly emerging in France and based on the other
There is a philosopher who considers the flows of philosophy to be lonely
It is Germany's Habermas.
In 『Philosophical Discourse of Modernity』(translated by Jinwoo Lee, Moonye Publishing Co., 1994),
Pointing out that Derrida's philosophy was born of Husserl's phenomenology, he says:
In this way, the history of metaphysics culminates in phenomenological intuitionism.
This intuitionism is the fundamental difference that makes possible the identity of the object and the meaning
The difference between the temporal interval and the tie is eliminated through the implicit self-influence of one's voice-that is, a voice with no difference.
"A voice without difference, a voice without text is absolutely alive,
At the same time, it is absolutely dead."
Habermas has an intuition about Husserl's essential shape in mind. therefore
Derrida's criticism of Husserl's practice was drawn to the limit of Husserl's intuitiveism, namely,
It is pointed out that Husserl is accepting the "voice" with no gaps or differences in itself as the source of truth.
This is of course a summary of Derrida's argument.
The sentence Habermas is citing is Derrida's sentence.
In the case of Husserl, who took an absolutely dead voice as the source of truth,
It is that they are betraying their own great considerations.
This, of course, must be Derrida's deconstructive reading of Husserl.
Habermas goes on to say:
Derrida traces Husserl's path of idealization to the deepest part of transcendental subjectivity,
It immediately identifies the irreparable difference from the source of the spontaneity of the experience existing in oneself.
This difference is,
If it can be thought of according to the model of the instructional structure of a text written in text,
An activity separate from the acting subjectivity, i.e.
It can be thought of as an event without a subject.
Letters are separated from all practical correlations of communication,
It has validity as a purely original sign that has become unrelated to the speaking and listening subjects.
This is where Habermas brings out the story of Derrida's literalism.
Anyway, Derrida is now broken by the operation of the difference,
Instead of an intelligent meaning as a formal essence based on voice
The textual meaning based on gramme is emphasized.
For example, Derrida makes no difference in terms of'difference' and'differance'.
However, it is suggested that the meaning of the letter is greatly changed by using'a' instead of'e'.
Derrida advocated Saussure's structuralism,
"The linguistic object is not defined by the combination of the word written and the word spoken,
"Only the words spoken constitute this object."
Yet there is no purely vocal writing,
In phoneticism, rather than as a result of the implementation of the alphabet in a culture
By saying that it is the result of some representation of this practice, some ethical or ethical experience
Ethnocentrisme connects phoneticism to ethnocentrisme.
Anyway, the fundamental form of signifier Derrida speaks of is never voice.
It is text.
That's why Habermas expresses it as'ink instead of air', which seems to be a nice expression.
Derrida is now a new writing instead of a phonetic writing
While presenting literal writing, the difference is equated with gramme.
therefore
It is said that the spelling'a' in the difference is active or productive and indicates the generative movement in the play of the differences.
At this point, it is inevitable that the character that is identified with the difference that shows the fundamental productive power is truly mysterious.
Thus, the term "archi-gramme" is established.
In order to be able to think and speak of this very old fundamental character,
In order to be able to think of it as 'normal' and 'pre-rooted',
Husserl is special, accidental, subordinate,
In order to be able to separate what was believed to be a secondary experience, you would need a name other than the name of a sign or representation.
It moves around and changes the stage of activity,
It is an experience in which signs that perform the magic of presentization through interaction without beginning or end are constantly derived.
Habermas tenaciously bites and stretches this fundamental character seen in Derrida.
This fundamental character is not only for all literal writing,
While leaving his mark throughout the entire vocal writing,
Himself never reveals its identity
(From Derrida, the underlying identity can never be revealed.)
It is strange.
The fundamental character occupies the place of the producer who produces structures without a subject.
According to structuralism, these structures do not have any authors.
Habermas picked up these fundamental letters of Derrida,
It seems that he intends to maintain and adhere to the Hebrew Jewish mystical tradition.
Seeing the concealment of the original letters as the absence of the original letters,
Seeing the absence of this fundamental letter as an active absence of God, where God intentionally hides itself,
It is said that Derrida is thinking based on the motif he received from the Jewish tradition through Levinas.
Then I say critically.
I think it is worth referencing.
In the original characters that are literally outlined
~ As this character becomes unrecognizable, it evokes more interpretations.
Derrida's conception of ~ reproduces the mystical concept of tradition, which is recognized as a revelation event that has been dragging for a long time.
Religious authority,
It has power only as long as it hides its true form and the interpretation of interpreters stimulates the heat.
The deconstruction, which is being eagerly promoted internally, is a contradictory work of the tradition.
In this succession, the power of salvation is regenerated only through consumption.
The work of dismantling the hill formed by the accumulation of fragments of interpretation that was intended to be demolished to reveal the covered foundation makes the work thicker.



Wesley's trash should be posted at Wesley's Cafe,
If you put up my trash here, you can stop.