MEANING OF LIFE AND LITERALLY EVERY OTHER SHIT IN UNIVERSE

[OgreGravital]

Your purpose as a living organism is reproducing and keeping the lineage of genes

Its all just a chain reaction of chemicals that somewhat started millions of years ago in the depths of the ocean

Then there you are as a little step of evolution just like all the generations of people that passed. With your little consciousness that was given to you by an accidental side effect of evolution

Evolution never tried to make a conscious being it just used what worked and adapted at the given situation of the organism

You experiencing physical and psychological pain or whatever it doesn’t matter.

Your consciousness is chained and limited to a primal animalistic prison of flesh.

Real ascension of the humanity would be setting our consciousness free from this genetically determined chemical driven weak pile of meat

There is no objective morality in a world of cells and chemicals only what works the most efficient.

life has no inherent meaning beyond survival and reproduction.

the pragmatic approach to societal organization is very clear. Resources and opportunities should be allocated to those most capable of advancing the group. Supporting genetically or behaviorally disadvantageous individuals is not only inefficient but counterproductive to the evolutionary imperative of improving the species.

If we never find a way to set our consciousnesses free from our bodies then only option left would be the strengthening and upgrading of the prison of flesh itself by eugenics and gene editing

But if we can figure out how to integrate our minds into anything else

Then its the dawn of man being born from nature and becoming a god interacting and experiencing with universe in ways we could never imagine with our limited bodies

 

[ForSKJ]

DNR

 

[helloworld]

Your purpose as a living organism is reproducing and keeping the lineage of genes

Its all just a chain reaction of chemicals that somewhat started millions of years ago in the depths of the ocean

Then there you are as a little step of evolution just like all the generations of people that passed. With your little consciousness that was given to you by an accidental side effect of evolution

Evolution never tried to make a conscious being it just used what worked and adapted at the given situation of the organism

You experiencing physical and psychological pain or whatever it doesn’t matter.

Your consciousness is chained and limited to a primal animalistic prison of flesh.

Real ascension of the humanity would be setting our consciousness free from this genetically determined chemical driven weak pile of meat

There is no objective morality in a world of cells and chemicals only what works the most efficient.

life has no inherent meaning beyond survival and reproduction.

the pragmatic approach to societal organization is very clear. Resources and opportunities should be allocated to those most capable of advancing the group. Supporting genetically or behaviorally disadvantageous individuals is not only inefficient but counterproductive to the evolutionary imperative of improving the species.

If we never find a way to set our consciousnesses free from our bodies then only option left would be the strengthening and upgrading of the prison of flesh itself by eugenics and gene editing

But if we can figure out how to integrate our minds into anything else

Then its the dawn of man being born from nature and becoming a god interacting and experiencing with universe in ways we could never imagine with our limited bodies


View attachment 3949527

Okay

 

[romanstock]

You don't mean that.

 

[ForSKJ]

the pragmatic approach to societal organization is very clear. Resources and opportunities should be allocated to those most capable of advancing the group. Supporting genetically or behaviorally disadvantageous individuals is not only inefficient but counterproductive to the evolutionary imperative of improving the species.

cuck shit. nut in as many foids as you can and be an absent father

 

[OgreGravital]

cuck shit. nut in as many foids as you can and be an absent father

How about ing billions integrated minds by virtual nut that never ends

 

[registerfasterusing]

Retard

 

[OgreGravital]

Retard

would appreciate any kind of argument

 

[registerfasterusing]

would appreciate any kind of argument

Teleological. Purpose = survival is limited in context and ‘freeing’ ur consciousness js doesnt make sense. Idk what it is with ppl and the placement of mind over body, ig its js an enlightenment thing but u have to consider that ppl didnt always think this way and not all do even now, even if they believe otherwise

 

[InanimatePragmatist]

It is a dream.

 

[OgreGravital]

Teleological. Purpose = survival is limited in context and ‘freeing’ ur consciousness js doesnt make sense. Idk what it is with ppl and the placement of mind over body, ig its js an enlightenment thing but u have to consider that ppl didnt always think this way and not all do even now, even if they believe otherwise

consciousness itself is a byproduct of evolution and doesn’t needed for the organism.

