''Óriginal parts'', ''identity '' and ''retip'' conundrum
The ''identity enigma'' is easy to explain with ''ownership''. Not everyone is familiar with logic or philosophy but everyone owns something or other.
Ownership assume ''one to one relation'' between an person (legal
bodies included) and one object of ownership. Think of question how
you can prove to own some object. You can also think about question
how to prove to be owner of, say an part of your stolen car.
What the ''force'' of the expression ''original'' is , is an enigma.
However Americans are typical example of people who are very
fond of ''original parts'' and willing to pay huge amount of money
for the ''precious'' (grin). By the so called ''retips'' the assumption
is also ''original'' versus ''not original parts''. This means that
every manufacturer as well ''retiper'' uses his own styli and or
cantilevers. The fact however is that they all buy those ''parts''
by either by Namiki or Ogura. So, logicaly speaking, the origin
of those ''parts'' are either Namiki or Ogura. Is gluing an cantilever/
stylus combo in the ''joint pipe'' rocket science?
@nandric Cir di capimi: no tu puedis cjacarà come che ti par se no tu puedis la a cagà! and now translate the sentence into italics for me. |
edgewear, Deed you ever try to sell an retiped cart? As you state you are very satisfy with retips done by Van den Hul. Van den Hul was obviously proud of his work and made his inscription on the cover plate. This may be seen as act of courage (aka nothing to hide). But the owners of his carts with his retips can't sell them because ''retips'' are considered to be inferior in comparison with ''rebuild'' or ''refreshed kind'' with the argument of ''original'' versus ''not original'' styli. That is to say that manufacturer use their own unique styli. This however is an myth. Manufacturer buy their styli as do retipers by the same producer. Curiously you are contradicting your own ''pro retip'' position by suggesting more shapes than can be proven. On those shapes patents are claimed as Van den Hul and Gyger demonstrate. Besides ''original parts'' imply their identification which is connected with identity . Even for logician an difficult ''subject''. I try to reduce complexity of identity to ownership relation because everyone knows what ownership means as well how one can prove to own something. This means proving one to one identity between owner and object of ownership. Both must have their own identity. ''Subjective valuation''? The old Roman already stated ; de gustibus non disputantum est. Besides what sense would asked advises have? |
best-grove, English grammar does not specify the connective ''IS" between Subject and Predicate in an sentence But logic does: 1, Substitution of an object under one notion (nandric is human) 2. Inclusion relation between two classes or sets the smaller under bigger. Horses are 4 legs animals. Americans are part of the world population. 3, Identity relation : a=b; 2+2 = 4 4 exsitence (being) ''God is''
Which ''IS'' do you have in mind? |
