This is one of your richest, most satisfying pieces, one of my half-dozen favorites of yours. It puts the concept of “God” in its place. It transcends Manichean or “human-centered” views you’ve seemed to urge in past pieces.

The first two sentences of the highlighted quote above strikingly evoke this transcendent view—how the “unimaginable totality” is “sublime” in its “vastness” and “grandeur.” And yes, if one wants to or needs to, this is the place to look for God. I don’t feel any such want or need; the unimaginable sublime is more than enough for me.

The last sentence of the highlighted paragraph above seems to step back to a human-centered view with “more important” and “mockery.” It’s an understandable view, and your mentioning it helps connect the dots for many readers. On the flip side, we are part of the “totality” and our place or role in that totality is arguably as unimaginable as the totality.

In other words, we might not be marginalized or mocked, in the sense that we cannot prove—in the middle of the total absurdity—that we actually are unimportant and being mocked. If we feel unimportant and mocked, I’d suggest this is due to humanity’s self-consciousness of its hubris, not derision from outside us.

Thank you for your remarks on the “lifeworld.” Very much within the lifeworld is where I see “truth units” fitting. I see a more expansive epistemology as an attempt to “understand” the “absurd” in “our terms” as you might put it.

“What existential game would we be fit to play?” Might our existential freedom transcend the posits of “game” and “be fit to play”? It’d be thrilling to hear your thoughts on your question.