ZVYWHAT IS IT THAT AIN'T?YVZ

John B. Oakes who was then the editorial page editor of the New York Times told us the following story during his introduction of the Honor System to the Freshman Class at Princeton in September, 1963.

It seems that Religion 101 was a humongous "gut" course at Princeton in those days which proved to be the salvation of many a jock on many a squad. The reason that the course was so simple was that every year it had the same examination question:- "Discuss the letters of Paul."

This one year, however, the professor decided [for some perfectly bizarre reason known only to some god named Murphy] to change the exam question to:-"Criticize the Sermon on the Mount." Everyone was destroyed and walked immediately out of the examination hall, everyone, that is, save one brave [?prepared] soul who continued to write for the full three hours.

His roommate, who knew how little knowledge they BOTH had of the Beatitudes, decided to wait and find out what kind of golden shovel award his friend was trying to obtain. The sole survivor, on further prodding, revealed that he had initially
written:-"Far be it from me to criticize the words of the Master, I prefer to discuss the letters of Paul" and went on from there!

I do not believe that anyone on earth has the knowledge or resources to accurately define God. Far be it from me to even attempt so absurd a task as that. What I prefer to do, however, is to derive an understanding of what could be considered "the human face of God" in the hope that it might bear some even slight resemblance to "The Real Thing!" I also would proffer each of my suggestions as questions for a worldwide dialogue aiming toward some sort of sense of greater tolerance and understanding.

Before I begin this haughty and presumptuous task, I ask the invocation of Rev. Ralph Norman Helverson (then pastor of the West Palm Beach Universalist Unitarian Church.":-

Grant us insight not to claim too much for our insights, and may we have the faith that accepts the faith of others so long as it builds community and peace. Amen
("Decisions That Lead to Failure - A Sermon for Palm Sunday", First Unitarian Church of the Palm Beaches, April 12, 1987)

First of all, for the purposes of this chapter, I wonder if we could not agree to define a "bible" (Old Testament, New Testament, Q'ran, Baggla Vita/Ramayana, etc.) as:

A palimpsest of human attempts to approximate the divine?

Arthur Langenauer (a.k.a. Asher Bar-Zev), ordained rabbi, Ph.D. molecular biologist, [and now stock-broker], writes in Reconstructionist:-

Religions generally have tended to formulate their teachings as answers, and absolutely final answers at that. Science, on the other hand, tends to formulate its most vital ideas as questions, with the answers being only tentative and subject to even greater qualification, though in time they tend to become generalized. Perhaps religions too should begin to stress the questions rather than the answers. "What is wrong with a religion of seeking, in which one seeks endlessly and perhaps never altogether finds?"

....Since religions almost inevitably relate their highest values and ideals to something called "God," this concept must be defined in terms which do not contradict what science has learned of the universe. ("Viable Religion in an Age of Science", Reconstructionist, p.11, March 27,1970)

My first suggestion, and the one with the most obviously human implications, is therefore to ask whether or not one aspect of God should be considered to be:-

A)The highest common bond among humanity?

Now this thesis could be further broken down by the intellectually curious to ask:-"Is there, in fact, a highest common bond among humanity?" And I think that most people everywhere would probably agree that such a concept does exist.
Even atheistic communists would probably hold to such a tenet.
Jesus' teachings come very close to this perspective, as do the "good deeds" of The Torah, and humanistic philosophies of most civilizations.

Allow me to place first in evidence the personal thoughts of a young man, Glenn Grossman, upon being confirmed into Temple Beth El of Somerset, New Jersey on Sunday, May 22, 1977.

I felt that the meaning behind this is how a man should act towards another man. This, in my opinion, should be thought of as man to G-d because everyman is a part of G-d, his soul, his mind, and the things he does.

A normal human being would not even think of acting disrespectful in the presence of G-d or steal from him or cheat him or treat him like a piece of dirt. The concept of man to man could now be thought of in easier terms "Man to G-d".

Every human being should respect other human beings as if he were a king, and I feel that our Rabbi [Martin Schlussel] has done an extraordinary job of this. There should be fellowship and love between men and all should follow the rule of "Love thy neighbor as thyself", treat someone else as you would like to be treated by others.

People every day are breaking the law of moral code - the most devious thing any person, or should I say, criminal, can do. In other words you should treat man as if he were G-d. Treat him like a man.

Listen to the conclusions of A. Powell Davies as he contemplates the reality of the dead sea scrolls upon Christian dogma.

