• The universe is a conscious entity but is still in an embryonic state.
• The universe is slowly becoming aware and reshaping itself.
• The universe wants to understand its current state.
• The universe chooses how it will develop and what it will contain.
• We are all equally part of the universe, as are the animals and even rocks.
• Humans are a particularly capable extension of the universe's consciousness.

Explanation

So what is the meaning of life? - We are really just proxies for the universe's mostly blind, groping consciousness. As such, we should observe what the world is like, decide whether various aspects are aesthetically pleasing or not, work to alter the situation to preserve the good parts while ameliorating the less savory bits, as well as create interesting new extensions. As the old song goes: "Accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative".

Humans continuously do this already. For instance, most people would say they liked the outdoors. But how about soaking rain, the cold of winter? That is why we live in houses and have things like air-conditioning. We even take open-space and "beautify" it into parks with no tangled underbrush, large carnivores, or deadwood. Humans are already creating their own world, leaving behind the unpleasant (to them) pieces while striving to retain the agreeable aspects (like clean air).

Humans are not the only agents of the universal semi-sentience. In many varieties of birds there is a striking sexual dimorphism in which the males are more brightly colored. This is usually ascribed to female mate preference: the brighter males end up having more offspring. Yet bright coloration in itself is not a purely pragmatic survival trait. Just the opposite -- it helps predators spot the birds more easily. It does, however, have a cultural advantage as defined by the females. Thus some birds are beautifully colored and we humans benefit indirectly from these species' aesthetic choice.

To emphasize that the universe evolves through aesthetic choices, the philosophy is called "thespism". In a sense we are all actors in a play whose script is constantly being revised. There is certainly room for improvisation and ad-libbing on the part of the actors. And if it is interesting enough, it may even get written into the script. Yet, we are also the audience. What good is a play if no one sees it or appreciates it? At any moment our existence is a combination of performing, creating, perceiving, and critiquing in various degrees.

Comparison

Thespism is not really a religion, it is more of a philosophy or meta-theology. There are no hard and fast "right" and "wrong" things -- these are a matter of taste. Thus thespism is compatible with many other belief systems in as much as they can be regarded as aesthetic choices. For instance, although thespism does not posit a God who is concerned with each person as an individual, if this was deemed desirable perhaps we, as the universe, could create a version of one, either by mystical means or more mundane legislative ones (or maybe we already have).

Thespism has its roots in Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's concept of the "noosphere", the idea that the universe is evolving to become self-aware. However, it stops short of linking this back to Christianity or universal love. In general, unlike most religions, thespism says very little about social strictures. If love is good, if children are endearing, then celebrate and preserve them. If war or racial discrimination is distasteful, then oppose these practices. Other things are murkier, like lying. Should you always tell the truth? What if this will cause great harm to you? What if it will allow an oppressor to exploit your resources? In these cases, it is often a cultural aesthetic that assigns weights to the alternatives. In some sense, cultures themselves can be viewed as experiments by the universe to see what sorts of social orders are pleasing. Humans just happen to be the local judges of this.

While thespism has a response to the query "Why are we here?", it fails to answer many other standard religious questions. For instance, it does not say where the world came from. It does not say what happens after death. It does not say why bad things happen to good people. As pointed out above, it has no clear social prescriptions. It is also lacking in terms of formal organizations, cultural traditions, and ceremonies like marriage. In fact, it can be embraced on a strictly cognitive level without subscribing to any mystical beliefs. One can think of thespism as secular humanism but with a new-age twist to make it less soulless.