Alright, now for some ethics. There is no "perfect" worldself. There isn't a specific way things should be. This idea of some sort of transcendent state has caused all sorts of errors, from the Crusades, to the Holocaust, and religious faux paus like Christianity and Buddism. This isn't to say however, that things can't improve. You see, the worldself suffers from this dilemma- it is not content to be the way it is, and seeks improvement, yet improvement, in the traditional sense is movement towards a specific goal. But since there isn't one, various aspects of the worldself invent them. Ideas like the Christian Heaven, or the post-industrial utopian philosophies stem from this. A final resting state- a place where the system is in need of no action nor maintainance, but is a perfect place.
Even though there is no perfect state for the worldself, there exists the draw towards improvement. How can we improve? Well, a state in which needs are met is a superior worldself to this. In fact, at first glance, a state in which all needs were met would be a utopia, and prove my theory wrong, no?
Here is the problem. Within the worldself, there are conflicting needs. This is an unavoidable part of nature. Thorny vines and grain will strive against each other, one needing the other to not be there. Additionally, needs are created. It almost seems as if one aspect of the worldself is to need new needs. First we need food, then we need water, then we need shelter... but then there is the need for better food, better water and shelter, more comfort, entertainment, self-fullfillment.
The cycle of needs goes on, and on and on. The worldself can never be sated, and hence, a utopian state is infeasible. Nietzche and Sidhartha Guatama pose opposite ways of dealing with this situation. Nietzche advocates union with this ideal, while Guatama Buddha moves to reject it, and rid oneself of needs.
However, they are still both attempts at achiving a transcendent state of the worldself. What is the Ubermensch and Enlightenment but a state of transcendence? Now while Nietzche's is far more practical in it's inner nature, I'd like to ignore both and explore another alternative, or perhaps a different outlook on this.
While the worldself is always attempting to improve, it is impossible to do so without some end goal in mind. Some image of perfection. Instead, I say move blindly, but experimentially. Don't concern yourself with an end goal. Change something, and compare it with the state that the worldself was in before the change, and see which you find preferable. Keep that one, and then change something else. Be wary of changing too many variables at once so that you do not know what is causing what effect (control/variable scientific method stuff). What standards should you judge what is an improvement in the worldself?
Whatever ones you choose.
Now in all of that, I forgot the latest point I wanted to discuss...