A question on Spiritual Death and Meaning in Life

May 13, 2019#20

FancyMancysaid:
shinninglightsaid:
no you cant do what you want thats why their is something they call karma,if by your definition people can do what they want then there is no natural law at all
This is not my definition. I started my reply with "from your line of arguing", saying all these things based on what you said.
Mosquitoes do have souls.

well whatever,let me reframe from this topic ,i dont want this.when i say soul must go through riencantion i mean can one reach godhead without riencanating into the physical,i am trying to quote you based on your soul is eternal so lets just do anything,thats not how it is.you cant do anything because then you will only create more karma for youself,
i do not wear whatever that means and wether or not i am a shinninglight it dosnt dismiss the fact that i may have some point.
so fancy lets just call it a hult should we,because we are going over the same thing and also for lack of insultive words which you have already used,so thank you

FancyMancysaid:
shinninglightsaid:
no you cant do what you want thats why their is something they call karma,if by your definition people can do what they want then there is no natural law at all
This is not my definition. I started my reply with "from your line of arguing", saying all these things based on what you said.
Mosquitoes do have souls.

well whatever,let me reframe from this topic ,i dont want this.when i say soul must go through riencantion i mean can one reach godhead without riencanating into the physical,i am trying to quote you based on your soul is eternal so lets just do anything,thats not how it is.you cant do anything because then you will only create more karma for youself,
i do not wear whatever that means and wether or not i am a shinninglight it dosnt dismiss the fact that i may have some point.
so fancy lets just call it a hult should we,because we are going over the same thing and also for lack of insultive words which you have already used,so thank you

May 13, 2019#21

HP. Zevios Metathronossaid:
Creating pseudophilosophy without being a Philos-Opher aka A friend of the Serpent aka spiritually advanced is like crapping on a canvas and pretending you do fine art.
Your argument is just easily refutable in that if death exists, life only gets MORE meaning. Immortality increases this meaning of life exponentially, as it is a permanent distance from death, and not the other way around.

Am I right to assume this is aimed at me, since it's not quoting other posts? Anyway, let's ignore your meaningless toxicity in saying I am 'shitting on a canvas' with what I'm saying, as I certainly am not, and move on to your ideas. If that was not aimed at me but instead at shininglight then I apologize for the misunderstanding as I relate somewhat more to the toxicity if it is aimed at him, however since you did not include it in your reply to him and posted another one right after I am assuming it's aimed at me.

How does life become more meaningful because of death? I agree with you that one way or another we should all try to become immortal and evade death. However, that doesn't make life inherently meaningful. Certainly the existence of death gives living beings a threat to focus on negating. But once that task is complete, what remains? All death does is give a constant threat to life, and the potential for it to collapse into nothingness, it does not create anything meaningful in it. If life is meaningful it should have meaning beyond simply making sure it continues to exist, as that's a type of meaning that will likely exhaust itself, either in the death of the individual, or the individual becoming immortal and ensuring a future where the possibility of death is near zero or zero, and will never become relevant again.

Meanwhile, on a general basis, if even 5% of people disappear forever on death, then at some point or another you're going to have lots of people who had someone close to them disappear forever in this way. Clearly this is something meaningless, when you have people die for nothing. The very fact that you're advocating immortality should mean you are against death and see it as utterly meaningless. However, it's not like there's anything we can do for those who are already gone forever even if everyone who's left becomes immortal. So, at that point you have two options for all these individuals in the future spiritual civilization(if we get that far) who've had someone close to them entirely confirmed scientifically to have disappeared from existence forever.

One, they have to bear the pain of those people's non-existence for the rest of eternity. Two, they ultimately try to forget those they've lost and treat them as if they never existed. I think quite a large number of people would fall under option 1, as to choose option 2 would be to reject the meaninglessness of their deaths and stop trying to find any meaning in their lost lives. In the most extreme case, option 2 would be to see those lives as worthless now that they've vanished. This is why I have a problem with defining things in life as meaningful only if they advance someone's individual survival, it is essentially to look back on many people who've disappeared and say they are now meaningless to remember anymore other than perhaps as a mere statistic. And should the future spiritual civilization defeat all relevant enemies and ensure its survival for the rest of the foreseeable future, then even that could become irrelevant as survival would be guaranteed from that point onwards. So as I said, if you define meaning only in terms of survival then that meaning can easily vanish once survival is either lost or made essentially certain.

To repeat once again, I do not disagree with your appraisal of immortality being valuable and incredibly important. Trying to contemplate the meaning of life isn't exactly possible if you cease to exist or become a borg slave, that much we both agree on. However, there should be a clear line drawn between something being 'useful' and it being 'objectively meaningful'. For me, the summary of your position would seem to be that nothing is objectively meaningful, and that regardless of that we should attempt to become immortal and negate the things we see as meaningless in the world around us, simply due to the desire to survive and become more advanced.

HP. Zevios Metathronossaid:
Creating pseudophilosophy without being a Philos-Opher aka A friend of the Serpent aka spiritually advanced is like crapping on a canvas and pretending you do fine art.
Your argument is just easily refutable in that if death exists, life only gets MORE meaning. Immortality increases this meaning of life exponentially, as it is a permanent distance from death, and not the other way around.

Am I right to assume this is aimed at me, since it's not quoting other posts? Anyway, let's ignore your meaningless toxicity in saying I am 'shitting on a canvas' with what I'm saying, as I certainly am not, and move on to your ideas. If that was not aimed at me but instead at shininglight then I apologize for the misunderstanding as I relate somewhat more to the toxicity if it is aimed at him, however since you did not include it in your reply to him and posted another one right after I am assuming it's aimed at me.

How does life become more meaningful because of death? I agree with you that one way or another we should all try to become immortal and evade death. However, that doesn't make life inherently meaningful. Certainly the existence of death gives living beings a threat to focus on negating. But once that task is complete, what remains? All death does is give a constant threat to life, and the potential for it to collapse into nothingness, it does not create anything meaningful in it. If life is meaningful it should have meaning beyond simply making sure it continues to exist, as that's a type of meaning that will likely exhaust itself, either in the death of the individual, or the individual becoming immortal and ensuring a future where the possibility of death is near zero or zero, and will never become relevant again.

Meanwhile, on a general basis, if even 5% of people disappear forever on death, then at some point or another you're going to have lots of people who had someone close to them disappear forever in this way. Clearly this is something meaningless, when you have people die for nothing. The very fact that you're advocating immortality should mean you are against death and see it as utterly meaningless. However, it's not like there's anything we can do for those who are already gone forever even if everyone who's left becomes immortal. So, at that point you have two options for all these individuals in the future spiritual civilization(if we get that far) who've had someone close to them entirely confirmed scientifically to have disappeared from existence forever.

One, they have to bear the pain of those people's non-existence for the rest of eternity. Two, they ultimately try to forget those they've lost and treat them as if they never existed. I think quite a large number of people would fall under option 1, as to choose option 2 would be to reject the meaninglessness of their deaths and stop trying to find any meaning in their lost lives. In the most extreme case, option 2 would be to see those lives as worthless now that they've vanished. This is why I have a problem with defining things in life as meaningful only if they advance someone's individual survival, it is essentially to look back on many people who've disappeared and say they are now meaningless to remember anymore other than perhaps as a mere statistic. And should the future spiritual civilization defeat all relevant enemies and ensure its survival for the rest of the foreseeable future, then even that could become irrelevant as survival would be guaranteed from that point onwards. So as I said, if you define meaning only in terms of survival then that meaning can easily vanish once survival is either lost or made essentially certain.

