Trash/Fire

“So fire is good.”

“Contextually, yes.”

“Trash is bad.”

“More than often, yes.”

“Dumpsters have trash.”

“Yes.”

“Dumpster fires are good.”

“No.”

“Why not?”

“Because they indicate the worst in a person, place, or idea.”

I get that, but the fire should suffice and make the trash all burnt up. Thus, the consumption of the trash and the fuel for the fire makes it good, no?”

“Dumpsters are useful tools for holding nasty, filthy, disgusting things. Used diapers, condoms, rotten food, are just part of the litany of unwanted refuse.”

“So fire can burn down your house but it’s still okay?”

“What do you mean?”

“I mean trash can make you sick and even kill you like fire. Why are they on different scales of the quality prism?”

Trash in and of itself can be transformed into compost, found on landfills, and can be used as fuels in some cases. So trash can be good in a sense.”

“Fire is still exciting. It literally sparks and ignites and gives off light and warmth. It, in primitive up to advanced situations, is still a metaphor for values. It provides the power to rule darkness and cold.”

The reference to dumpsters being the epitome of disgust is a misnomer, no?”

“I’d say so.”

“With the image of a green dumpster, with peeling insignia rolling down the street engulfed in flames, you get the totality of what it means for something to be trash and fire at the same time.”

“Absolutely, but the idea it conveys is something extremely negative. No one wants that dumpster fire.”

“Right. That’s the power of the concept of trash/fire. Fire explains the reason for a glowing, sparkling, ecstatic work or performance. Trash talks about the hideous, disturbing, and evil dreck that can be produced by psychopaths, hacks, nonartists and anti-artists.”

“It goes for anything you absolutely do not like, that’s trash. A dumpster full of it with fire only worsens the nature of trash. Any person acting like a complete dumpster fire is showing they’re a hot mess.”

“A very hot mess. They’re emitting heat and light, at least.”

“But the stench from the trash tends to overwhelm the senses no matter what. The olfactory senses will be tied to the memory of the sight of the trash set ablaze.”

“So no dumpster fire—good. Fire—good. Trash—bad.”

“Precisely.”

“One man’s trash….”

“I think that line should be reserved for someone that can take something and improve non-flammable refuse. It is in regard to the necessity of the object in question. It better be something of supreme value to be recovered from an ash heap.”

“And fire of course burns. Throughout time, it has scorched or singed scores of people. Fire can’t always be good.”

“That is true, but that is only in the context. An army that drops fire bombs on the enemy is doing good to protect them from a barrage of an attacker’s small arms fire. Fire in scientific experiments is always a plus in the search for physical truth.”

“The trash is still something that should be removed from the situation. If a book, an album, movie, or TV show is trash then it’s going to be regarded as inferior quality. But if it’s fire, then it just means that it’s off the charts excellent.”

“And the dumpster fire?”

“What of it?”

“Those flames can’t be included in an album that is trash and fire at the same time?”

“That’s an impossibility. A work that is allegedly both trash and fire cannot exist in reality. It is either burning or not.”

“Thanks for doing this.”

My pleasure.”