[135] That is what I wanted to show, from the one theory. The other is the idealistic [theory]^a. Very often, in popular thinking, when you speak to somebody and he knows or feels that you are a theologian, then he calls you "idealistic." And then I shock him and say, "I prefer to be a naturalist to being an idealist." Idealism is much farther [sic.] away from Christianity^b than naturalism^c because idealism overlooks the reality of man as he is bound in matter, in unconscious strivings, in all that which depth psychology and sociology have shown to us. But even if one is idealist--and there are strong motives in the EPISTEMOLOGICAL^d realm for idealism--then this is not a decision for or against Christianity. Then there are other theories, the so-called parallelism theory: "There is the body, and there is the soul, and they go parallel." This was the idea of Descartes^e and the Cartesian school^f, that what happens in the bodily world always has an analogy in the inner world of the soul, and God^g Himself is the ultimate wheel in this process which makes that these two machines are coordinated. Now this is a very abstruse theory, and philosophers have always tried to overcome it, but not very successfully. Now I don't mind this theory either; it has no bearing on the problems of what happens on this side and that side. And if we have, then, a monistic theory, a Gestalt^h theory--which I personally prefer, and think is the true description of the human situation--then we can only say that that which is real in man is what the Greeks called soul, psyché, meaning life process, the dynamic power of his life process. And this dynamic power of a life process has two sides, the one side towards existence in timeⁱ and