To repeat once again, I do not disagree with your appraisal of immortality being valuable and incredibly important. Trying to contemplate the meaning of life isn't exactly possible if you cease to exist or become a borg slave, that much we both agree on. However, there should be a clear line drawn between something being 'useful' and it being 'objectively meaningful'. For me, the summary of your position would seem to be that nothing is objectively meaningful, and that regardless of that we should attempt to become immortal and negate the things we see as meaningless in the world around us, simply due to the desire to survive and become more advanced.

May 13, 2019#22

shinninglightsaid:
note when i said etheric plane which is the component of ether,so soul do not come from ether,it actually goes beyond ether

The Soul is made up of the Elements, and the Elements come from the Aether; the Aether contains all of the Elements, and the Universe is a vibrational Aether field.

May 13, 2019#23

FancyMancysaid:
shinninglightsaid:
note when i said etheric plane which is the component of ether,so soul do not come from ether,it actually goes beyond ether
The Soul is made up of the Elements, and the Elements come from the Aether; the Aether contains all of the Elements, and the Universe is a vibrational Aether field.

Soul has ether,but it is not ether,soul is beyond ether because ether is also found in space,ether is an element,it has no personality or individuality.if soul comes from ether then ether has life

FancyMancysaid:
shinninglightsaid:
note when i said etheric plane which is the component of ether,so soul do not come from ether,it actually goes beyond ether
The Soul is made up of the Elements, and the Elements come from the Aether; the Aether contains all of the Elements, and the Universe is a vibrational Aether field.

Soul has ether,but it is not ether,soul is beyond ether because ether is also found in space,ether is an element,it has no personality or individuality.if soul comes from ether then ether has life

May 13, 2019#24

Some casual people know better than the Hps obviously......... lol (sarcasm)

I am reaching towards a green apple.

May 14, 2019#25

This is the targeted message.

shinninglightsaid:
FancyMancysaid:
shinninglightsaid:
note when i said etheric plane which is the component of ether,so soul do not come from ether,it actually goes beyond ether
The Soul is made up of the Elements, and the Elements come from the Aether; the Aether contains all of the Elements, and the Universe is a vibrational Aether field.
Soul has ether,but it is not ether,soul is beyond ether because ether is also found in space,ether is an element,it has no personality or individuality.if soul comes from ether then ether has life

The Soul is made up of things which come from the Aether, and this Aether is what the Universe is, which also has conscience. (I haven't yet understood that about it having conscience 100% yet, though, so you (and I) will have to read/re-read about it in other posts.)

shinninglightsaid:
FancyMancysaid:
shinninglightsaid:
note when i said etheric plane which is the component of ether,so soul do not come from ether,it actually goes beyond ether
The Soul is made up of the Elements, and the Elements come from the Aether; the Aether contains all of the Elements, and the Universe is a vibrational Aether field.
Soul has ether,but it is not ether,soul is beyond ether because ether is also found in space,ether is an element,it has no personality or individuality.if soul comes from ether then ether has life

The Soul is made up of things which come from the Aether, and this Aether is what the Universe is, which also has conscience. (I haven't yet understood that about it having conscience 100% yet, though, so you (and I) will have to read/re-read about it in other posts.)

May 14, 2019#26

FancyMancysaid:
shinninglightsaid:
FancyMancysaid:
The Soul is made up of the Elements, and the Elements come from the Aether; the Aether contains all of the Elements, and the Universe is a vibrational Aether field.
Soul has ether,but it is not ether,soul is beyond ether because ether is also found in space,ether is an element,it has no personality or individuality.if soul comes from ether then ether has life
The Soul is made up of things which come from the Aether, and this Aether is what the Universe is, which also has conscience. (I haven't yet understood that about it having conscience 100% yet, though, so you (and I) will have to read/re-read about it in other posts.)

Ether does not have consciousness where did you hear that?
Does fire water and air have consciousness?
The universe is ran by a natural law,it does not have any consciousness of its own nor free will.souls that comes into this world is what gives the universe meaning,the universe can not exist without a soul,so saying that a soul will dissipate while the universe remains is completely wrong,this is why you must exist,because without you the universe can not exist.
Soul does not come from ether,ether is a universal element,it does not have a consciousness of its own.soul comes from somewhere beyond what you call ether

FancyMancysaid:
shinninglightsaid:
FancyMancysaid:
The Soul is made up of the Elements, and the Elements come from the Aether; the Aether contains all of the Elements, and the Universe is a vibrational Aether field.
Soul has ether,but it is not ether,soul is beyond ether because ether is also found in space,ether is an element,it has no personality or individuality.if soul comes from ether then ether has life
The Soul is made up of things which come from the Aether, and this Aether is what the Universe is, which also has conscience. (I haven't yet understood that about it having conscience 100% yet, though, so you (and I) will have to read/re-read about it in other posts.)

Ether does not have consciousness where did you hear that?
Does fire water and air have consciousness?
The universe is ran by a natural law,it does not have any consciousness of its own nor free will.souls that comes into this world is what gives the universe meaning,the universe can not exist without a soul,so saying that a soul will dissipate while the universe remains is completely wrong,this is why you must exist,because without you the universe can not exist.
Soul does not come from ether,ether is a universal element,it does not have a consciousness of its own.soul comes from somewhere beyond what you call ether

May 15, 2019#27

shinninglightsaid:
FancyMancysaid:
shinninglightsaid:
Soul has ether,but it is not ether,soul is beyond ether because ether is also found in space,ether is an element,it has no personality or individuality.if soul comes from ether then ether has life
The Soul is made up of things which come from the Aether, and this Aether is what the Universe is, which also has conscience. (I haven't yet understood that about it having conscience 100% yet, though, so you (and I) will have to read/re-read about it in other posts.)
Ether does not have consciousness where did you hear that?
Does fire water and air have consciousness?
The universe is ran by a natural law,it does not have any consciousness of its own nor free will.souls that comes into this world is what gives the universe meaning,the universe can not exist without a soul,so saying that a soul will dissipate while the universe remains is completely wrong,this is why you must exist,because without you the universe can not exist.
Soul does not come from ether,ether is a universal element,it does not have a consciousness of its own.soul comes from somewhere beyond what you call ether

As I said I'm not 100% certain about it, so I might be misremembering, but it has been in sermons/posts.

