(current thoughts on a reductionist rational approach to utility)
what is my use?
can this be defined?
if so is this exclusive?
if this definition of a person or a thing’s use is not comprehensive then how is this definition useful?
any statement of the usefulness of a person or a thing is a selective paraphrasing of an epic written since the very beginning
definitions and importance given to the usefulness of a person or a thing illuminate the agenda of the source
a tree cleans the air
provides shade on a sunny day and shelter from the rain
a tree can have a swing attached to a branch for children to play
is that all?
the uses are endless and listing them meaningless
unless useful to
a plumber is useful if the toilet is blocked
a person is a plumber
this person is never only a plumber
plumber is not a definition of a person
but merely a minute fragment of the contribution of a person
we are not what we do
we are not what we contribute
we are not how others define us
neither is a tree
neither is a bee
neither is a cat
and the list of exceptions is as infinite as the nature of those on the list
lots of useful stuff
This is where the joy lives
this uselessness is what I am
All of it
I am foolish
to imprint meaning
essentiality is impossible
even if I can perceive all of the infinite dimensions which I am part of
I still will be a piece of this all
a wondrous junkyard of meaningless potentiality
I respect in this parade
somehow my uselessness in no way cancels out this respect
nor does it offer a malignant licence to destroy
A useless machine by Jean Tinguely