But you having one opens countless doors to how you’re going to handle it

As a homo sapien you’re just a other species of animal physically like other animals while having an unnatural advanced sentience

What i tried to explain was how to manage with this

 

[registerfasterusing]

consciousness itself is a byproduct of evolution and doesn’t needed for the organism.

But you having one opens countless doors to how you’re going to handle it

As a homo sapien you’re just a other species of animal physically like other animals while having an unnatural advanced sentience

What i tried to explain was how to manage with this

Consciousness is the condition through which the subject’s perception of the world, of other objects, is mediated and interpreted. You ultimately have no control over ur consciousness as it is determined by structures of language, imagery, and desire (not ur own desire).

You cant describe evolution as moving toward a direct purpose without assuming that life itself has an inherent trajectory, which contradicts ur claim that:
“There is no objective morality in a world of cells and chemicals only what works the most efficient. life has no inherent meaning beyond survival and reproduction.”
Youre also assuming that production, progress, efficiency, and linearity are naturally existent and thus you assert the objectivity of relative time and space. This perspective, whether youre knowingly adopting or not, is a byproduct of enlightenment era thinking and should not be teleologically/historically applied to precedent humanity.

 

[CD34]

Absolutely 0 nanograms absorbed

 

[OgreGravital]

Consciousness is the condition through which the subject’s perception of the world, of other objects, is mediated and interpreted. You ultimately have no control over ur consciousness as it is determined by structures of language, imagery, and desire (not ur own desire).

You cant describe evolution as moving toward a direct purpose without assuming that life itself has an inherent trajectory, which contradicts ur claim that:
“There is no objective morality in a world of cells and chemicals only what works the most efficient. life has no inherent meaning beyond survival and reproduction.”
Youre also assuming that production, progress, efficiency, and linearity are naturally existent and thus you assert the objectivity of relative time and space. This perspective, whether youre knowingly adopting or not, is a byproduct of enlightenment era thinking and should not be teleologically/historically applied to precedent humanity.

Describing evolution as favoring what works best does not imply inherent purpose it simply describes the observable adaptive trends shaped by selective pressures of nature. Statements like life has no inherent meaning beyond survival and reproduction are not teleological they’re descriptive not prescriptive.
Evolution is not goal directed but it does exhibit directionality in some contexts and ways. What i am saying by evolution is this. Evolution works efficiently and us being a product of it make sense why we should learn and practice its laws on living organisms.

 

[registerfasterusing]

Describing evolution as favoring what works best does not imply inherent purpose it simply describes the observable adaptive trends shaped by selective pressures of nature. Statements like life has no inherent meaning beyond survival and reproduction are not teleological they’re descriptive not prescriptive.
Evolution is not goal directed but it does exhibit directionality in some contexts and ways. What i am saying by evolution is this. Evolution works efficiently and us being a product of it make sense why we should learn and practice its laws on living organisms.

Evolution as described in this context favors the placement of life, progress, efficiency, linearity, etc. above those antagonizing it (ie death, rupture, etc.). Therefore evolution is directional in that it acts against that which opposes it (by another direction). If we’re following this method of thinking then no ‘progress’ can be made as the dichotomies are met in a state of directional attrition. Therefore, we can assume that both either 1) move in the same direction, which would assert the irreverence of the conscious pursuit of ‘evolutionary’ practices, as they are ultimately equal to destructive ones, or 2) a non-linear/progressive ‘arrangement’ of the universe, which may ultimately be equated with the absolutivity of the first scenario.

Either way, when you describe evolution in the present context, you are assigning to it a purpose, which you subsequently objectify through its naturalization. This is inherently a teleological procedure, as the contemporary interpretation of evolution is not something that exceeds time and space, but operates within its boundaries, predetermined by enlightenment-era thought.

