How to avoid redundancy

My abhorrence of redundancy resides in its superfluity. Redundancy is a condemnation which goes beyond mere lack of necessity. It signals lack of assertion, an unfortunate corollary to the uniform deprivation of both utility and capacity.  Redundancy is normally a casualty of evolution, such as no more work being available or the obsolescence of gunpowder.  Redundancy acquires an especial fungus when it attaches to someone who persists – usually with a shameful degree of arrogance – in pretending to fulfill an empty function.  Sadly the person is either unaware of (or determined to ignore) their superfluity.

Accommodation of redundancy is tolerable – if not indeed forgivable – in anything other than a commercial context.  It is not my place to insist upon a nexus of performance and utility when it comes to the expansion of one’s personal drama. But within the business vernacular I am critical and not inclined to adapt. The greater the mercenary element, the greater the need to align it with necessity rather than excess. To clog the arteries of commerce with superfluity is both wasteful and tiresome. It is equally displeasing to me that persons who are undeniable failures continue to fashion themselves relevant even in the dust of their attrition. It is no expiation that their hapless derogation is that of an untrained mind.

To heighten the immediacy and cogency of the avoidance of redundancy one must accept the value of logic, the significance of reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. It is the convenient disguise and unwitting refuge of the uninspired to lapse into a demonstration of useless performances which in the world of action translate as “You can’t get there from here!” Such rude though derisible expositions are cosmetic and absurd conclusions which constitute the unavoidable amortization of those who are either entirely unqualified or who haven’t the perspicacity to fathom a more utilitarian approach to problem-solving.  Yet rigid rejection of such innate inadequacy – even if blamelessly preposterous – is imperative. Though it is a resolve not for the pusillanimous, one otherwise risks for example the gratuitous condescension of those who mistakenly imagine they have some insight. It is but an unflattering speculation which it were better they preserve to themselves.

“In so far as it comes into conflict with the law of conspicuous waste, the instinct of workmanship expresses itself not so much in insistence on substantial usefulness as in an abiding sense of the odiousness and aesthetic impossibility of what is obviously futile.”

Excerpt From: Veblen, Thorstein. “Theory of the Leisure Class”