> in awe of the natural world as some do with religion
I have a real problem with the distinction between "religious people" and "non-religious people" because it presumes a distinction that I don't think exists. Everyone takes something to be the highest good. Most philosophers (for most of human history, anyway) and what you call religious people typically take God to be the highest good, the supreme summum bonum. Others worship pleasure or power or Man or nature or whatever else. In this sense, everyone is religious. We just differ about what the highest good is and what Man's orientation toward that good is.
What you call religious people do experience awe at creation. Indeed, God is not generally knowable directly, but creation is taken to tell us about the creator or first cause (what is in the effect must be in some way in the cause for you cannot give what you do not have).
> mysticism can be fun in a world with rules.
Two problems. First, mysticism isn't obscurantism. I believe Rahner somewhat obnoxiously called mystery "inexhaustible intelligibility" which is to say that true mystery is fully intelligible, but we cannot exhaust the knowing of that thing. I might imagine this to be something like trying to swallow the Nile. There's no end to it. The mystery par excellence for Catholics, then, is the beatific vision.
Second, what do you mean by "rules"? There are no rules, but things do have natures and what we call "scientific laws" are just shorthand descriptions of tendencies of things of a certain nature. There are no externalized laws "out there" that "govern" the world from without, imposing order onto what is otherwise some kind of unintelligible chaos. Things themselves are ordered by virtue of what they are. It's important not to commit the reification fallacy here w.r.t. "law". Furthermore, it almost sounds like you're saying that what you call religion is somehow antithetical to there being natures and principles. On the contrary, that is essential to something like Catholicism. Read the first few verses of the Gospel of John. Jesus is identified with the Logos, which is to say something like the order of the universe which was made incarnate in the hypostatic union. Natural law theory, something traditionally embraced by the Catholic Church, presupposes not only the utter intelligibility of the universe, but that things have natures and that the basis for ethics is human nature.
So what I sense here is a number of presuppositions, among them that "religion" (a word itself too broad and vague) is essentially (and only) an emotional phenomenon, which, in the case of something like Catholicism, isn't true.
It goes without saying that Ben Eater's 8-bit computer kits [1] are like Legos for wannabe-electronics nerds. The kits themselves were the response of the outpouring of requests from viewers of his amazing YouTube channel where he first rose to notoriety for his breadboard CPU and computer.
I am currently assembling his 6502 breadboard computer (with the 16 x 2 LCD character display).
Someone put together an awesome "1-100 Transistor Projects" as a PDF [2] for learning how transistor circuits work. The PDF + breadboard + a dozen or so transistors and small parts will keep you busy.
There's a sequel "101-200 Transistor Circuits" [3], one on IC circuits [4] and one on the venerable 555 timer chip [5].
The above should keep you busy for the rest of the year. If not, be sure to skim through some of the electronics hobbyist magazines [6].
"As you know people, as you learn about things, you realize that these generalizations we have are, virtually to a generalization, false. Well, except for this one, as it turns out. What you think of Oracle, is even truer than you think it is. There has been no entity in human history with less complexity or nuance to it than Oracle. And I gotta say, as someone who has seen that complexity for my entire life, it's very hard to get used to that idea. It's like, 'surely this is more complicated!' but it's like: Wow, this is really simple! This company is very straightforward, in its defense. This company is about one man, his alter-ego, and what he wants to inflict upon humanity -- that's it! ...Ship mediocrity, inflict misery, lie our asses off, screw our customers, and make a whole shitload of money. Yeah... you talk to Oracle, it's like, 'no, we don't fucking make dreams happen -- we make money!' ...You need to think of Larry Ellison the way you think of a lawnmower. You don't anthropomorphize your lawnmower, the lawnmower just mows the lawn, you stick your hand in there and it'll chop it off, the end. You don't think 'oh, the lawnmower hates me' -- lawnmower doesn't give a shit about you, lawnmower can't hate you. Don't anthropomorphize the lawnmower. Don't fall into that trap about Oracle."
-- Bryan Cantrill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc
This list is certainly not classic fountain pens. They are mostly machined pens made by small batch producers with generic nibs and two with somewhat "different" nibs I wouldn't normally suggest most people get. These are pretty good pens but not what I would get as a first pen.
Here are the pens I would suggest you consider if you don't know a lot about fountain pens. If you are a fountain pen collector, I'm mostly ignoring a number of European brands who make great pens but have nib quality control from hell which are fine if you know fountain pens and how to adjust nibs etc but not if you are a beginner.
Budget under 40 bucks:
1) Lamy Safari: The grip section is triangular to support the traditional writing grip. It's one of the choices middle schoolers are require to use in certain European countries. If you have a traditional grip and don't have huge hands you will likely like it. If you don't, stay away. Lamy sometimes has quality control issues on it's inexpensive nibs but not as many as other European brands in my experience.
2) Pilot Metropolitan: Pilot has a reputation of really good quality control on what are very high quality nibs. The 20 dollar Pilot Metropolitan is no exception. Amazing writing experience for the money. Probably the best steel nibs you can buy. Competitive with many pens that cost over 100 dollars.
3) TWSBI Eco: Piston filler pen so you don't need a cartridge or converter. The pen is a demonstrator so you can see how it works. Comes in lots of cute colors. Uses Jowo nibs so the nibs are pretty good. Not quite as good as Pilot nibs.
I suggest most people skip the next level up in price. You don't get much more for the money and you are probably better off saving for the next level up.