It is felt by many, especially some of the clergy, that the new discoveries must be met with hostility and their effect minimized. But there could be a different approach. Must churches always be defensive? Surely, they must sometime recognize that God can work through natural events in a gradual social evolution just as well as in some other way. Indeed, this is the way that he does work. A religion is not one whit the less because it has no supernatural origin, no miracles and not too much uniqueness. What we need is not the victory of one religion over other religions but the recognition of the noble and the good in all religions. It is this and not exclusive claims that will draw the world together and bring mankind toward its needed unity.

Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Taoism - all the high religions, no matter what their claims, have grown in natural ways and evolved with history. It is encouraging that to a large extent, and at their best, they exalt the same principles and plead for the same righteousness and point to love and brotherhood as the path to the good life, both for individuals and for society.

Surely the same God, the same indwelling Spirit, is at work in all. If we would accept more of the living truth and less of the creeds that divide us, perhaps he could work better. If we would break down the barriers that wall us in, perhaps he would have more room to carry on his purpose.

We can have, if we will, a faith that does not seek its basis in unique events: and which does not need the miraculous and supernatural. God is wherever men have found him. He is where men find him still. Wherever truth is spoken, wherever life reveals its wonder and its loveliness, in all goodness, all love and all compassion, and in all brave and generous deeds. (-Davies, A. Powell,The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls,Chapter 5, "The Scrolls and Jesus",Subsection "Conclusion: Is It Gain or Loss for Religion?")

The concept, however, that the highest common bond among humanity is an attribute of God, might make at least agnostics out of confirmed atheists. It is, I believe, an attribute which is most consistent with the Judaeo-Christian tradition of God as the God of Love, and Justice, and Mercy, and Righteousness.

The Lord said,
"Say,'We'";
But I shook my head,
Hid my hands tight behind my back, and said,
Stubbornly,
"I"
The Lord said,
"Say,'We'";
But I looked upon them, grimy and all awry.
My self in all those twisted shapes? Ah, No!
Distastefully I turned my head away,
Persisting.
"They."
The Lord said,
"Say,'We'";
And I
At last
Richer by a hoard
of years
And tear,
Looked in their eyes and found the heavy word
That bent my neck and bowed my head;
Like a shamed schoolboy then I mumbled low,
"We, Lord." ("Pronouns", Hebrew Prayer)

But why, then, doesn't the world more perfectly reflect this image of the Almighty? Here is a perfect place for another of my favorite Midrashim:-

In the hour when the Holy One, blessed be He, created the first man,
He took him and let him pass before all the trees of the Garden of Eden,
And said to him:
See my works, how fine and excellent they are!
Now all that I have created I have created for you!
Think upon this and do not corrupt and desolate my world;
For if you corrupt it, there is no one to set it right after you.
Eccles. Rabbah VII.28 (Apparently borrowed by Pico
della Mirandola for De Hominis Dignitate in 1486)

Listen to another beautiful Hebrew prayer:-

....Let us imagine a world without love, a world in which the human spirit incapable of caring is locked in the prison of the self.

Praise to You, O Lord, for the capacity to feel happiness in another's happiness and pain in another's pain.

As the universe whispers of a oneness behind all that is, so the love in the human heart calls upon people everywhere to unite in pursuit of those ideals that make us human.

As we sing of One God, we rejoice in the wonder of the universe and we pray for the day when all humanity will be one.

This concept, although necessary, is obviously not sufficient for a more complete understanding of 1)why we need 2) what we need from and 3) what else might constitute a Supreme Being. For my second suggestion I therefore wonder whether God could not also represent to all humanity simply:-

B) The hope that there is something more?

This attribute satisfies the questions posed in the first chapter by Edwin Arlington Robinson in "The Man Against the Sky", and also the void left from fearing the possible truths contained in Macbeth's famous soliloquy also quoted in the preceding chapter.

This also may appear to be one level on which Christian concepts of "life-after-death" are much more emphatic than in Judaism. Indeed although the word "hope" appears less frequently in the New Testament than in the Old (OCCURRENCE Ratio = 0.92), the likelihood of confronting this term is higher in the New Testament than in the Old (INCIDENCE Ratio = 1.64) (Interestingly enough, this term does not appear at all in the Pentateuch [Five Books of Moses];the Incidence Ratio of this term in the New Testament versus just the Prophets and Writings is reduced to 1.08) However, in fairness to the appropriateness of this aspect of Jewish religious thought please allow me just a few more paragraphs.

