… @ie@qoto.org

That question "what to do" remains unanswerable inasmuch as one seeks its answer, for one does not act according to meaning, but meaning compels one to continue what they are already doing without providing itself in the first place; we find ourselves in actions and merely decides for or against its proceeding yet without action we merely find ourselves dealing, or rather attempting so in vain, with nil. In melancholy we are still generally compelled to eat, drink and sleep, but otherwise left in nil -- just time passing us.

It is beyond liguistical capability to desire for happiness. It is meaning that serves, *even in the absolute sense*, as the excitement of language -- the absoluteness denoting hence the relative disability to conceive a yearning outside the space of ignorance. Here again beauty asserts itself as a myth, i.e. the surface (value) of an object (i.e. any object -- words.)

The attempt to *do something* comes from a mere thirst for meaning, in particular here to overcome the nihilist censorship with a forgetful greed, barely skimming above (but never beyond) the ultimate, never failing nihilism that awaits at all ends. The censorship, albeit usually sufficient as a moral designation, works as an analytical method too when the yearning for meaning take a step down to enclose itself into a privacy, sarcastically denoting itself as romantic, yet acknowledged as romantic it could then be intitively stripped down back into that bare private-meaning-itself, a meaning-without-meaning.

@torresjrjr Sure. I was just digitizing my past notes (on paper) so as a mere piece of thought it must be an "excerpt" of something...
Glad you found it pretty at the least I was just trying to make some sense out of my older self, too

Beauty might be the same notion as myth for that value intuition is but ignorance: it is what that is not explicit and hence non-linguistical, i.e. not rigourous, yet by the natural monothestic perspective of words thence one and identical with the mysterious beauty-itself, or God, so to speak, for that already is the intuition from which God-itself personifies, desire glorified into beauty, a rationally irresponsible externalization; and as such *external* (unsolvable) myth with such moral implication to absolute freedom, personified into such ignorance-bounding ethical singularity.

The intuition alluding to the absolute meaning hence resists being reconstituted back into desires, swearing by its life against its respective contexts, for absoluteness requires too an absolutely (from here: mythically) unquestionable system of statics akin to that of the bio-logical inertias that defines organ-isms: desires strives to bound the hyperlinguistical for a stable supply of ignorance, the hyperlinguistical most likely sourced in sheer forgetfulness.