This is a very thought-provoking writeup, and while it all makes perfect sense, I don't agree with the morbid world view that it portrays. My objections boil down to a critique of the assumption that things are not worth doing unless they are original and historically noted.
The works of the greatest artists may be better than yours, but why should a person resign themselves to feeling worthless just because they are not perfect. Look at it this way: maybe every possible configuration of atoms of the Universe is represented in an infinite array of parallel existence, but does its theoretical existence hinder human thought or experience? Likewise, babies are born ignorant of the human condition. At some point in their life, they will inevitably realize that their thoughts are not unique; that millions if not billions of people have experienced the very same things. Yet do people despair en masse? Creativity does exist within each of us, and the fact that our abilities overlap should not imply worthlessness. It could be argued just as easily that shared ideas have more power, and are therefore more worthwhile pursuits (not that I particularly believe that).
I've noticed that as wisdom (knowledge and experience) increases, analogies between ideas increase. My analysis of danlowlite would be that he is suffering from an acute awareness of the common threads of all human thought. Maybe I'm just not intelligent enough to really understand, which would make sense because I think intelligence could be described as the ability to relate things. Presumably an omniscient God would be unable to experience the joys and sorrows of individuality of which we are so commonly acquainted, and would see the commonality of everything. In my digression i would even suggest that a possible theological meaning of life could be to experience what the sum of the parts can not.
But my real point is that as humans we can never explore all avenues of thought, or wholly master any activity. The part of the writeup I latch onto is the artist's concept of process and it's central importance. All we have in life is our experience, and each of our lives is totally unique even if there is a broad river of commonality between us. How we interpret our own experience dictates what is 'real' to us, so why should we not take pleasure in the journey of life? Is the desire for historical greatness just an extension of a fear of death? These are deep personal questions that may be too mired in our onion of personality to really get at and examine.
I would vote up the parent writeup for its intellectual appeal, and the message of not conforming to societal standards rings true for me, but the assumptions and conclusions paper scare me as an ideology. If the world is truly so tiresome, you could always become a Buddhist monk.