I think I'm pretty okay with subjectivity on this. After all, subjectivity is variable.
So if you think something is "worth doing", or "interesting" and I don't, that's fine.

I would estimate that you are unlikely to think something is worth doing if it's 100% static. And in honesty, I would disagree with you if you did.

I want to do things that are in the vein of life and music and movement and colour, and I don't want do the things that are in the vein of death and eternal silence and whatnot.

To your first point, interesting/ variable things that serve as existential threats would be categorized as "destructive variable things" since non-existance is a stasis. There are many variable things that are only creative. I'm thinking mostly of things like great music and artistic expression.

To your second point...

Boredom still contributes to variability, since it provides a novel break from excitement (boredom AND excitement together are more interesting than excitement on its own).

Absolute stasis however (something I think is basically interchangeable with death) is, if not immoral, something that I have no interest in engaging with. I think actions are better if they are more similar to life (maintained and characterized by variability) than they are to death (characterized by stasis).

I think death may be a compliment to life, like how boredom is a compliment to excitement, but as a living creature, I see myself as having the responsibility to celebrate life (variability). When I am dead, I will have the responsibility to celebrate death (stasis).

Only if they leave a stasis in their wake. At least according to my argument.

Yep lol. All things are things. So as long as it's a thing.

The morally charged part of my argument is the least important part. I'm trying to gauge... I guess potential fulfillment from doing certain things, and my measuring stick is variability.

Theater, sport, netflix, weddings, science fiction, and politics, are all variable things, meaning they change and have multiple aspects which has the potential to make them interesting. Since none of them are actively destructive (I hope) and none of them are completely static, I would argue they are all "worth engaging with" although by no means do you have to.

There is a bit of a playground there where you are free to subjectively enjoy any of the "harmless variable" or "creative variable" things that you like. Maybe there are even times where "destructive variable" things like war are necessary. But I would objectively measure something as creative rather than harmless if it if it propagates even more variable things after it, just like destructive variable things "are at risk of leaving stasis in their wake".

A song is creative and variable if it propagates more variability (someone taps their foot, or dances) and it's harmless and variable if it doesn't (say because it's too quiet, or too modern, and therefore doesn't have enough notes). Death is something that's completely static, and destructive variable things, are those that bring about static things like death.

I do think you raise a good point. It may be hard to actually put things into these categories... and if it all does break down into subjectivity then it isn't useful.

Oh. Yeah I didn't mean for there to be moral baggage on the word "worth". I think the question of weather something is worth engaging with precedes the question of weather it is moral.

Having been influenced by Nietzsche, I want to ask the question as to weather morality itself is worth engaging with, for if morality doesn't do anything good for us, then we shouldn't use it.

So without wanting to take anything for granted, I'm backing up and asking "What is worth engaging with?" or "What will I do with my time?". My answer in this argument is "variable, creative things are worth engaging with" or "I will spend my time with variable, creative things". Now all I have to do is figure out which things are variable/ creative.

The way I see it right now, I'm only adding moral language to increase the emotional intensive to engage with/ refute my claim. It's a whole other bag of worms but I kind of think that people only ever use moral language as a way to incentivise action (for better or worse).

That is, logical "argumentation" is "boring". If that premise AND the premise that boring (static) things should not be engaged with are true, then it would follow that logical argumentation should not be engaged wi...
...
Oh.