Two Things at Once

"A single thought is enough to occupy us: we cannot think of two things at once." 523 (145)

This line really struck me. It seemed to me that this entire time, Pascal has been trying to tell us how we need to know God and ourselves, our wretchedness and our capability for God, Jesus Christ as Divine and mortal, etc. I realize that these can be seen as one thought each, but he has been telling us (sorry, I can't remember where) that we are not looking to go to one side or even, as I got confused with last time, in the middle of two things, but rather to envelop them in their totality. God is eternal, and inasmuch encompasses 'abandonment and protection' in their respective infinities. It seems to me somewhat difficult to say, 'think of this infinite thing, and then think of the opposite infinite thing, and combine them into one, eternal yet encompassed thing.' I suppose it is like contemplating God's infinity but, it seems somewhat contradictory to me. But in case this is not really a great question, another thought (a second, if you will...) had been bothering me as I read.

"Wretchedness. The only thing that consoles us for our miseries is diversion. And yet it is the greatest of our miseries. For it is that above all which prevents us thinking about ourselves and leads us imperceptibly to destruction. But for that we should be bored, and boredom would drive us to seek some more solid means of escape, but diversion passes our time and brings us imperceptibly to our death." 414 (171)

"Without examining every particular kind of occupation it is sufficient to put them all under the heading of diversion." 478 (137)

With all of Pascal's talk of wretchedness and our necessary diversion from it, and furthered by this second quote, I started wondering if Pascal's occupation in writing these thoughts was simply a diversion. Maybe he is right, and we are wretched by nature. But perhaps it is also natural that we recognize our wretched state, not because of religion, and this is why we divert ourselves. Maybe we are wretched because there is no life after death, and since we have no way to cope with our own finiteness, we divert ourselves by playing games or playing poker or dreaming up deities and corresponding religions to give some meaning to our existence. I'm guessing Pascal would point to his wager, saying 'no way to know, so why not?,' but that just really isn't satisfactory to me, even though that has been one rationalization I myself use for being religious.

So, is Pascal consciously asking us to think beyond our means when he asks us to consider the union of two infinite opposites? Is he simply diverting himself from his own wretchedness?