 

[BrendioEEE]

 

[Proex]

View attachment 3949634

 

[OgreGravital]

Evolution as described in this context favors the placement of life, progress, efficiency, linearity, etc. above those antagonizing it (ie death, rupture, etc.). Therefore evolution is directional in that it acts against that which opposes it (by another direction). If we’re following this method of thinking then no ‘progress’ can be made as the dichotomies are met in a state of directional attrition. Therefore, we can assume that both either 1) move in the same direction, which would assert the irreverence of the conscious pursuit of ‘evolutionary’ practices, as they are ultimately equal to destructive ones, or 2) a non-linear/progressive ‘arrangement’ of the universe, which may ultimately be equated with the absolutivity of the first scenario.

Either way, when you describe evolution in the present context, you are assigning to it a purpose, which you subsequently objectify through its naturalization. This is inherently a teleological procedure, as the contemporary interpretation of evolution is not something that exceeds time and space, but operates within its boundaries, predetermined by enlightenment-era thought.

Evolution Isn’t teleological its directionless adaptation with consequential structure
Evolution ≠ Teleology

People often mistake patterned emergence for purpose. Yeah evolution results in complex outcomes (like consciousness) but that doesn’t mean it has a goal. Evolution is an algorithm not a whole on mission. It’s not favoring anything and there’s no cosmic intent behind the process. When evolution is filtering traits based on survival and reproduction this doesn’t mean it prefers linearity or even progress in a philosophical sense. It simply means those traits persist because they don’t die.

Death and rupture aren’t enemies of evolution. They’re integral to it. Evolution is not against entropy it even uses entropy.
Evolution is directional only in hindsight, shaped by pressure, not purpose. Saying that this implies a teleological bias confuses consequence with intention.
Other thing is
evolution is a chemical biological unfolding a cascade with no awareness of what it’s building. From deep-sea hydrothermal vents to Homo sapiens brain, it’s just nature playing and consciousness is a spandrel a byproduct, not an aim.
Consciousness itself wasn’t chosen. It emerged

From that
If life has no inherent meaning beyond survival and reproduction then morality is a social construct a memetic system layered atop biological imperatives. There’s no cosmic right or wrong only what functions. From that it’s logical to argue
Societies should prioritize resource allocation toward traits that benefit group survival. Eugenics gene editing and enhancement technologies aren’t evil they’re just tools. What matters is who controls them and for what outcome. Helping everyone unconditionally may feel morally satisfying but in a resource scarce world it may also reduce the adaptive fitness of the group. This doesn’t mean cruelty is good it just means that compassion must be measured against its evolutionary and pragmatic consequences. if our bodies are biological prisons shaped by blind chemistry, then true transcendence isn’t moral awakening it’s actually technological liberation.

if everything is locked in mutual contradiction life death etc evolution rupture, then all motion is futile or nullified.
That’s a metaphysical move its not a scientific one. Evolution doesn’t need ultimate direction to create emergent directionality. Yes, life and death are entangled but life isn’t meaningless just because it’s temporary. Conscious pursuit of evolutionary enhancement is not invalidated by its chemical basis that pursuit itself is a valid adaptive strategy. To say that “all is equally meaningless” is not a deep insight it’s a refusal to act in the face of meaninglessness.

finally
You are a temporary, chemically-emergent consciousness within a meat cage designed by blind selection. But from that cage, you now glimpse the potential to recode your genome, reshape your biology, and maybe even escape your hardware entirely. That’s not a contradiction it is the culmination of millions of years of emergent complexity. You’re the first ripple of a species attempting to hijack its own evolution. That doesn’t mean life matters it just means you’re free to make it matter.
Not by returning to nature, but by surpassing it all by itself.

 

[ForSKJ]

How about ing billions integrated minds by virtual nut that never ends

flesh is not a prison bro it is a somatic blessing that allows us to interact with our environment, it can carry beauty (in the form of a young virgin with fair soft clear skin and large breasts and bums), it can also carry ugliness (in the form of the org incel rotter). It can allow you to experience substances like taste of young pussy (the tongue) or inhalation of weed smoke (the lungs). Even the skin of the penis is flesh and when fondled by a young virgin with pretty hands it can feel quite literally orgasmic.