In the first place, the very last of Maimonides' Thirteen Principles of faith include:-"There will be resurrection." Even though this concept does not appear at all in the Pentateuch, the rabbis in the Talmudic period [Mishna and Gemorrah] placed a tremendous degree of emphasis upon it. The obvious question is how much the influence of Christianity impacted upon this effort as both Christianity and Judaism were actively proselytizing [among the gentiles] at this point in time. The agenda for the rabbis was even more subtle, for the Christian concept was that resurrection was only possible since the Crucifixion. Therefore,the burden of proof was upon Judaism to show that resurrection had already been taught in the Torah.

In so far as the rabbis of the Talmud tied every concept to the Torah [Pentateuch], and since the concept of immortality does not seem to appear per se in the Torah, look at how these rabbis strove to firmly root this apparently new but important idea in Torah:- (The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Nezikin, Vol. III, "Sanhedrin" [Tractate], Chapter XI, pp.601-605, Soncino Press, London, 1935)

MISHNAH All Israel have a portion in the world to come, for it is written, thy people are all righteous;they shall inherit the land forever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified. -Isa. LX,22. But the following have no portion therein: He who maintains that resurrection is not intimated in the Torah, the Torah was not divinely revealed, and an epikoros....

[I guess I'm out on all three counts!]

GEMORRAH ....How is resurrection derived from the Torah? - As it is written, And ye shall give thereof the Lord's heave offering to Aaron the priest.- Num.XVIII,28. But would Aaron live forever;he did not even enter Palestine, that terumah should be given him? But it teaches that he would be resurrected, and Israel give him terumah. Thus resurrection is derived from the Torah. [Convincing, eh?] ....

It has been taught:R. Simai said: Whence do we learn resurrection from the Torah? -From the verse, And I also have established my covenant with them, [sc. the Patriarchs] to give them the land of Canaan: -Ex. VI,4 '[to give] you' is not said, but 'to give them' [personally]; thus resurrection is proved from the Torah. [and you thought Philadelphia lawyers were bad...!]

...Sectarians asked Rabban Gamaliel: Whence do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, will resurrect the dead? He answered them from the Torah, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa, yet they did not accept it [as conclusive proof]. 'From the Torah': for it is written, And the Lord said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers and rise up" [again] -Deut XXXI,16. 'But, perhaps', said they to him, '[the verse reads] and the people will rise up?' (most scholars interpret it as the latter, however in the Hebrew the literal translation is more like "Behold [thou] shalt sleep with thy fathers and/will rise up this people and/will go astray after the gods foreign of the land...."). 'From the Prophets': as it is written, Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust:for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out its dead. -Isa.XXVI,19. 'But perhaps this refers to the dead whom Ezekiel resurrected?'-V.Ezek.XXVII. 'From the Hagiographa': as it is written And the roof of thy mouth, like the best wine of my beloved, that goeth down sweetly, causing the lips of those that are asleep to speak?-Cant.VII,9

....[Thus he did not satisfy them] until he quoted this verse, which the Lord sware unto your fathers to give to them -Deut.XXI,21; not to you, but to them is said; hence resurrection is derived from the Torah. Others say that he proved it from this verse , But ye that did cleave unto the Lord your God are alive every one of you this day;just as you are alive to-day, so shall you all live again in the world to come.-Deut.IV,4.

Why did the rabbis feel the obvious need to force this point? If resurrection was not mentioned in the Torah, neither was the Messiah, and certainly, did the Jewish messianic concept not only antedate but form the very basis upon which all of Christianity rests? There are passages in Isaiah (Chapters 14 and 28) which clearly describe the inability of sinners to contract away their future punishment on the Day of Judgment. I believe it is fair to say that in all of Isaiah there are more than just mere "intimations of immortality". Indeed, the very essence of this Prophet is the hope he provides for Israel in desolation.

Still, why did the rabbis feel the need to legitimize this bastard concept in the Torah? Was it solely to gain converts in the Gentile marketplace, or was the very survival of Judaism as it was then constituted at stake? Was not this sectarian concept of the hope that there is something more threatening to fossilize the Torah, by superseding the old concept of God?

To me, the most heartening aspect of the above story as it seems to have unfolded itself, is, not the honesty of the scribes in reporting the heroic, slightly unethical, yet not entirely convincing efforts of the sages. It is, rather, the pliability of a religion I had previously considered to be rather old, staid, and uncompromising. This Talmudic phase is considered to be the beginning of rabbinic Judaism, or Orthodox Judaism as it is known today. In addition, it is also considered to be one of the pinnacles, if not THE pinnacle, of all Judaic history. So if the rabbis at that stage could accept a new concept [even if they tried to conceal their light-handedness], then there is much hope for future growth and survival.

