It's not a personal assessment. It's an implication of science and of philosophical naturalism. The problem with life's absurdity is that it alienates meaning-seeking creatures, which causes us to build artificial refuges that are full of meaning. That sets us in opposition to nature, which could prove self-destructive. So that's one problem.

Your solution seems to be to stop seeking meaning in the first place. This would be like Buddhism's advice to stop craving things we can never have and that wouldn't satisfy us even if we could possess them. That advice is essentially for us to stop being human. And that's similar to my exploration of the potential nature of transhumanity or of the enlightened mentality.

You say someone with that mentality would be content with life's absurdity. I suspect the enlightened person would be caught up with the aesthetic meanings that turn out to be objective, after all, due to nature's monstrous self-creativity. So the meaning of life would be to create honourably within a self-creative domain that creates monstrously.

But that's a different part of my worldview. The meaning crisis is that there's no cosmic meaning that would satisfy the unenlightened masses, contrary to Vervaeke who thinks our purpose is to unite with nature.