 

[OgreGravital]

flesh is not a prison bro it is a somatic blessing that allows us to interact with our environment, it can carry beauty (in the form of a young virgin with fair soft clear skin and large breasts and bums), it can also carry ugliness (in the form of the org incel rotter). It can allow you to experience substances like taste of young pussy (the tongue) or inhalation of weed smoke (the lungs). Even the skin of the penis is flesh and when fondled by a young virgin with pretty hands it can feel quite literally orgasmic.

Having no competition against chads and cl’s all because of genetic determinism and bp doesn’t sound like a blessing to me

 

[ForSKJ]

Having no competition against chads and cl’s all because of genetic determinism and bp doesn’t sound like a blessing to me

yea the blessing is selective.

 

[registerfasterusing]

Evolution Isn’t teleological its directionless adaptation with consequential structure
Evolution ≠ Teleology

People often mistake patterned emergence for purpose. Yeah evolution results in complex outcomes (like consciousness) but that doesn’t mean it has a goal. Evolution is an algorithm not a whole on mission. It’s not favoring anything and there’s no cosmic intent behind the process. When evolution is filtering traits based on survival and reproduction this doesn’t mean it prefers linearity or even progress in a philosophical sense. It simply means those traits persist because they don’t die.

Death and rupture aren’t enemies of evolution. They’re integral to it. Evolution is not against entropy it even uses entropy.
Evolution is directional only in hindsight, shaped by pressure, not purpose. Saying that this implies a teleological bias confuses consequence with intention.
Other thing is
evolution is a chemical biological unfolding a cascade with no awareness of what it’s building. From deep-sea hydrothermal vents to Homo sapiens brain, it’s just nature playing and consciousness is a spandrel a byproduct, not an aim.
Consciousness itself wasn’t chosen. It emerged

From that
If life has no inherent meaning beyond survival and reproduction then morality is a social construct a memetic system layered atop biological imperatives. There’s no cosmic right or wrong only what functions. From that it’s logical to argue
Societies should prioritize resource allocation toward traits that benefit group survival. Eugenics gene editing and enhancement technologies aren’t evil they’re just tools. What matters is who controls them and for what outcome. Helping everyone unconditionally may feel morally satisfying but in a resource scarce world it may also reduce the adaptive fitness of the group. This doesn’t mean cruelty is good it just means that compassion must be measured against its evolutionary and pragmatic consequences. if our bodies are biological prisons shaped by blind chemistry, then true transcendence isn’t moral awakening it’s actually technological liberation.

if everything is locked in mutual contradiction life death etc evolution rupture, then all motion is futile or nullified.
That’s a metaphysical move its not a scientific one. Evolution doesn’t need ultimate direction to create emergent directionality. Yes, life and death are entangled but life isn’t meaningless just because it’s temporary. Conscious pursuit of evolutionary enhancement is not invalidated by its chemical basis that pursuit itself is a valid adaptive strategy. To say that “all is equally meaningless” is not a deep insight it’s a refusal to act in the face of meaninglessness.

finally
You are a temporary, chemically-emergent consciousness within a meat cage designed by blind selection. But from that cage, you now glimpse the potential to recode your genome, reshape your biology, and maybe even escape your hardware entirely. That’s not a contradiction it is the culmination of millions of years of emergent complexity. You’re the first ripple of a species attempting to hijack its own evolution. That doesn’t mean life matters it just means you’re free to make it matter.
Not by returning to nature, but by surpassing it all by itself.

Youre saying evolution is ‘directionless adaptation with consequential structure’ but the moment you call that structure ‘consequential,’ youre already assigning interpretive value. Consequence isnt neutral residue, its retrospective meaning, projected by a subject embedded in a symbolic framework. You cant point to patterned emergence without presupposing a structure through which patterns are recognized and selected. So this is not empirical neutrality but metaphysical positioning.

Ur distinction between pattern and purpose collapses under use. The fact that evolution results in complexity, consciousness, or tool-building does not disprove teleology, rather it retrofits it. The very notion that these outcomes ‘emerge’ and are worth acting on presumes a directional preference. If evolution is blind and non-teleological, then all trajectories: complexity, decay, stasis, extinction, are equally valid. But you consistently imply that one (technological advancement, transcendence) is superior. This is not natural selection, its a constructed ideology.