What is beyond Aether? The Universe has existed forever since before I came into being. The Aether manifests the Universe. You should go read the sermons and materials - unless there are some I have missed which says "the Soul cannot be destroyed", which, of course, is what "eternal punishment of torment and torture in Hell" is about, because "god" loves you so much.

shinninglightsaid:
FancyMancysaid:
shinninglightsaid:
Soul has ether,but it is not ether,soul is beyond ether because ether is also found in space,ether is an element,it has no personality or individuality.if soul comes from ether then ether has life
The Soul is made up of things which come from the Aether, and this Aether is what the Universe is, which also has conscience. (I haven't yet understood that about it having conscience 100% yet, though, so you (and I) will have to read/re-read about it in other posts.)
Ether does not have consciousness where did you hear that?
Does fire water and air have consciousness?
The universe is ran by a natural law,it does not have any consciousness of its own nor free will.souls that comes into this world is what gives the universe meaning,the universe can not exist without a soul,so saying that a soul will dissipate while the universe remains is completely wrong,this is why you must exist,because without you the universe can not exist.
Soul does not come from ether,ether is a universal element,it does not have a consciousness of its own.soul comes from somewhere beyond what you call ether

As I said I'm not 100% certain about it, so I might be misremembering, but it has been in sermons/posts.

What is beyond Aether? The Universe has existed forever since before I came into being. The Aether manifests the Universe. You should go read the sermons and materials - unless there are some I have missed which says "the Soul cannot be destroyed", which, of course, is what "eternal punishment of torment and torture in Hell" is about, because "god" loves you so much.

May 15, 2019#28

FancyMancysaid:
shinninglightsaid:
FancyMancysaid:
The Soul is made up of things which come from the Aether, and this Aether is what the Universe is, which also has conscience. (I haven't yet understood that about it having conscience 100% yet, though, so you (and I) will have to read/re-read about it in other posts.)
Ether does not have consciousness where did you hear that?
Does fire water and air have consciousness?
The universe is ran by a natural law,it does not have any consciousness of its own nor free will.souls that comes into this world is what gives the universe meaning,the universe can not exist without a soul,so saying that a soul will dissipate while the universe remains is completely wrong,this is why you must exist,because without you the universe can not exist.
Soul does not come from ether,ether is a universal element,it does not have a consciousness of its own.soul comes from somewhere beyond what you call ether
As I said I'm not 100% certain about it, so I might be misremembering, but it has been in sermons/posts.
What is beyond Aether? The Universe has existed forever since before I came into being. The Aether manifests the Universe. You should go read the sermons and materials - unless there are some I have missed which says "the Soul cannot be destroyed", which, of course, is what "eternal punishment of torment and torture in Hell" is about, because "god" loves you so much.

In your quote then your saying that there is nothing beyond the universe,is this universe all their is?

FancyMancysaid:
shinninglightsaid:
FancyMancysaid:
The Soul is made up of things which come from the Aether, and this Aether is what the Universe is, which also has conscience. (I haven't yet understood that about it having conscience 100% yet, though, so you (and I) will have to read/re-read about it in other posts.)
Ether does not have consciousness where did you hear that?
Does fire water and air have consciousness?
The universe is ran by a natural law,it does not have any consciousness of its own nor free will.souls that comes into this world is what gives the universe meaning,the universe can not exist without a soul,so saying that a soul will dissipate while the universe remains is completely wrong,this is why you must exist,because without you the universe can not exist.
Soul does not come from ether,ether is a universal element,it does not have a consciousness of its own.soul comes from somewhere beyond what you call ether
As I said I'm not 100% certain about it, so I might be misremembering, but it has been in sermons/posts.
What is beyond Aether? The Universe has existed forever since before I came into being. The Aether manifests the Universe. You should go read the sermons and materials - unless there are some I have missed which says "the Soul cannot be destroyed", which, of course, is what "eternal punishment of torment and torture in Hell" is about, because "god" loves you so much.

In your quote then your saying that there is nothing beyond the universe,is this universe all their is?

May 15, 2019#29

FancyMancysaid:
shinninglightsaid:
FancyMancysaid:
The Soul is made up of things which come from the Aether, and this Aether is what the Universe is, which also has conscience. (I haven't yet understood that about it having conscience 100% yet, though, so you (and I) will have to read/re-read about it in other posts.)
Ether does not have consciousness where did you hear that?
Does fire water and air have consciousness?
The universe is ran by a natural law,it does not have any consciousness of its own nor free will.souls that comes into this world is what gives the universe meaning,the universe can not exist without a soul,so saying that a soul will dissipate while the universe remains is completely wrong,this is why you must exist,because without you the universe can not exist.
Soul does not come from ether,ether is a universal element,it does not have a consciousness of its own.soul comes from somewhere beyond what you call ether
As I said I'm not 100% certain about it, so I might be misremembering, but it has been in sermons/posts.
What is beyond Aether? The Universe has existed forever since before I came into being. The Aether manifests the Universe. You should go read the sermons and materials - unless there are some I have missed which says "the Soul cannot be destroyed", which, of course, is what "eternal punishment of torment and torture in Hell" is about, because "god" loves you so much.

Yes the universe is created from aether because aether contains all the four elements of creation,aether is the chi,the universal life force,but you need to know that there are planes higher than the physical plane so the aether is not the highest reality.aether is found in space and is said to move naturally with the universe,it is not a conscious being so it can not create something that has a conciousness.

FancyMancysaid:
shinninglightsaid:
FancyMancysaid:
The Soul is made up of things which come from the Aether, and this Aether is what the Universe is, which also has conscience. (I haven't yet understood that about it having conscience 100% yet, though, so you (and I) will have to read/re-read about it in other posts.)
Ether does not have consciousness where did you hear that?
Does fire water and air have consciousness?
The universe is ran by a natural law,it does not have any consciousness of its own nor free will.souls that comes into this world is what gives the universe meaning,the universe can not exist without a soul,so saying that a soul will dissipate while the universe remains is completely wrong,this is why you must exist,because without you the universe can not exist.
Soul does not come from ether,ether is a universal element,it does not have a consciousness of its own.soul comes from somewhere beyond what you call ether
As I said I'm not 100% certain about it, so I might be misremembering, but it has been in sermons/posts.
What is beyond Aether? The Universe has existed forever since before I came into being. The Aether manifests the Universe. You should go read the sermons and materials - unless there are some I have missed which says "the Soul cannot be destroyed", which, of course, is what "eternal punishment of torment and torture in Hell" is about, because "god" loves you so much.

Yes the universe is created from aether because aether contains all the four elements of creation,aether is the chi,the universal life force,but you need to know that there are planes higher than the physical plane so the aether is not the highest reality.aether is found in space and is said to move naturally with the universe,it is not a conscious being so it can not create something that has a conciousness.

May 15, 2019#30

ConsistentMeditatorsaid:
To some extent, people do have their own goals, deisres, etc. However, they are still ultimately replacable beings created by meaningless processes under this whole schema of things.

The thing is, no one is "replaceable" in the sense that no one will be an exact replica of who you are and what you are. There will be people that can fulfill the same "role" but ultimately how the role is performed will be different whether vastly or minutely

ConsistentMeditatorsaid:
At the end of the day all atheists know experientially that free will exists, the core of their worldview is belief in nihilism and spiritual death, and this is somewhat similar here in terms of the facts agreed upon by both groups.

No, in fact atheist dont believe in free will at all if they even believe we have a will. Atheists believe we are all chemical reactions in the brain and that its simply the brain having an experience. That death is ultimately the end and life has no meaning because there is nothing after death. Immortality is an impossibility and no one has higher purpose because we are all meat bags with electrical impulses. They dont believe in spiritual death because spirituality is pseudoscience make believe to them.

Difference between us and Atheist is literally everything. We dont have a worldview based on nihilism because thats a belief that living is meaningless. Life has meaning.

