[211] very confident to answer with a "Yes" for the simple reason that life is NEVER clear, in its REALIZATION; it is clear if we be abstract from the reality and deal with special concepts and then make them as clear as possible----that can be done. But in the moment in which we describe life processes in their interpenetration, then the clarity is limited by the ambiguity of every life process. lt is very interesting that this word "ambiguity^a," which l myself use as the central characterization of life processes generally, has been used so much by recent psychology (so-called depth psychology^b, or psychoanalysis) where most of the psychological phenomena are described in terms of such ambiguity. Here I would say: if you take a concept like Spinoza^c's "substance," to give an example (wich is the same as what I like to call "being itself," in Scholastic tradition---and Spinoza^d, it has been proved, was very much in the tradition of Scholastic thinking---this universal, "substance," which he then calls "God," and to whom he attributes the function not only of knowing Himself through our knowing Him, but also loving HIMSELF through our loving Him---if we look at such a concept, then the ambiguity of which l am speaking is immediately visible. The way in which Spinoza^e deals with the relationship of God and world is an ecstatic form of Jewish monotheism. The praise of God in relationship to everything finite, as we have it in Second Isaiah, for instance, is in the [back-]ground, and beyond this, the tradition of Jewish monotheism as it developed very early in Jewish history, for instance Philo,^f and then the Jewish mystics of the Middle Ages, and especially the Renaissance. They all are behind Spinoza's^g concept of substance. All this is religion, all this has the character of ultimate concern.