the time to start was long ago, now there is only death.
That's is what the voice keeps saying. It brings a tinge of sadness,
There is nothing worthwhile. there is only senseless struggle against inevitability.
There is pleanty of content to consume. There is plenty of food to consume.
We can continue to consume ourselves into nothingness.
There is no point to pretty much anything.
that's what it feels like.
There is this hope,. this longing for anything else being true,
There is this hope that maybe there is a way that things will matter in some way, but it doesn't feel like there is any way to believe it.
Even if i could believe it...
what is the point of "labor"?
progess? human progress?
humanity has not progressed. the metrics of humanity are skewed such that labor only makes things worse.
attention seeking behavior.
normies have taken over every place that "we" the creators have made.
And they made it just like every other garbage place they have ever been.
i don't think im actually a creator.. not of anything that matters.
i might fancy myself one, have this internal drive to become one, but those feelings aren't the same as being able to channel that internal thing into anything that matters.
ia friend of mine was talking about facts. what a fact is as opposed to an opinion. what opinions are. you can read her thoughts on the subject [goldenwitch]
convincingly saying a thing has always been her way, i am so much more insecure about things. im not even sure what a fact is. she says her existance is a fact, you might have a different opinion but that opinion fails to become a fact because her existance is a repeatable verifiable thing independantly. again im not so sure. i can say that i am aware of her existance in as much as i am able to percieve her through these boxes, and i can find others who is also able to verify the same. but does that make it a fact? science would say so. but does science have a monopoly on what is and what isn't? science would again say that it does, or rather anything that is ought to be verifiable through science, rather if something isn't then all that means is what science was and what it will be change to accept the new fact as fact. conversely just because something is repeatable experianceable and independantly validatable does that mean in must be a fact? my line of thinking unravels the whole universe into a singe unanserwerable delusion. this kind of thought doesn't have any practical purpose so it's (according to science) simply wrong.
my nature is to root for the underdog, and right now that kind of existance, one that is flimsy delusional and factually wrong is clearly the underdog.
— Submit an edit to time_to_start.htm(26 lines)