Another interesting tidbit which seems to fall out here is that the Jewish-"Christ"ians (or Messianic Essenes as "Christ" is but the Greek translation of the Hebrew word "Mashiach" which means messiah) did accept some concept of resurrection. This is to say, that this new concept was derived from the Essenes who believed that their "Teacher of Righteousness" would return to the earth (perhaps with another messenger) in order to herald "the world to come". The group led by Peter after Jesus' death was likely reabsorbed into the Essenic community in Jerusalem led by James the Just. It still considered itself to be primarily a Jewish "mini"sect which strictly upheld The Law.

The early credo of this "mini"sect could conceivably have been 1)Jeshua ben Josef was the True and Other Messiah [with the Teacher of Righteousness] 2)Both He and the Teacher of Righteousness were persecuted , died on the cross, but were resurrected, and ascended to meet their heavenly Father 3)They would eventually return to establish the Kingdom of Heaven on earth as prophesied in Isaiah 4)Their resurrection enabled the resurrection of all Mankind who followed both Their teachings, and the Law of Moses.

A. Powell Davies (Loc.Cit., from whom much of the above is derived) postulates that (1) there is much in the New Testament -including much that is ascribed to Jesus - which is clearly borrowed from Essenic writings [scrolls] that display absolutely no inkling of knowledge of the figure we call Jesus and (2)that the two Essenic messiahs seem to have gradually merged into one, just as the Teacher of Righteousness and Jesus may have likely been merged into one. Or, perhaps the Teacher of Righteousness was later consubstantiated with Father and Son into the "Holy Spirit" in order to appease certain Essenic elements, thereby creating the "triune" Godhead?

The Gentile Church of Paul (Saul of Tarsus) was frequently at odds with the Jerusalem Church and was primarily responsible for the Helenistic notions of the trinity, virgin birth, salvation through faith, and abrogation of the Law of Moses. However, since Paul (suddenly a Roman citizen) raised most of the money and new converts for the church (amazing how some things never change!), his precepts prevailed -Maccoby, Hyam, The Mythmaker - Paul and the Invention of Christianity, Chapter 13, Harper & Row, New York, 1986. It was the Jerusalem Church, however, which took its converts from out of the ranks of Judaism. Again, this new [to Judaism] concept of resurrection was the major theme of the times, and is still extremely important today.

Listen to how Rabbi Nathan in his Avod handles the question of crime and punishment in the context of resurrection:-

The wicked who have done some good work are amply rewarded for it in this world, so that they may be punished for it in the next....
The righteous who have committed some sin have to suffer for it [in this world]...so that they may be rewarded in the world to come.

Needless to say, the new "born-again" evangelical theme of Christianity that resurrection is attained simply through faith in Jesus Christ is philosophically dubious to me, except insofar as it can successfully modify the behaviors of the most hardened anti-social elements. However, this theme, as well as the moral fiber of many in the line of evangelicals, can be traced directly to Paul. How, for example, are we to take Paul when he cries to his would be detractors "Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are ye not my work in my hand?" (1st Corinthians 9:1)

Was Paul not hired by the Sadducees to destroy any and all elements of the Jewish Christians (who were feared by the High Priest establishment as a revolutionary movement against Roman occupation)? Did Paul not murder these Jewish Christians? Did Paul follow any of the tenets of Jesus' preachings? Did Paul follow the Law of Moses which Jesus stressed would determine who could enter the Kingdom of Heaven? If, in fact, salvation was "through good deeds" as stated by Jesus and other Pharisaic/Rabbinic elements, and not "through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ," as emphasized by the Gentile Church, could Saul of Tarsus alias [Roman] Citizen Paul himself have qualified for the pearly gates? Indeed, as a superb logician, how could Paul have even justified himself as an earthly leader of the Gentile church without this concept?

Did Peter ever actually condone the approach of Paul [through some mystical vision or otherwise]? Is there ample evidence in the New Testament literature that Peter and James believed to the end, as did Jesus, that their ministry was to be among the Jews as Jews and not among the Gentiles? Were Peter and James also to be corrupted by the cash flow generated through Paul and his Gentile converts? Was Paul not in danger of his life each time he returned to Jerusalem?