ConsistentMeditatorsaid:
Clearly, there's always going to be some form of biological death of organisms, I don't disagree there, same with there being no use for spiritual death.

I never said there is no use for spiritual death. Without spiritual death this entire Universe would be filled with worthless deadbeat souls. Weaklings and degenerate disgusting beings that could exist forever just because and for no other reason. Spiritual Death serves purpose in that it gets rid of beings that don't advance. It also makes sure your enemies are gone forever.

ConsistentMeditatorsaid:
I don't understand why you think objective meaning can't be personal, it would make individuals placing a value on something have inherent value as they would be attempting to discover a true meaning it has for them in their own way. Making meaning fundamentally discoverable rather than fundamentally arbitrary. Even if I am ultimately simply subjectively trying to find a non-existent objective meaning which isn't there in reality, it is still satisfying for me as an experience, and from your standpoint of subjectivism you can't say that's wrong. And from the standpoint of whether it's healthy or not, it's not a problem as long as it doesn't interfere with my survival and health. To me individually, seeking objective meaning is more interesting than trying to see everything I do as fundamentally subjective, so I just don't see the dichotomy you are talking about.

Objective: Gravity exists
Subjective: Gravity is nice

Objective meaning in of itself cant be personal because its something that exists regardless of what someone wants or wishes. Seeking/desiring an objective meaning can be personal. You want to satisfy your desire to find a meaning in life through an objective reason which is fine. The issue is I gave you an objective meaning to life, a pure fact. The meaning to existence is existence itself. What is bothering me is how you don't seem to like said meaning behind it which is inherently objective, which also satisfies your conditions of looking for an objective meaning to life.

Existence seeks to improve itself. Its why anything that goes against that leads into spiritual death. By seeking a more advanced form of existence you, and anyone else, will continue to exist. Hence why the magnum opus is the ultimate work as it perfects the being into the ultimate form of both spiritual and physical immortality thus gaining a permanent distance from Death. Existence itself is what gives it meaning.

The Manifestation of the Will of Zeus

Temple of Zeus
Hall of Osiris
Helpful Links

That which oppose Zeus and the Assembly of the Gods

Yehuborim
Birburim
Sahiburah
Atibilibil
As above, so below.

ConsistentMeditatorsaid:
To some extent, people do have their own goals, deisres, etc. However, they are still ultimately replacable beings created by meaningless processes under this whole schema of things.

The thing is, no one is "replaceable" in the sense that no one will be an exact replica of who you are and what you are. There will be people that can fulfill the same "role" but ultimately how the role is performed will be different whether vastly or minutely

ConsistentMeditatorsaid:
At the end of the day all atheists know experientially that free will exists, the core of their worldview is belief in nihilism and spiritual death, and this is somewhat similar here in terms of the facts agreed upon by both groups.

No, in fact atheist dont believe in free will at all if they even believe we have a will. Atheists believe we are all chemical reactions in the brain and that its simply the brain having an experience. That death is ultimately the end and life has no meaning because there is nothing after death. Immortality is an impossibility and no one has higher purpose because we are all meat bags with electrical impulses. They dont believe in spiritual death because spirituality is pseudoscience make believe to them.

Difference between us and Atheist is literally everything. We dont have a worldview based on nihilism because thats a belief that living is meaningless. Life has meaning.

ConsistentMeditatorsaid:
Clearly, there's always going to be some form of biological death of organisms, I don't disagree there, same with there being no use for spiritual death.

I never said there is no use for spiritual death. Without spiritual death this entire Universe would be filled with worthless deadbeat souls. Weaklings and degenerate disgusting beings that could exist forever just because and for no other reason. Spiritual Death serves purpose in that it gets rid of beings that don't advance. It also makes sure your enemies are gone forever.

ConsistentMeditatorsaid:
I don't understand why you think objective meaning can't be personal, it would make individuals placing a value on something have inherent value as they would be attempting to discover a true meaning it has for them in their own way. Making meaning fundamentally discoverable rather than fundamentally arbitrary. Even if I am ultimately simply subjectively trying to find a non-existent objective meaning which isn't there in reality, it is still satisfying for me as an experience, and from your standpoint of subjectivism you can't say that's wrong. And from the standpoint of whether it's healthy or not, it's not a problem as long as it doesn't interfere with my survival and health. To me individually, seeking objective meaning is more interesting than trying to see everything I do as fundamentally subjective, so I just don't see the dichotomy you are talking about.

Objective: Gravity exists
Subjective: Gravity is nice

Objective meaning in of itself cant be personal because its something that exists regardless of what someone wants or wishes. Seeking/desiring an objective meaning can be personal. You want to satisfy your desire to find a meaning in life through an objective reason which is fine. The issue is I gave you an objective meaning to life, a pure fact. The meaning to existence is existence itself. What is bothering me is how you don't seem to like said meaning behind it which is inherently objective, which also satisfies your conditions of looking for an objective meaning to life.

Existence seeks to improve itself. Its why anything that goes against that leads into spiritual death. By seeking a more advanced form of existence you, and anyone else, will continue to exist. Hence why the magnum opus is the ultimate work as it perfects the being into the ultimate form of both spiritual and physical immortality thus gaining a permanent distance from Death. Existence itself is what gives it meaning.

May 17, 2019#31

Zeffie of the Windsaid:
ConsistentMeditatorsaid:
To some extent, people do have their own goals, deisres, etc. However, they are still ultimately replacable beings created by meaningless processes under this whole schema of things.
The thing is, no one is "replaceable" in the sense that no one will be an exact replica of who you are and what you are. There will be people that can fulfill the same "role" but ultimately how the role is performed will be different whether vastly or minutely

True, but at the end of the day, that is irrelevant, if said uniquness is without inherent meaning, then every individual is a replacable being in all aspects.

Zeffie of the Windsaid:
ConsistentMeditatorsaid:
At the end of the day all atheists know experientially that free will exists, the core of their worldview is belief in nihilism and spiritual death, and this is somewhat similar here in terms of the facts agreed upon by both groups.
No, in fact atheist dont believe in free will at all if they even believe we have a will. Atheists believe we are all chemical reactions in the brain and that its simply the brain having an experience. That death is ultimately the end and life has no meaning because there is nothing after death. Immortality is an impossibility and no one has higher purpose because we are all meat bags with electrical impulses. They dont believe in spiritual death because spirituality is pseudoscience make believe to them.
Difference between us and Atheist is literally everything. We dont have a worldview based on nihilism because thats a belief that living is meaningless. Life has meaning.

What I meant by saying this was not that atheists believe in this intellectually. Intellectually they tell themselves that they have no freewill, and will argue to others that even their very consciousness is somehow an illusion produced by unconscious matter reacting as you said. But in reality, they still ultimately act with free will in their personal experiences. What I meant by saying that they believe in spiritual death is that while all Atheists tell themselves free will is an illusion, that these people ultimately are very afraid of the idea of spiritual death, that is, dying and ceasing to exist forever, which they think invariably happens to everyone the moment their body dies. So, on one layer they technically don't believe in spiritual death, since they think the 'individual' never even existed in the first place, but ultimately they still believe in this because they are very afraid of it.

