What justifies significance? Is there a universal standard or can things only have specified importance? As in the hammer and the architect. Is not a hammers significance in its use. A hammer serves the function of helping an architect produce his work. Hammers are in fact made simply for this purpose or use. Its existence is comparable to that of the artist’s paint brush, another item with a specified use. Which forms and bristles differ, despite maintaining the same purport, with these differences does its significance stay the same? So in the hands of an architect a hammers presence is crucial, but in the hands of an artist does it become simply metal attached to wood, thus losing its identity with its function? If unfamiliar or disinterested the artist may even toss away the hammer regarding it as trash? Thus making it trash. Is worth an equation of use and function?

       In the abstract how does a notion become worthy? What is the distinguishing line between nonsense and rationale? If an idea serves a purpose does its existence take on weight? Is its value directly tied to an end? Contrasting an idea with the hammer and the paintbrush are some ideas only valuable to certain people and thus productive only to some? Does each idea hold a specified importance to each person on this planet? By this same logic are some ideas set to be nonsense to certain groups of people and tossed away? Who defines crazy? For what desired outcome are ideas formed? To secure comfort and well-being? By channeling only the thoughts that bring us comfort do we thereby devalue the thoughts that don’t? There identities being shaped by their disconnect to such a purpose? Is perspective fragmented to preserve well-being?

       Following the agent, tool, purpose format. What other agents apply tools and notions and for what purpose do they do so? Does society prioritize a select purpose? Are thoughts effectual in producing this purpose? For what purpose is an ideal constructed? How is dignity dependent on said ideals? How does one qualify and maintain dignity or a sense of worthiness? Is it by performing a function or conforming to an ideal that societal esteem is granted? In achieving this purpose must one shape an identity to match a function? As with the architect. Society is the agent, the architect the model, and societal well-being the purpose? What is the worth or use in esteem? Is it to secure the voice and office of one or to reinforce the ideal through non selection? Is dignity degraded with the inability to serve a function? Is the scope of said functions and identities delineated by what is good and what is bad for society? Outside of these roles and society its self who are we?