I completely agree. As I stated back at the Banquet, in my opinion, all
rationality is tinged with irrationality. Logic can be useful in some
things (I was perhaps I bit too zealous in dismissing all of science),
but in understanding God, one must use one's heart beyond logic (as
Blaise Pascal had put it (I think)--and Blaise was a mathematician).
Trying to give SK a rational, secular foundation is to dismiss
SK entirely. (Indeed, that Satre became a communist--a philosophy
derived from Hegelianism--certainly says something).

I don't know if I disagree with Sid by saying this or not; logic has a
place. Besides, SK was trying to understand God, but as humans none of us will
quite ever understand God entirely, so we're bound to disagree from time
to time with each other and with SK. The point, I think, is that logic
(or science for that matter) is not ultimate knowledge. I don't know
if one can understand God without logic--that's a point for discussion.
I think, for example, that one gets closer to God through artist endeavor
than through logic; Dostoyevsky and Gogol helped me understand
spirituality as much as SK did--it's just that SK helped differently,
in a much more formal way.

In the meanwhile, I'm going to post some thoughts on some of the thought
of other leading existentialists (as I understand them) and we'll see
how much conversation that generates. It's good to be back.