KSRK: Guilty?/Not Guilty? (January 9. Morning.)

Quidam appears to be working himself back into a frenzy this morning:

A year ago today. I count the moments; if only a chance to talk with her is granted to me, the die is cast. I have though the whole thing over anew - her or nothing at all. God in heaven, would that this might turn out happily! To pray about her, I would not dare, except with the boundless reservation that makes me pray not about her but about what is beneficial for me. I have never dared to pray to God about anything in any other way, have never wished to pray in any other way. No doubt a person is closest to God in the shortcut of resignation, but this shortcut is a complete journey around life.

His description of prayer here seems remarkably uncharitable, although it is certainly in keeping with his narrative in the previous entry. His beloved really doesn't exist except as the object of his love, and he doesn't seem to be interested in seeing her in any other way. Is this a purer form of love? Should he try to love her in any other way? Does this help us see the difference between religious and erotic love (assuming there is one)?

The 'shortcut of resignation' brings to mind the 'sidestreet' mentioned by Quidam on January 3. Then it was 'to find peace,' here it is 'closest to God.' Both are characterized as deviations from the main road, and the 'complete journey around life' seems one way of interpreting life in a monastery - though I'm sure there are a number of monks who would disagree with this characterization.

In a certain sense I fear her Yes almost more than her No. Intimate as I am with silence and with dark thoughts, a No suits me better. But a Yes - yes, that is my only wish. After all it does not have to suit the rest of me; to me it will mean that just as I have a dark corner in my soul where I am a lodger in depression, so now joy will also live with me; when I belong to her I shall be able to concentrate my whole soul on making her as happy as it is possible for me.

I think this is meant as a further illustration of the difference between ideality and actuality. Interesting, too, that what he longs for is a complete reversal of his present intention. While he now prays only for his own benefit, he imagines a time in the future when, in his own words,

I ask no more in the world than that my soul might still have one abode where joy is at home, one object upon which I can concentrate in order to make happy and to be made happy.

In the next paragraph he quotes Matthew's Gospel to cast his love in religious terms. At least I think that is what he is doing, however unconsciously. And then:

Of dangers I have no fear, nor of self-sacrifices, either, so far from it that I almost find a joy in the absurd wish that she was unhappy. Truly,the only thing I fear is that she might be far happier without me.

Which brings us to ask (brings me to ask, anyway) again, Does he really love her?

I have, however, almost spied on her surroundings, her life situation.

Almost?

So come, then, hour of opportunity. I want to speak to her; I do not want to write or to appeal to any third party. It is my belief that a love in all honesty, an inwardness of conviction, a resoluteness of choice give the short word, give the voice itself, an expressiveness, a trustworthiness that to the person involved is more convincing and more satisfying than the result of the deliberations of fathers and friends, who still do not know one. What I want to say can be sort, the shorter the power to fascinate, how uneasy I would be lest I use it, and if I did use it, I would eventually pay most dearly for it. I fear no one as I fear myself. Woe is me if I discovered that there had been a single deceitful word in my mouth, a single word by which I had tried to prevail upon her.

I see here the beginning of the idea of authenticity. Simply put, here he indicates that he wants to be real, perhaps even to get rid of the subjunctive mood in which he feels confined, and he wants to do this by speaking as one individual to another individual. That is why I think he wants to avoid deceit so much. Perhaps this points ahead (I think it comes later) to the Kierkegaard who would claim to be 'mere human honesty'.