Zeffie of the Windsaid:
ConsistentMeditatorsaid:
Clearly, there's always going to be some form of biological death of organisms, I don't disagree there, same with there being no use for spiritual death.
I never said there is no use for spiritual death. Without spiritual death this entire Universe would be filled with worthless deadbeat souls. Weaklings and degenerate disgusting beings that could exist forever just because and for no other reason. Spiritual Death serves purpose in that it gets rid of beings that don't advance. It also makes sure your enemies are gone forever.

Even if spiritual death had some potential use in some cases, I doubt you would be saying the same thing you are now if, for example, someone you knew and cared about died was confirmed to have spiritually disappeared forever. This also would seem to be inevitably what would happen even to incredibly advanced and good beings, since there is a war going on between the Gods and the enemy. Inevitably, in a war, you are going to have many casualties in these battles, and I doubt the enemy is so unthorough as to leave those Gods they kill in existence where the others can then reincarnate them once more. So clearly, spiritual death causes quite an abundance of eternally unfixable issues, and if it didn't exist the universe would probably be better off.

ConsistentMeditatorsaid:
I don't understand why you think objective meaning can't be personal, it would make individuals placing a value on something have inherent value as they would be attempting to discover a true meaning it has for them in their own way. Making meaning fundamentally discoverable rather than fundamentally arbitrary. Even if I am ultimately simply subjectively trying to find a non-existent objective meaning which isn't there in reality, it is still satisfying for me as an experience, and from your standpoint of subjectivism you can't say that's wrong. And from the standpoint of whether it's healthy or not, it's not a problem as long as it doesn't interfere with my survival and health. To me individually, seeking objective meaning is more interesting than trying to see everything I do as fundamentally subjective, so I just don't see the dichotomy you are talking about.

Objective: Gravity exists
Subjective: Gravity is nice

Objective meaning in of itself cant be personal because its something that exists regardless of what someone wants or wishes. Seeking/desiring an objective meaning can be personal. You want to satisfy your desire to find a meaning in life through an objective reason which is fine. The issue is I gave you an objective meaning to life, a pure fact. The meaning to existence is existence itself. What is bothering me is how you don't seem to like said meaning behind it which is inherently objective, which also satisfies your conditions of looking for an objective meaning to life.

Existence seeks to improve itself. Its why anything that goes against that leads into spiritual death. By seeking a more advanced form of existence you, and anyone else, will continue to exist. Hence why the magnum opus is the ultimate work as it perfects the being into the ultimate form of both spiritual and physical immortality thus gaining a permanent distance from Death. Existence itself is what gives it meaning.

You are saying that it is the adaptive choice for all existing beings to become immortal and continue existing, but something being adaptive is not the same as it being objectively good. Not that i disagree with this adaptive choice of course. Ultimately you seem to be defining existence negatively as merely an escape from Death. At that point, if the Gods could at some point establish a sure state of peace in the universe with no enemies or natural calamities remaining as any possible threat, further levels of advancement would have no necessary effect in negating death. Instead, further advancement would increase the quality of life, making the overall state of being better. This is way just defining "Good" as 'making the adaptive choice' seems limited, as eventually many choices would be equally adaptive, whether mediocre in quality or excellent.

Example A:Extremely advanced God increases their advancement 100 fold, fully dedicating themselves to advancement and providing many good results, and will exist for the rest of eternity.
Example b:A God that is just as immortal as the last one does not do anywhere near as much to advance, only doing a moderate amount, but will regardless manage to continue existing for the rest of eternity.

In peacetime if no enemies remain you can have results like that, where superior advancement does nothing to make one choice more adaptive/survival oriented. Then in war time you can have more disturbing results:
Example C:Extremely advanced God does lots of advancement, but because peace is not established in the universe yet and risks remain, they are killed in battle and erased for all eternity due to the war, simply due to being an active part of the battles, unlike God B who did far less for their race but ultimately continued to exist.

This is the problem, if you simply define meaning as the evasion of death, then advancement doesn't hold value in itself, and you end up with disturbing results where if someone died, then their meaning was less than the one who lived even if they were clearly better in every way. After all, whether they advanced their race more or not, their race can do absolutely nothing to save them if they are forever erased from existence by the enemy, as I would imagine sometimes happens in the war unless the Gods have discovered a way to conduct battles remotely without risking their lives. Of course this is an example of how all wars are dysgenic, but the point is that meaning cannot be defined by simple survival alone, there have to be standards of morality where even death can be good if it's for a good cause. I'm not trying to straw man you as I know you are probably not trying to support 'individual survival is all that matters' when faced with these examples, but I think these are disturbing conclusions of the moral system you are using which you do not realize might emerge.

Zeffie of the Windsaid:
ConsistentMeditatorsaid:
To some extent, people do have their own goals, deisres, etc. However, they are still ultimately replacable beings created by meaningless processes under this whole schema of things.
The thing is, no one is "replaceable" in the sense that no one will be an exact replica of who you are and what you are. There will be people that can fulfill the same "role" but ultimately how the role is performed will be different whether vastly or minutely

True, but at the end of the day, that is irrelevant, if said uniquness is without inherent meaning, then every individual is a replacable being in all aspects.

Zeffie of the Windsaid:
ConsistentMeditatorsaid:
At the end of the day all atheists know experientially that free will exists, the core of their worldview is belief in nihilism and spiritual death, and this is somewhat similar here in terms of the facts agreed upon by both groups.
No, in fact atheist dont believe in free will at all if they even believe we have a will. Atheists believe we are all chemical reactions in the brain and that its simply the brain having an experience. That death is ultimately the end and life has no meaning because there is nothing after death. Immortality is an impossibility and no one has higher purpose because we are all meat bags with electrical impulses. They dont believe in spiritual death because spirituality is pseudoscience make believe to them.
Difference between us and Atheist is literally everything. We dont have a worldview based on nihilism because thats a belief that living is meaningless. Life has meaning.

What I meant by saying this was not that atheists believe in this intellectually. Intellectually they tell themselves that they have no freewill, and will argue to others that even their very consciousness is somehow an illusion produced by unconscious matter reacting as you said. But in reality, they still ultimately act with free will in their personal experiences. What I meant by saying that they believe in spiritual death is that while all Atheists tell themselves free will is an illusion, that these people ultimately are very afraid of the idea of spiritual death, that is, dying and ceasing to exist forever, which they think invariably happens to everyone the moment their body dies. So, on one layer they technically don't believe in spiritual death, since they think the 'individual' never even existed in the first place, but ultimately they still believe in this because they are very afraid of it.

Zeffie of the Windsaid:
ConsistentMeditatorsaid:
Clearly, there's always going to be some form of biological death of organisms, I don't disagree there, same with there being no use for spiritual death.
I never said there is no use for spiritual death. Without spiritual death this entire Universe would be filled with worthless deadbeat souls. Weaklings and degenerate disgusting beings that could exist forever just because and for no other reason. Spiritual Death serves purpose in that it gets rid of beings that don't advance. It also makes sure your enemies are gone forever.

