Life purpose depth chart

this is my favorite book

If we burned all the layers down everyone would be equal.

Have a degree in agronomy

>>9011176
thanks for the bump i guess. Should i add pedantry on hawaiian bamboo trading forums- Anon to the dirt tier?

>>9011173
This chart is way too subjective from your own viewpoint at this moment. Especially since you are, very wrongly I might add, very obviously saying the lower levels are less important than the higher ones, when most biologists know that each level of a forest canopy is equally important, they just have differing roles. I would do this thing over from scratch, realizing this. Thing about what "roles" are more basal and needed for society to flourish (the decomposers) and which roles are more experimental and flowering (like the emergent layer).

>>9011173
Aesthetic --> Ethical --> Religious

Kierkegaard already ended the discussion on this.

>>9011195
Also, I'm gonna take a guess as to what boards OP browses, based on his idea of the "best" layer (the emergent one):

>/pol/
>/sci/
>/lit/
>/fit/

>>9011195
Your own subjectivity said the lower levels are less important, not the chart. For example exploratory suicide, transhumanism, and hedonism match decomposers, emergents, and understory aesthetically even though i would probably put the exploratory suicide up top in a rank via merit chart.

>>9011199
um excuse me /pol/ and /lit/ are rivals and /sci/ and /lit/ are rivals

and /his/ and /lit/ are rivals
and /tv/ and /lit/ are rivals
and /wsg/ and /lit/ are rivals
and /po/ and /lit/ are rivals

>>9011314
no, we're not rivals with /pol/. they're easier to get reading books than /his/ or /tv/ or /mu/.

and /po/ too nice to have rivals. i'm pretty sure i'd give them a book if they ran out of paper.

>>9011173
this is pretty fucking retarded OP

What a retarded chart. Jesus christ, I have to these morons' posts.. s m h