Uniqueness: Difference between revisions

But does being uniquely, definitively ''not a duplicate'', bestow some kind of intrinsic value in and of itself? This, perhaps, is the logic that propels cryptocurrency. It seem like false logic but, at the time of writing, 1.15 trillion dollars begs to differ. But is this uniqueness the kids have contrived of value in and of itself?

The rampant copyability of anything everything in Web 2.0 no doubt prompted the stampede to non-fungibility. ''Authenticity'' is in deep demand: no-one trusts experts anymore. ''Everything'' is ripped off. ''Everything'' is fake. Indubitability — [[certainty]] — is some kind of holy grail.<ref>But see our essay as to why [[doubt]] is no bad thing.</ref>

But is uniqueness, in the abstract, of intrinsic value, ''in and of itself''?

We say, “no,” all the above [[Notwithstanding anything to the contrary|notwithstanding]]. The [[JC]] has a small commonplace book of poems he composed, as a moleish adolescent.<ref>Adrian Mole-ish, or Wind-in-the-Willows Mole-ish, it doesn’t really make a difference. Moleish.</ref> It exists in single copy, in fountain pen ink on cartridge paper, rendered in his youthful, spidery left-handed scrawl. Make no mistake: these are some of the worst poems composed in the history of civilisation.<ref>They would give Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings a run for her money.</ref> Not one  has been committed to any other format and nor, if the JC has any say in the matter, will they ever be. They are, thus, utterly unique.