Then youre talking abt morality. U call it a memetic construct layered on top of biological imperatives, and yet you use it as the foundation for a normative claim: that societies should allocate resources based on evolutionary ‘fitness.’ This is the naturalistic fallacy: deriving a moral ought from a descriptive is. Evolution doesnt tell how to treat the weak, rather it tells what traits survived. Anything more is selecting which outcomes to privilege and why, meaning youre not outside of morality, rather reframing it as ‘efficiency.’

And the framing of gene editing and eugenics as ‘tools’ is disingenuous cuz tools arent neutral. Theyre designed, implemented, directed by human actors embedded in power structures. When youre saying these tools can ‘improve the species,’ you’re making a teleological and ideological claim about what a better human is. Who decides what gets optimized? Whose genome gets deleted?

the notion of ‘technological liberation’ is internally inconsistent. You say consciousness is an emergent byproduct: non-chosen, unsovereign. So who exactly is doing the liberating? Who transcends? The moment you imagine a subject capable of overriding its meat-cage, youve reinserted the metaphysical agency you previously dismantled. You don’t escape the contradiction, u just sublimate it into a secular eschatology, where man becomes god through recursive design.

this is not offering a neutral description of evolution. Youre offering a symbolic narrative structured by Enlightenment values: progress, mastery, optimization, transcendence, etc.

Youre confusing the material process of evolution with the symbolic concept of evolution. The process may be blind, however the meaning you extract from it is never neutral. The moment it’s said ‘evolution favors X’ or ‘we should follow evolutionary logic,’ youre already mediating the process through ideology, language, and symbolic structure (ie mediation).
No human can encounter ‘evolution’ directly. Ur encountering representations of it: narratives, data, metaphors, structures of thought. So when youre interpreting evolution as favoring complexity, or as a justification for gene editing, u are not not describing biology but participating in a modern, post-Enlightenment symbolic system that interprets biological processes as progressive.

 

[LTNUser]

yea the blessing is selective.

Why couldn't I be blessed like Chad fuck

 

[OgreGravital]

Youre saying evolution is ‘directionless adaptation with consequential structure’ but the moment you call that structure ‘consequential,’ youre already assigning interpretive value. Consequence isnt neutral residue, its retrospective meaning, projected by a subject embedded in a symbolic framework. You cant point to patterned emergence without presupposing a structure through which patterns are recognized and selected. So this is not empirical neutrality but metaphysical positioning.

Ur distinction between pattern and purpose collapses under use. The fact that evolution results in complexity, consciousness, or tool-building does not disprove teleology, rather it retrofits it. The very notion that these outcomes ‘emerge’ and are worth acting on presumes a directional preference. If evolution is blind and non-teleological, then all trajectories: complexity, decay, stasis, extinction, are equally valid. But you consistently imply that one (technological advancement, transcendence) is superior. This is not natural selection, its a constructed ideology.

Then youre talking abt morality. U call it a memetic construct layered on top of biological imperatives, and yet you use it as the foundation for a normative claim: that societies should allocate resources based on evolutionary ‘fitness.’ This is the naturalistic fallacy: deriving a moral ought from a descriptive is. Evolution doesnt tell how to treat the weak, rather it tells what traits survived. Anything more is selecting which outcomes to privilege and why, meaning youre not outside of morality, rather reframing it as ‘efficiency.’

And the framing of gene editing and eugenics as ‘tools’ is disingenuous cuz tools arent neutral. Theyre designed, implemented, directed by human actors embedded in power structures. When youre saying these tools can ‘improve the species,’ you’re making a teleological and ideological claim about what a better human is. Who decides what gets optimized? Whose genome gets deleted?

the notion of ‘technological liberation’ is internally inconsistent. You say consciousness is an emergent byproduct: non-chosen, unsovereign. So who exactly is doing the liberating? Who transcends? The moment you imagine a subject capable of overriding its meat-cage, youve reinserted the metaphysical agency you previously dismantled. You don’t escape the contradiction, u just sublimate it into a secular eschatology, where man becomes god through recursive design.

this is not offering a neutral description of evolution. Youre offering a symbolic narrative structured by Enlightenment values: progress, mastery, optimization, transcendence, etc.