Even if spiritual death had some potential use in some cases, I doubt you would be saying the same thing you are now if, for example, someone you knew and cared about died was confirmed to have spiritually disappeared forever. This also would seem to be inevitably what would happen even to incredibly advanced and good beings, since there is a war going on between the Gods and the enemy. Inevitably, in a war, you are going to have many casualties in these battles, and I doubt the enemy is so unthorough as to leave those Gods they kill in existence where the others can then reincarnate them once more. So clearly, spiritual death causes quite an abundance of eternally unfixable issues, and if it didn't exist the universe would probably be better off.

ConsistentMeditatorsaid:
I don't understand why you think objective meaning can't be personal, it would make individuals placing a value on something have inherent value as they would be attempting to discover a true meaning it has for them in their own way. Making meaning fundamentally discoverable rather than fundamentally arbitrary. Even if I am ultimately simply subjectively trying to find a non-existent objective meaning which isn't there in reality, it is still satisfying for me as an experience, and from your standpoint of subjectivism you can't say that's wrong. And from the standpoint of whether it's healthy or not, it's not a problem as long as it doesn't interfere with my survival and health. To me individually, seeking objective meaning is more interesting than trying to see everything I do as fundamentally subjective, so I just don't see the dichotomy you are talking about.

Objective: Gravity exists
Subjective: Gravity is nice

Objective meaning in of itself cant be personal because its something that exists regardless of what someone wants or wishes. Seeking/desiring an objective meaning can be personal. You want to satisfy your desire to find a meaning in life through an objective reason which is fine. The issue is I gave you an objective meaning to life, a pure fact. The meaning to existence is existence itself. What is bothering me is how you don't seem to like said meaning behind it which is inherently objective, which also satisfies your conditions of looking for an objective meaning to life.

Existence seeks to improve itself. Its why anything that goes against that leads into spiritual death. By seeking a more advanced form of existence you, and anyone else, will continue to exist. Hence why the magnum opus is the ultimate work as it perfects the being into the ultimate form of both spiritual and physical immortality thus gaining a permanent distance from Death. Existence itself is what gives it meaning.

You are saying that it is the adaptive choice for all existing beings to become immortal and continue existing, but something being adaptive is not the same as it being objectively good. Not that i disagree with this adaptive choice of course. Ultimately you seem to be defining existence negatively as merely an escape from Death. At that point, if the Gods could at some point establish a sure state of peace in the universe with no enemies or natural calamities remaining as any possible threat, further levels of advancement would have no necessary effect in negating death. Instead, further advancement would increase the quality of life, making the overall state of being better. This is way just defining "Good" as 'making the adaptive choice' seems limited, as eventually many choices would be equally adaptive, whether mediocre in quality or excellent.

Example A:Extremely advanced God increases their advancement 100 fold, fully dedicating themselves to advancement and providing many good results, and will exist for the rest of eternity.
Example b:A God that is just as immortal as the last one does not do anywhere near as much to advance, only doing a moderate amount, but will regardless manage to continue existing for the rest of eternity.

In peacetime if no enemies remain you can have results like that, where superior advancement does nothing to make one choice more adaptive/survival oriented. Then in war time you can have more disturbing results:
Example C:Extremely advanced God does lots of advancement, but because peace is not established in the universe yet and risks remain, they are killed in battle and erased for all eternity due to the war, simply due to being an active part of the battles, unlike God B who did far less for their race but ultimately continued to exist.

This is the problem, if you simply define meaning as the evasion of death, then advancement doesn't hold value in itself, and you end up with disturbing results where if someone died, then their meaning was less than the one who lived even if they were clearly better in every way. After all, whether they advanced their race more or not, their race can do absolutely nothing to save them if they are forever erased from existence by the enemy, as I would imagine sometimes happens in the war unless the Gods have discovered a way to conduct battles remotely without risking their lives. Of course this is an example of how all wars are dysgenic, but the point is that meaning cannot be defined by simple survival alone, there have to be standards of morality where even death can be good if it's for a good cause. I'm not trying to straw man you as I know you are probably not trying to support 'individual survival is all that matters' when faced with these examples, but I think these are disturbing conclusions of the moral system you are using which you do not realize might emerge.

May 18, 2019#32

ConsistentMeditatorsaid:
You are saying that it is the adaptive choice for all existing beings to become immortal and continue existing, but something being adaptive is not the same as it being objectively good. Not that i disagree with this adaptive choice of course. Ultimately you seem to be defining existence negatively as merely an escape from Death. At that point, if the Gods could at some point establish a sure state of peace in the universe with no enemies or natural calamities remaining as any possible threat, further levels of advancement would have no necessary effect in negating death. Instead, further advancement would increase the quality of life, making the overall state of being better. This is way just defining "Good" as 'making the adaptive choice' seems limited, as eventually many choices would be equally adaptive, whether mediocre in quality or excellent.
Example A:Extremely advanced God increases their advancement 100 fold, fully dedicating themselves to advancement and providing many good results, and will exist for the rest of eternity.
Example b:A God that is just as immortal as the last one does not do anywhere near as much to advance, only doing a moderate amount, but will regardless manage to continue existing for the rest of eternity.
In peacetime if no enemies remain you can have results like that, where superior advancement does nothing to make one choice more adaptive/survival oriented. Then in war time you can have more disturbing results:
Example C:Extremely advanced God does lots of advancement, but because peace is not established in the universe yet and risks remain, they are killed in battle and erased for all eternity due to the war, simply due to being an active part of the battles, unlike God B who did far less for their race but ultimately continued to exist.

I think I understand what the issue is. It seems I may have misunderstood the entirety of what you have been trying to say but do please enlighten me if what im about to reply with is too another misunderstanding. From my point of view it seems the reason why you wish to find some sort of "objective meaning" to life is because Death seems to be too harsh for you. But you also seem to be aware of but unable to accept reality. If in the end one goes through spiritual death then yes at that point that existence is gone for good and thus become a meaningless "memory". If they leave behind nothing then all is lost and truly they are meaningless in the fullest of sense. If one amounted to nothing in life and then wastes away into oblivion, truly they are worthless and of no importance to anyone. If one falls due to war or whatever else then if its deserved then the memory of such beings will be honored to those left behind if any. Higher level warfare isn't simple guns and bullets but a fight with ones existence on the line. The winner survives and the losers perish for eternity.

Another thing, nature and the universe itself cares nothing to the beings living in it. It simply is and does whatever it does by design. If, and not to be a pessimist nor disrespectful, the Gods and in turn us ended up in a situation that inevitably lead to their oblivion then that is simply par for course. It simple another event that happens in this eternal universe. It simply is. There is no morality to it, there is no "meaning" to it. Just as their is no "meaning" to why gravity does what it does. It simply is.

You are trying to put morality into a universal truth, a universal law. Its as if the universe must adhere to your emotions and wishes but that is not the case. If someone close to me ends up on the path to oblivion, I will mourn but I will move on. Such is the way of this world. It is of no use to eternally feel distress over matters that cannot be changed by any means.

Inherently good? Inherently evil? Nothing of nature is so black and white. Saturn which is the number one thing everyone seems to complain about is not inherently evil. It has negative aspects to it as well as positive aspects to it. The only inherently "evil" are things that are an affront to nature and her laws. Life and Death are both natural parts of nature and neither are inherently good nor evil. Do not try and spin some sort of personal morality filled with emotion towards nature because nature doesn't care.

The only thing that cares about your existence is yourself and your racial family along with any allies you make. To joe shmo from planet burger? It matters nothing to them whether you exist or not.