As a final point in this mild diatribe against salvation through faith, let me discuss the famous line of Jesus that through Him was "the only way to The Father". The Hebrew [and, I believe, the Aramaic] word for "the way" is derived from the root "to go." The Pharisaic rabbis would discuss questions of law, and then decide that "the way" [Heb. HaLachah] was to be according to Hillel or Shammai or whomever. Would not it make more sense in the context of history, if what Jesus might have been saying was that "while Pharisees may consider "the way" to be according to Hillel or Shammai, "the way" only to My Father is [according] to Me!" Remember also, that the rigid devotees of the Mosaic Laws who were the Essenes referred to themselves as "followers of The Way [HaLachah]" completely devoid of any allusions to Jesus (A. Powell Davies, Loc. Cit).

In addition, lest it be assumed that I do not respect Paul, listen to these concepts of hope:-

For we are saved by hope:but hope that is seen is not hope: for if a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? (Romans 8:24)

...this is written:that he that ploweth, should plow in hope;and that he that thresheth in hope should be a partaker of his hope. (1st Corinthians 9:10)

For my summation of this suggestion, I again yield to the precious wisdom of youth:-

To be a Jew is to be confused. But more so for a teenager who is having enough trouble trying to identify his or her own self. At times I find myself sending a small prayer to G-d, asking him to help me through a test, asking him to spare the life of someone I love. I want so much to believe in Him then. When I'm sitting in the temple saying the Sh'ma, it gives me such a feeling of Jewishness that I feel like He is there with me. Yet, when my grandparents died or when I think of the six million Jews who died because of the insane whims of Hitler, my stomach turns and my fath ceases at the thought of a being who is supposed to be forgiving, loving, and merciful.

When I ask why, it just leads to another question and then another, until I feel that I'll be searching for the answers the rest of my life.

It's a small comfort to know that there are literally millions of other Jews and Gentiles, young and old, who have doubts about their own religion and G-d.

I hope someday I will find that there is a one and only G-d in whom I can confide and promise to believe in faithfully. (Hilary Cage,"Belief in God", Confirmation Service, Temple Beth El, Loc. Cit.)

For my third suggestion concerning the nature of God, could we all not accept Him as:

C) The question which sheds light on all other questions and upon itself?

Or,perhaps, as the ultimate answer to all questions, including the greatest question of all - "why"? It surely can be argued that the Book of Genesis represents an attempt to answer then what is still today virtually unanswerable. In addition, as a parent, I am greatly comforted by my ability to say "Only God knows!"

Man is a haughty critter. With every advance in our technological capacities, our faith in some kind of superior being seems to diminish. And, yet, with each advance, is not our ignorance of the universe not made more manifest? Is the human mind capable of conceiving of the universe as either finite or infinite in time or space? In lieu of arguing first causes which presumes a priori knowledge, is not the source of that knowledge a comforting aspect to place within the confines of the Almighty? Once again, Dr. Langenauer (Ibid):-

In spite of the stress on naturalism and rationalism, religions in an age of science will have to allow for a sense of mystery, which is as much a part of reality as is the sense of the known. Science itself both encourages the seeking of answers and the awareness of mystery. In a sense, it is this very sense of mystery which motivates the continuing search for knowledge as the antidote to mystery.

Ralph Waldo Emerson put it somewhat differently, "No truth is so sublime but it may be trivial in the light of new thoughts."

Following directly from this a fourth suggestion is that might we not accept God as:

D) The absolute constancy of the speed of light independent of the observing frame of reference?

Or, perhaps, as light itself? All religions place tremendous importance upon the concepts of light and darkness. Darkness often implies nothingness or the opposite of God. Light is often synonymous with creation. The quality of absoluteness imparted to it by Einstein is relevant in today's murky world of relativity and uncertainty.

While ye have light, believe in the light....
(John 12:36)

When new light comes believe that light, else
what we think is light becomes darkness....
Remind us O God that all the darkness in the
world has never put out the light.
(Rev. Ralph Norman Helverson, "Decisions That Lead to Life - A Sermon About the Easter Experience", Easter Sunday, First Unitarian Church of the Palm Beaches, April 19, 1987)

Wishing to include pantheists is this universal dialogue, I wonder whether or not God could also be considered to be:-

E) The harmony and order of the universe [as implied in the fundamental laws of nature]?

