Intimations

Could it be? That I have an intimation... of God's existence?

That it is only an intimation suggests that it will necessarily be inchoate and half-formed. But all theories, even mathematical ones, are more or less clear and incontrovertible, so this need not detain us unduly.

Needless to say, we will not proceed by definition, axiom and proof. Instead we will adopt a phenomological approach, by which I mean that we will deal with states of being rather than phenomena. The difference between the two is that with the latter, events, at least in theory, can be explained exhaustively by recourse to all the antecedent events, whereas for the phenomenologist an event is not a subset of the totality of events, for the simple reason that the observer colours the observed reality and embeds it in a phenomenological context. My approach, then, is that of the artist: I have no truck with the notion that perspective is everything, and that perceptions of an object are not appropriations of a shared reality to which they correspond.

It may be said that I am denying mind-independent objects, and thereby depriving myself of any solid notion of truth. But really, all I am saying is that reality is not a unitary whole. Perceptions are mind-independent to the extent that they draw on an immutable form or logic, mind-dependent to the extent that intentionality provides essence. And these essences are incommensurable.

Beauty shines a spotlight on the soul.

Naturalism has it that the world is devoid of meaning and purpose, and that God is an illegitimate anthropomorphism. But can it really be that my subjectivity, which renders the world rich, variegated, multiform, and infinitely purposeful... can it really be that this is superior to the world which is outside of me? Surely the same applies, many times over.

Cannot both worlds coexist? There is the phenomena of the external world and the internal world. Is there any legitimate reason to give precedence of one over the other?