At the end of the day without a deeper level of understanding gained through spiritual advancement any sort of philosophical debate on higher level concepts will end with nothing but sophism, ranting, and arguments going nowhere. If you believe the ToZ's stance on life and death is Nihilism then I honestly don't know what to say as Zevism is the absolute opposite of such ideologies. If you actually read anything that the clergy have written as well as the stuff in the ToZ site that would be blatantly apparent.

The Manifestation of the Will of Zeus

Temple of Zeus
Hall of Osiris
Helpful Links

That which oppose Zeus and the Assembly of the Gods

Yehuborim
Birburim
Sahiburah
Atibilibil
As above, so below.

ConsistentMeditatorsaid:
You are saying that it is the adaptive choice for all existing beings to become immortal and continue existing, but something being adaptive is not the same as it being objectively good. Not that i disagree with this adaptive choice of course. Ultimately you seem to be defining existence negatively as merely an escape from Death. At that point, if the Gods could at some point establish a sure state of peace in the universe with no enemies or natural calamities remaining as any possible threat, further levels of advancement would have no necessary effect in negating death. Instead, further advancement would increase the quality of life, making the overall state of being better. This is way just defining "Good" as 'making the adaptive choice' seems limited, as eventually many choices would be equally adaptive, whether mediocre in quality or excellent.
Example A:Extremely advanced God increases their advancement 100 fold, fully dedicating themselves to advancement and providing many good results, and will exist for the rest of eternity.
Example b:A God that is just as immortal as the last one does not do anywhere near as much to advance, only doing a moderate amount, but will regardless manage to continue existing for the rest of eternity.
In peacetime if no enemies remain you can have results like that, where superior advancement does nothing to make one choice more adaptive/survival oriented. Then in war time you can have more disturbing results:
Example C:Extremely advanced God does lots of advancement, but because peace is not established in the universe yet and risks remain, they are killed in battle and erased for all eternity due to the war, simply due to being an active part of the battles, unlike God B who did far less for their race but ultimately continued to exist.

I think I understand what the issue is. It seems I may have misunderstood the entirety of what you have been trying to say but do please enlighten me if what im about to reply with is too another misunderstanding. From my point of view it seems the reason why you wish to find some sort of "objective meaning" to life is because Death seems to be too harsh for you. But you also seem to be aware of but unable to accept reality. If in the end one goes through spiritual death then yes at that point that existence is gone for good and thus become a meaningless "memory". If they leave behind nothing then all is lost and truly they are meaningless in the fullest of sense. If one amounted to nothing in life and then wastes away into oblivion, truly they are worthless and of no importance to anyone. If one falls due to war or whatever else then if its deserved then the memory of such beings will be honored to those left behind if any. Higher level warfare isn't simple guns and bullets but a fight with ones existence on the line. The winner survives and the losers perish for eternity.

Another thing, nature and the universe itself cares nothing to the beings living in it. It simply is and does whatever it does by design. If, and not to be a pessimist nor disrespectful, the Gods and in turn us ended up in a situation that inevitably lead to their oblivion then that is simply par for course. It simple another event that happens in this eternal universe. It simply is. There is no morality to it, there is no "meaning" to it. Just as their is no "meaning" to why gravity does what it does. It simply is.

You are trying to put morality into a universal truth, a universal law. Its as if the universe must adhere to your emotions and wishes but that is not the case. If someone close to me ends up on the path to oblivion, I will mourn but I will move on. Such is the way of this world. It is of no use to eternally feel distress over matters that cannot be changed by any means.

Inherently good? Inherently evil? Nothing of nature is so black and white. Saturn which is the number one thing everyone seems to complain about is not inherently evil. It has negative aspects to it as well as positive aspects to it. The only inherently "evil" are things that are an affront to nature and her laws. Life and Death are both natural parts of nature and neither are inherently good nor evil. Do not try and spin some sort of personal morality filled with emotion towards nature because nature doesn't care.

The only thing that cares about your existence is yourself and your racial family along with any allies you make. To joe shmo from planet burger? It matters nothing to them whether you exist or not.

At the end of the day without a deeper level of understanding gained through spiritual advancement any sort of philosophical debate on higher level concepts will end with nothing but sophism, ranting, and arguments going nowhere. If you believe the ToZ's stance on life and death is Nihilism then I honestly don't know what to say as Zevism is the absolute opposite of such ideologies. If you actually read anything that the clergy have written as well as the stuff in the ToZ site that would be blatantly apparent.

May 18, 2019#33

Zeffie of the Windsaid:
ConsistentMeditatorsaid:
You are saying that it is the adaptive choice for all existing beings to become immortal and continue existing, but something being adaptive is not the same as it being objectively good. Not that i disagree with this adaptive choice of course. Ultimately you seem to be defining existence negatively as merely an escape from Death. At that point, if the Gods could at some point establish a sure state of peace in the universe with no enemies or natural calamities remaining as any possible threat, further levels of advancement would have no necessary effect in negating death. Instead, further advancement would increase the quality of life, making the overall state of being better. This is way just defining "Good" as 'making the adaptive choice' seems limited, as eventually many choices would be equally adaptive, whether mediocre in quality or excellent.
Example A:Extremely advanced God increases their advancement 100 fold, fully dedicating themselves to advancement and providing many good results, and will exist for the rest of eternity.
Example b:A God that is just as immortal as the last one does not do anywhere near as much to advance, only doing a moderate amount, but will regardless manage to continue existing for the rest of eternity.
In peacetime if no enemies remain you can have results like that, where superior advancement does nothing to make one choice more adaptive/survival oriented. Then in war time you can have more disturbing results:
Example C:Extremely advanced God does lots of advancement, but because peace is not established in the universe yet and risks remain, they are killed in battle and erased for all eternity due to the war, simply due to being an active part of the battles, unlike God B who did far less for their race but ultimately continued to exist.
I think I understand what the issue is. It seems I may have misunderstood the entirety of what you have been trying to say but do please enlighten me if what im about to reply with is too another misunderstanding. From my point of view it seems the reason why you wish to find some sort of "objective meaning" to life is because Death seems to be too harsh for you. But you also seem to be aware of but unable to accept reality. If in the end one goes through spiritual death then yes at that point that existence is gone for good and thus become a meaningless "memory". If they leave behind nothing then all is lost and truly they are meaningless in the fullest of sense. If one amounted to nothing in life and then wastes away into oblivion, truly they are worthless and of no importance to anyone. If one falls due to war or whatever else then if its deserved then the memory of such beings will be honored to those left behind if any. Higher level warfare isn't simple guns and bullets but a fight with ones existence on the line. The winner survives and the losers perish for eternity.
Another thing, nature and the universe itself cares nothing to the beings living in it. It simply is and does whatever it does by design. If, and not to be a pessimist nor disrespectful, the Gods and in turn us ended up in a situation that inevitably lead to their oblivion then that is simply par for course. It simple another event that happens in this eternal universe. It simply is. There is no morality to it, there is no "meaning" to it. Just as their is no "meaning" to why gravity does what it does. It simply is.

