Thanks for weighing in, Jonas. I have 2 comments on what you said.

1. I did try to make it clear in my piece that though for Kierkegaard, the 3rd stage necessarily involves a deity, I was taking some liberty in stretching it a bit to fit something different than that.
2. The reason I did “stretch to fit” in that respect is because I don’t quite agree with your assessment that vision/purpose/confidence isn’t “being”. I believe it is. In the same way that we’re advised to “be the ball”, there is a way that one should “be the vision” — which is to say — to lose themselves in the vision. A true vision is not selfish. It’s not a vision to be famous or to gain things — it’s a vision to contribute and to do something for the good of the world or the good of that form of art, or whatever it is. And the feeling involved with that is not really rational. It gets to the heart of that existential choice of what one is to do — where no abstract principle can serve to place one thing above any other — it’s a heartfelt passionate commitment.