Perhaps this concept might allow God to again be discussed without trepidation or fear of angry reprisals in Unitarian churches throughout the world. Pantheism, the Vedic tradition of Hinduism, John Scotus Erigena, Baruch de Spinoza all share this overview, as did Ralph Waldo Emerson particularly in "The Over-Soul." [Armstrong, A. H., ed., The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy (1967); Curley, E. M., Spinoza's Metaphysics (1969);Bishop, Jonathan, Emerson on the Soul (1964)]

Standing on the bare ground...all mean egotism vanishes. I become a transparent eyeball; I am nothing; I see all;the currents of the universal being circulate through me;I am part and parcel of God. (Ralph Waldo Emerson, Nature [1836],Introduction,Part 1)

As my sixth and final proposal, I strongly wonder whether or not it would be fitting to attribute to God the property of
either over-riding or even reversing the fundamental laws of thermodynamics which appear to govern us -

i.e., the property of

"F) reverse entropy",

as it were? The fundamental philosophic difficulty which I have with this principle is the seeming contradiction it has with its immediate predecessor. That is to say, that if God might represent the very laws of nature, themselves, then how could He also appear to maintain the ability to violate them - a variation upon the old Sophist paradox"if God can do anything can He make a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it?" Rabbi Langenauer (Ibid, p.9) argues,"Concepts of God as a being operating outside of natural law, or as suspending natural law for whatever godly purposes, will no longer be used."

In response to these questions I might meekly maintain that an implied paradox is not at all out of keeping with an overall gestalt of what God could represent. [If you do not believe me just ask any good trinitarian Christian and find out about the infamous "Mystery" equating three with one.] More particularly, however, in so far as entropy is defined as the probability of disorder, randomness, and chaos in the universe - might not "harmony and order" be considered to be synonymous with "reverse entropy" after all?

What are we without You, my God?
A game of chance?
Cells perfectly placed
By the hazards of chance?
Chances due to the tides?
To fear, to hunger?
Man, a mere monster,
Different by chance?

A result of the unpredictable,
The unwishing, the thoughtless?
Creatures who toil
And kill one another,
Supremely ridiculous
Because they call themselves
Masters of the world?....
And we?
No longer Your creatures
But an illusion,
A whim, a grimace
Of chaos
Which, by mere chance,
Yearns, suffers, and loves?
("What Are We Without You", Hebrew Prayer)

For those who hate mathematical formulations, the first law of thermodynamics states that the energy and mass of the universe are constant. That law has been paraphrased as:

(1st Law) "You cannot win"

i.e., you cannot get any more energy or mass out of a closed system than what already exists. The second law of thermodynamics briefly states that the entropy of the universe is increasing. The paraphrase for that law is:

(2nd Law) "You have got to lose!"

i.e., that is any change in energy states must result in a loss of a zero or greater amount of utilizable energy or to a state of greater randomness or greater disorder.

G) i - the square root of -1

Surely no one today can doubt the proposition that $ i ( i exists.) Nevertheless, the evidence for its existence is circumstantial at best.. No one has ever seen i. We all have problems conceiving of i. It defies all logic. It is silent, mystical, all-powerful, and yet essential. Without it quantum theory could not exist. It (i) not only requires but literally underlies all "lateral thinking." Given a one dimensional universe, it represents an unallowable (yet "imagineable") 90º. (In the Riemann sphere it allows for the covergence of ±v (infinity) to a single point , "v" (!) and the notion that 0 and v are but opposite poles ( i² or p rotation) of the same concept(!), i.e., 0 <=> v )

Surely our human brain is frail and feeble. We know the universe exists, yet we cannot conceive of how it got here. Did it come from nothing? If so how? And if it came from something, where did that something come from? (Spinozan 'first causes' obviously leave much to be desired here.) Is the universe bounded or boundless? Even if it curves up into itself, what is 'outside' it? Here indeed is a place for the imaginary - for here the imaginary not only is necessary, but it surpasses human logic, e.g., consider the imaginary operator r(x )=>ix+1 (which makes something out of nothing and then makes that something back again into nothing):-

a) r(0)=> 1

b) r(1)=> i+1

c) r(i+1)=> i

d) r(i)=> 0

If you find all this somewhat abstruse, the next chapter concerns the ultimate metaphysical discipline - politics, and its relationship to religion as so brilliantly expounded by Dostoevsky in the later 19th century. Nevertheless, let me end this chapter on a more simple note by quoting from the prophet Micah. He is one of the few people who can ask a question, and supply a rather satisfying response.

Wherewith shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old?

Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?

He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? (Mic 6:6-8)