(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