Can one cry at El Mahley Rakhamim, at the mention of the wings of the Shekhinah, or the soul's rest in Gahn Eyden, or the bond of life, while being an atheist? Obviously. But can one do so without being deluded? Also yes. So what does it mean?

Our apprehension of the world is not strictly about comprehensive comprehension--we also relate to open entities: other people. The referential link to another person is arbitrarily "thick". We might more and more deeply, exactly, and caringly refer to this specific person, even while they are eternally, by proportion, mostly external to us. A related point could also be expressed, not too imprecisely, using Hänni's terms: "Relating to another person is an infinite endeavor.".

When someone dies, the reference is severed, and an infinite referentio-cathectic chasm is formed. They are truly and forever dead. They are impossible to reconstitute, and yet we refer to them and are eternally invested in them. As we grow, what they would have been according to our thick reference to them also, in a sense, grows.

The caring can neither die, because that is not its nature, nor can it live, because it can only live with them. They are impossible to reconnect to, but the link is unboundedly alive, but the link cannot be alive without them being alive. This violates no law of physics or logic, but it does violate the con-ject-urally self-posited self-law of caring--the situation isn't thus rendered impossible, or even unlikely, but it is rendered nearly impossible to deal with, untenable.

Where is this reference to go? It goes to God--more specifically, the Shekhinah, the arrow of the long future. That is, it is to be deferred forever.