Next level up from that. You usually get gold nibs at this level.
1) Lamy 2000: In permanent collection of the Museum of Modern Art. Design hasn't changed since the 1960s and is timeless. It's designed for people who know how to use fountain pens, the right amount of pressure, the right grip and who don't rotate the pen, the aforementioned kids in the European school who grew up on a Lamy ABC and then the Safari and so on. It's absolutely awesome but not recommended as your first fountain pen if you've never used one before. It's different from other pens so if you get it, I suggest you try it for a few weeks if you don't love it. I've known more than one person go from "I hate it" to "It's my favorite pen" as they learn how to use it. Absolutely beautiful and very understated pen. Amazing nibs that have a feel unlike any other. Slip cap so great for short notes.
2) Pilot Vanishing Point: Clicks to expose and hide the nib. No cap. So feels like a ball point. Nib is long and narrow so slightly bouncy. Really nice writing experience. There is clip near where your grip goes so some people won't like that. Very comfortable if you hold it with a traditional grip. Right up there with the Lamy 2000.
3) Platinum 3776: Really nice nib. Designed to give you feedback as you write so you have more control. It's very smooth but has feedback. Having the extra control is really nice if you write a lot of mathematical notation.
4) Sailor Pro Gear Slim or Sailor 1911 (not 1911L which is more expensive). Amazing nibs. The non slim versions are described below. These pens and nibs are a bit smaller, stiffer and very good but not as good as the large versions. Note that the Pro Gear Slim and Sailor 1911 (not 1911L), may be too small if you have large hands. Many of my female friends find these very comfortable. If you are all about the nib, Sailor probably makes the best nibs in the world today.
Another level up:
1) Pilot Custom 823. Vacuum Filler. Amazing nib. Used by Neil Gaiman and other famous authors who like writing the first draft of their novels with a fountain pen. Used by other famous people as a signature pen. These pens are wet, i.e. put out a lot of ink. If you haven't graduated to fountain pen friendly paper, get a fine nib or maybe skip it for one of the others.
2) Platinum President. Like the Platinum 3776. More refined nib. Slightly thicker grip. Often available very cheaply on Amazon. Not very wet so very serviceable on cheap paper with cheap paper friendly ink.
3) Sailor 1911L or Sailor Pro Gear (not the slim version). Note: The slim versions are also very good but not quite as good. Sailor is thought to make the best nibs in the world. Absolutely amazing writing experience. Writing with a Sailor nib feels sort of like writing with a pencil. It's very smooth but not glass like. There is just enough control. Probably my favorite nibs. Not very wet so great for cheap paper.
If you don't write on high quality paper, and I mean genuinely high quality paper, like Rhodia, Tomoe River, Clairefontaine etc. as opposed to overpriced junk like Moleskine, get a fine nib in anything but a Sailor or Platinum. You can get a medium nib Sailor or Platinum since their nibs run narrower.
You should also limit yourself to a cheap paper compatible ink. You could try Platinum dye-based Blue Black, Diamine Registrar's Blue Black, Sailor Kiwa Giro, Sailor Seiboku or Sailor Souboku etc. You could get also get Noodler's Black. However, Noodler's hand mixes inks and the quality control is off a lot of the time. Nathan Tardiff's (owner and sole employee of Noodler's) political statements may not be compatible with a lot of the crowd on HN either. If you go with Noodler's, get regular Noodler's Black, do not get X-Feather.
(edited: formatting and minor changes for clarity)
I have a real problem with the distinction between "religious people" and "non-religious people" because it presumes a distinction that I don't think exists. Everyone takes something to be the highest good. Most philosophers (for most of human history, anyway) and what you call religious people typically take God to be the highest good, the supreme summum bonum. Others worship pleasure or power or Man or nature or whatever else. In this sense, everyone is religious. We just differ about what the highest good is and what Man's orientation toward that good is.
What you call religious people do experience awe at creation. Indeed, God is not generally knowable directly, but creation is taken to tell us about the creator or first cause (what is in the effect must be in some way in the cause for you cannot give what you do not have).
> mysticism can be fun in a world with rules.
Two problems. First, mysticism isn't obscurantism. I believe Rahner somewhat obnoxiously called mystery "inexhaustible intelligibility" which is to say that true mystery is fully intelligible, but we cannot exhaust the knowing of that thing. I might imagine this to be something like trying to swallow the Nile. There's no end to it. The mystery par excellence for Catholics, then, is the beatific vision.
Second, what do you mean by "rules"? There are no rules, but things do have natures and what we call "scientific laws" are just shorthand descriptions of tendencies of things of a certain nature. There are no externalized laws "out there" that "govern" the world from without, imposing order onto what is otherwise some kind of unintelligible chaos. Things themselves are ordered by virtue of what they are. It's important not to commit the reification fallacy here w.r.t. "law". Furthermore, it almost sounds like you're saying that what you call religion is somehow antithetical to there being natures and principles. On the contrary, that is essential to something like Catholicism. Read the first few verses of the Gospel of John. Jesus is identified with the Logos, which is to say something like the order of the universe which was made incarnate in the hypostatic union. Natural law theory, something traditionally embraced by the Catholic Church, presupposes not only the utter intelligibility of the universe, but that things have natures and that the basis for ethics is human nature.
So what I sense here is a number of presuppositions, among them that "religion" (a word itself too broad and vague) is essentially (and only) an emotional phenomenon, which, in the case of something like Catholicism, isn't true.