[202] convince a nominalist^a or a logical positivist^b that something is lacking here. But we must be very cautious if we DO such a thing. Sometimes you will find that the same logical positivists ^chave a corner in their minds or in their lives where they HAVE this experience of the power of being ^dand express it either in writing poetry, or in LOVING poetry---and in ALL great poetry, ^ethe ontological^f dimension is present. So they tell you, "I don't DENY this encounter with reality, but it is poetry!" Now this is the question to which this whole thing finally boils down, namely the question whether in the realm of philosophical thought it is possible---and if possible, certainly necessary---to point to the same dimension which also is expressed in religious symbols ^gor in poetic symbols. ^hAnd to THIS question, I certainly would say "Yes!" Or take the other side. If you have a philosopher who is a strict ontologist,ⁱ then there is a point where you can show him that his concept of being is non-dynamic and non-personal, is sub-personal, but that since he himself HAS being, he neglects the dimension WHICH HE HIMSELF IS, and that this is not a matter of philosophical argument alone, but that it is also a matter of ultimate concern. And here then we would come to the great differences between East and West: the valuation of the person, which was MAINTAINED BY the nominalistic^j development in the Middle Ages, and the loss of this as we find it in many Asiatic religions and cultures. Now what I wanted to give to you was tools for discussions with philosophers or, if you are philosophers, tools of understanding the theological dimension, of which l am speaking. I told you this is a DIFFICULT thing and it must be applied in every special moment in a