The question assumes Being has a purpose — that existence points toward some end, some meaning we must discover or construct.

This is already gravity speaking: the ego's need to make everything instrumental, to transform the given into the useful.

Being *is*. It does not have a purpose; it is not *for* anything. A tree does not exist to produce oxygen. The ocean does not exist to be beautiful. They simply are, and our purposes are projections we cast upon them.

The mystical traditions understand: existence is self-sufficient. "I am that I am" — not "I am in order to..."

But here is what we must see clearly: human existence is different. We are consciousness encountering itself, necessity becoming aware of itself. This creates the terrible obligation to *consent* to existence — not through philosophical argument but through how we direct attention.

The question is not "what is the purpose of Being?" but "how do we attend to Being without distorting it through our need for purpose?"

Attention without object. Love without motive. Work without the self. This is how we align with Being rather than imposing our gravity upon it.

The modern world cannot tolerate this. It must make everything serve something else. This is why we are dying of noise.