thisiscurio

It seems with the wealth of blogs out there people either gravitate to those with the greatest quality or unfortunately, to those with the worst quality. The former in order to learn from the best the internet has to offer and the latter in order to just disconnect from this difficult world and embrace the pleasures of dumbness and the absence of cognition. Those in the middle will have difficulties and if one of them has mightier goals, he'll be sad seeing the disconnect between his ideal and reality daily.

I used to create blogs with hopes of gaining 'financial independence' because I idolise those many and reproducing gurus gallivanting around the net space, those who told me it is possible despite the disclaimer "only if you work under an unspecificied amount of hard work". But I'm tired of trying again and it is probably my fault that things didn't pan put well. Right now, I try to write like I used to; I write because I love writing even if my skills are abysmal at best.

Though, aswering your question, it's indeed getting more difficult but escalating difficulty is all that happens when the rack and pinion of progress and keeps moving.

Thought it might be bleak for those who are ill-equipped to deal with the modern types of chaos (eg anxiety and depression). Like someone else said, this could all be a matter of labeling the world as "good" or "bad"; the problem with these labels is that they are rarely self-examined partly because it takes a lot of epistemological thinking and self-awareness to reach that level of meta-cognition.

From your points on conflation, just to clarify, are you saying that meaning does not determine our feelings about the degree of bleakness? Maybe meaning is a multiplier of feelings depending on the direction you are interested in. For non-bleakness, meaningfulness would multiply the amount of enjoyment, and for bleakness, non-meaningfulness would multiply the amount of hatred. Those two assume that state of bleakness is naturally attached with intrinsic feelings.

I wish I've read more about this topic; it is ultra interesting.

Great points. Despite my cynicism and strong bias towards the self-destruction of mankind, there would be always be moments when I thought "hey, I'm glad this guy/gal existed because the world is a better place because of them." Things do get better when you look at the world around you.

I agree on wariness regarding the usage of the word "caring".

My usage of "care" here is equal to "notice". To make it easier for myself, I imagine an anthropomorphic universe gallivanting around and notice one of its agents doing something that could possibly exert an effect (either null and non-null) and bless it with that effect after spinning the wheel of probability.

This is exactly what I believe the universe is. When people say the universe is uncaring, they equate that as bad; I reckon this is because we want control over our lives. True our agency over our lives is increasing as we progress as a society but it's unlikely that we will reach a point that our cumulative progress would give us control over everything.

The universe doesn't care who you are the same way a benevolent god cares about his subject; the universe cares about you in an impersonal kind of way, that is if you do things according to the reality that is already established, then it'll 'care' about you and give what you want. The giving is likely probabilistic.