The extent of my religiosity is the feelings I get in profound moments of, oh, what could I call it. Something Kierkegaardian. Um, despairing in ecstasy. The feeling is so intense it can only be escaped by irony, and in thinking ironically I am not only temporarily, at least, believing in God with some unexplainanble intuition, beyond possibility of determing whether or not “I want to think this” or “I want to think I think this,” sparing myself of this game, but I am also at a passionate battle of wits with God. I see at once and without further detail, how it would have to be IF God existed.
Before I get further, it slips from my “analytical grasp,” and what is left is my failure to explain this intuition scientifically. In this intense “existential” despair, somewhere between a deep philosophical feeling of deperate meaningless and a failure to justify anything at all scientifically, had I the ability, (I have literally cried within seconds of a mere “thought.” Seriously, no shit.), I “feel” some kind of joke, with good intentions, is being played on me and as a result I become somewhat self-fanatical, I guess, when contemplating the issue of “God”. (And by the way, I am defing God, more or less, as the Cartesian Transcendent God.) It is in this inside ironic joke that I see clearly what the personal relationship to a God would entail and through that I understand, bit by bit, how God works. Again; if he existed as I suppose in my premise.
What I call the “profound moment” is that spontaneous epiphany of sorts, when in a brief second you, as I think Pascal (not sure, though) put it, are closer to God as an atheist. But in a glimpse that moment is over and you are back to your inevitable nihilism, your philosophy, your failure to interpret God through the detailed secrets of your suffering; without the public opinions, without any brotherhood, or church, or doctrine (“the idea of God incarnated as a man is preposterous” -Kierkegaard), etc., anything you would use to get to God analytically, proofs, logic, verification, experimentalism, are little morsels of “God’s sense of Humor” (I capitalise Humor because it is of the highest orders or Hemetic Intertrajectorical Trialectics…this is no reference to Christian trinities, though).
But wait, I haven’t explained myself clearly.
Nevermind.
All I can say is that the only way I would ever try to state or prove or show, better yet, a God’s existence would be in something unreachable by us both. If it did happen, it would be in a wink, a brief pause before doing something somewhere (the little existential despairances are “at any corner”- Camus, and suddenly you are crying, but “after long deliberation”- Kierkegaard), a look at the Other…then…
…its gone.
I have found a way to resolve the conflict between the Mad Jew and Frenchy. Actually Spinoza was a dualist too, but that’s other news.
I can’t say or explain how to do it. I only know that it is a symptom of the grandiose feeling I get in these “profound, terrible ecstatic moments,” when you just want to cry because it feels so good. I can’t explain, but I do know that if this God exists, the most direct route to the intuition and feeling that “it” exists is through the “intimate personal suffering” with a touch of humor and irony.
That is all.
Good day.