Youre confusing the material process of evolution with the symbolic concept of evolution. The process may be blind, however the meaning you extract from it is never neutral. The moment it’s said ‘evolution favors X’ or ‘we should follow evolutionary logic,’ youre already mediating the process through ideology, language, and symbolic structure (ie mediation).
No human can encounter ‘evolution’ directly. Ur encountering representations of it: narratives, data, metaphors, structures of thought. So when youre interpreting evolution as favoring complexity, or as a justification for gene editing, u are not not describing biology but participating in a modern, post-Enlightenment symbolic system that interprets biological processes as progressive.

Bro my fingers are aching just from typing the last response come pm this evening if you want to still continue

Appreciate your compassion towards proving your point tho

 

[registerfasterusing]

Bro my fingers are aching just from typing the last response come pm this evening if you want to still continue

Appreciate your compassion towards proving your point tho

I think the point u made abt evolution encompassing both lively and destructive instances is accurate but thats kinda what I was suggesting earlier. Im rly js saying that evolution, as defined thru the word in which it is described, is ultimately teleological if it is employed in the pursuit of historical truth, which is what ur doing with eugenics from what i understand.

 

[OgreGravital]

I think the point u made abt evolution encompassing both lively and destructive instances is accurate but thats kinda what I was suggesting earlier. Im rly js saying that evolution, as defined thru the word in which it is described, is ultimately teleological if it is employed in the pursuit of historical truth, which is what ur doing with eugenics from what i understand.

Yeah i got your point

Well i tried to express myself as clear as possible above thats pretty much sums what i believe some people may interpret it differently tho which is natural

 

[greycel]

We are actors playing a script that has already been written

 

[mirinturbolowinhib]

DNR

 

[OgreGravital]

DNR

 

[kenibba]

i agree tbh but just to play devils advocate to see what your response would be, why should we respect this "purpose"? why should we continue reproduction if it just brings suffering and pain onto future generations. as you said, "Evolution never tried to make a conscious being it just used what worked and adapted at the given situation of the organism", God, Evolution, Nature, whatever, they never cared enough for us to make our experience suffering free. none of us wanted to be born none of us asked to be born into this cruel world. why should we pass this onto the next generation? Maybe as a child you had a sickness or disease and your parents tried to comfort you but it didnt work because you were suffering so much. Now imagine yourself as the parent in the future and your child as your past self. wouldnt it be cruel to bring a lifeform into existence just for them to experience all this? think about all the genetic diseases that are part of many family lineages as well.

 

[OgreGravital]

i agree tbh but just to play devils advocate to see what your response would be, why should we respect this "purpose"? why should we continue reproduction if it just brings suffering and pain onto future generations. as you said, "Evolution never tried to make a conscious being it just used what worked and adapted at the given situation of the organism", God, Evolution, Nature, whatever, they never cared enough for us to make our experience suffering free. none of us wanted to be born none of us asked to be born into this cruel world. why should we pass this onto the next generation? Maybe as a child you had a sickness or disease and your parents tried to comfort you but it didnt work because you were suffering so much. Now imagine yourself as the parent in the future and your child as your past self. wouldnt it be cruel to bring a lifeform into existence just for them to experience all this? think about all the genetic diseases that are part of many family lineages as well.

Antinatalism is a huge subject all by itself

But realistically speaking we as humanity can never achieve this and make it a global movement because its literally against your genetic coding and nature.

Enforcing 8billion people on earth to give up their strongest primal hormonal instinct of breeding will never work and ultimately fail

It would only work on problem free cat mom alt lesbian white woman living in the most peaceful high income countries in the world like northern europe. That would ultimately end up resulting in the hormone driven animalistic jeetification of the whole world.

Try advocating for antinatalism in third world slums and see what happens