We are clearly going in circles. You are adamant that the only reasonable conclusion is that the universe is an inhuman, mindless, undead monstrosity which inevitably have to cause all beings within it, who are aware of said fact (and if they are honest with themselves, i.e. authentic, I suppose), to feel existential angst, otherwise they are just bullshitting themselves (in one way or another). And then you go from there, explain the rise of intelligent and rational (modern) civilization as an existential revolt against nature (which you also criticize for its infantility and naive reliance on technology), and advocate for freedom (?) through an aesthetic approach, i.e one, where an enlightened aesthete sees “all processes […] not just undead but artistically creative.”

It very much reminds of Castaneda and some of his ideas. Namely, that the world is a hostile place where death is the hunter, thus (wo)men, if they want to break free, should void their contract with superficial, mediocre, and infantile civilization they never signed, and become warrior-sorcerers, ones who are brutally honest with themselves, ones who make themselves strong by facing infinity (and all odds that are not included in their expectations) without flinching, just because they are filled with awe of it all.

Well, been there, done that. It’s not the whole picture. Alas, no one can make us see it, except ourselves.

That’s all I say.