In other words, you are saying that all that really matters in the end in the ToZ worldview is individual existence, and there is no such thing as an objective higher moral in existence other than that which is an adaptive choice. Racial family and really all bonds with others in general simply serve as a means to an end for individual existence in this worldview as far as I can tell, rather than something that has value in itself. And the same goes with everything else.

I don't see how you disagree that the ToZ worldview has key tenets that are the same as nihilism.. Nihilism is the view that there is no objective meaning to life. You agree with that, that all there really is in terms of meaning is making the adaptive choice for your own survival, and that's simply to avoid death, not to do anything with objective purpose. So how could the ToZ worldview possibly be anything but nihilistic? Yes, it offers a solution of spiritual and physical immortality. However, that solution is simply an endless escape of the core truth of nihilism which is still accepted, that there is no purpose in life, nature is generally meaningless, and all that really awaits any individual is death if they fail. I don't see how you can disagree that this is the same fundamental worldview that nihilists have.

Lastly, as to what you have said about my argument about meaning, I realize that you see it as me trying to assert my own version of morality on reality, but I see it differently. I don't think it is meaningless to seek objective meaning, as if it exists, it is something that would grant life true value, rather than ultimately baseless values that would emerge if all that exists is individual decisions to grant value arbitrarily. The end result of such a worldview where all that objectively matters is survival, would be that all others become merely means to an end, and there is no value that can be placed higher than individual survival. All sorts of dishonorable and immoral things can suddenly flip to become morally Good if individual survival is all that matters. Society generally depends on placing survival of the group and some set of group values above the individual's life, but if survival is all that matters, then even the greatest crimes of betrayal can become Good as long as the individual doing them has a reasonable expectation that despite their great crime, they will still continue existing forever afterwards. You probably wouldn't use the word 'good', but nonetheless, I am sure you see what I am saying here. The end destination of this seems to be a Might Makes Right mentality where even the greatest atrocities like those the enemy perpetrates can be acceptable if they guarantee group/individual survival, and I simply can't agree with that. I'm not sure how much you even disagree with such a mentality, but you can try to outline your thoughts there on what even constitutes a 'wrong' action in moral terms. For example, any sort of betrayal, mass genocide, turning an enemy into a slave race, the underhanded tactics the enemy is using right now to win, etc. An action being 'wrong' in this context means that the action in question is not chosen due to its disagreeable nature even though it has a higher chance of guaranteeing group victory than another choice.

Zeffie of the Windsaid:
ConsistentMeditatorsaid:
You are saying that it is the adaptive choice for all existing beings to become immortal and continue existing, but something being adaptive is not the same as it being objectively good. Not that i disagree with this adaptive choice of course. Ultimately you seem to be defining existence negatively as merely an escape from Death. At that point, if the Gods could at some point establish a sure state of peace in the universe with no enemies or natural calamities remaining as any possible threat, further levels of advancement would have no necessary effect in negating death. Instead, further advancement would increase the quality of life, making the overall state of being better. This is way just defining "Good" as 'making the adaptive choice' seems limited, as eventually many choices would be equally adaptive, whether mediocre in quality or excellent.
Example A:Extremely advanced God increases their advancement 100 fold, fully dedicating themselves to advancement and providing many good results, and will exist for the rest of eternity.
Example b:A God that is just as immortal as the last one does not do anywhere near as much to advance, only doing a moderate amount, but will regardless manage to continue existing for the rest of eternity.
In peacetime if no enemies remain you can have results like that, where superior advancement does nothing to make one choice more adaptive/survival oriented. Then in war time you can have more disturbing results:
Example C:Extremely advanced God does lots of advancement, but because peace is not established in the universe yet and risks remain, they are killed in battle and erased for all eternity due to the war, simply due to being an active part of the battles, unlike God B who did far less for their race but ultimately continued to exist.
I think I understand what the issue is. It seems I may have misunderstood the entirety of what you have been trying to say but do please enlighten me if what im about to reply with is too another misunderstanding. From my point of view it seems the reason why you wish to find some sort of "objective meaning" to life is because Death seems to be too harsh for you. But you also seem to be aware of but unable to accept reality. If in the end one goes through spiritual death then yes at that point that existence is gone for good and thus become a meaningless "memory". If they leave behind nothing then all is lost and truly they are meaningless in the fullest of sense. If one amounted to nothing in life and then wastes away into oblivion, truly they are worthless and of no importance to anyone. If one falls due to war or whatever else then if its deserved then the memory of such beings will be honored to those left behind if any. Higher level warfare isn't simple guns and bullets but a fight with ones existence on the line. The winner survives and the losers perish for eternity.
Another thing, nature and the universe itself cares nothing to the beings living in it. It simply is and does whatever it does by design. If, and not to be a pessimist nor disrespectful, the Gods and in turn us ended up in a situation that inevitably lead to their oblivion then that is simply par for course. It simple another event that happens in this eternal universe. It simply is. There is no morality to it, there is no "meaning" to it. Just as their is no "meaning" to why gravity does what it does. It simply is.

In other words, you are saying that all that really matters in the end in the ToZ worldview is individual existence, and there is no such thing as an objective higher moral in existence other than that which is an adaptive choice. Racial family and really all bonds with others in general simply serve as a means to an end for individual existence in this worldview as far as I can tell, rather than something that has value in itself. And the same goes with everything else.

I don't see how you disagree that the ToZ worldview has key tenets that are the same as nihilism.. Nihilism is the view that there is no objective meaning to life. You agree with that, that all there really is in terms of meaning is making the adaptive choice for your own survival, and that's simply to avoid death, not to do anything with objective purpose. So how could the ToZ worldview possibly be anything but nihilistic? Yes, it offers a solution of spiritual and physical immortality. However, that solution is simply an endless escape of the core truth of nihilism which is still accepted, that there is no purpose in life, nature is generally meaningless, and all that really awaits any individual is death if they fail. I don't see how you can disagree that this is the same fundamental worldview that nihilists have.

Lastly, as to what you have said about my argument about meaning, I realize that you see it as me trying to assert my own version of morality on reality, but I see it differently. I don't think it is meaningless to seek objective meaning, as if it exists, it is something that would grant life true value, rather than ultimately baseless values that would emerge if all that exists is individual decisions to grant value arbitrarily. The end result of such a worldview where all that objectively matters is survival, would be that all others become merely means to an end, and there is no value that can be placed higher than individual survival. All sorts of dishonorable and immoral things can suddenly flip to become morally Good if individual survival is all that matters. Society generally depends on placing survival of the group and some set of group values above the individual's life, but if survival is all that matters, then even the greatest crimes of betrayal can become Good as long as the individual doing them has a reasonable expectation that despite their great crime, they will still continue existing forever afterwards. You probably wouldn't use the word 'good', but nonetheless, I am sure you see what I am saying here. The end destination of this seems to be a Might Makes Right mentality where even the greatest atrocities like those the enemy perpetrates can be acceptable if they guarantee group/individual survival, and I simply can't agree with that. I'm not sure how much you even disagree with such a mentality, but you can try to outline your thoughts there on what even constitutes a 'wrong' action in moral terms. For example, any sort of betrayal, mass genocide, turning an enemy into a slave race, the underhanded tactics the enemy is using right now to win, etc. An action being 'wrong' in this context means that the action in question is not chosen due to its disagreeable nature even though it has a higher chance of guaranteeing group victory than another choice.