[237] LECTURE XX, Dec. 13, 1955 We decided last Thursday to discuss, in these remaining three lecture hours, problems of the doctrine of man^a, including psychoanalytic psychology and the problem of healing, the relationship of the religious and medical element in the process of healing. QN: Your use of ontological ^blanguage seems to me to be a poetic revision of traditional supernatural- ism and metaphysics.^c [PT: Now - - [laughter] - -  that's good!] How do you escape this charge [PT: It's really a charge!] if you attempt to give a rational case for the relation between possibles and the actual states of affairs, intending to give knowledge of those general principles which undergird this major breach? You seem to say that the possibles and the reals are embraced by "Being" itself. Although there is identity in the order of possibility, it is not sufficient warrant for an attempt to account for this identity by recourse to an underlying ontological structure. The practice of epistemological modesty would rather lead one to say that one knows only that the possibles are thus thinkable. The rules that give an account of this phenomenon are found within another body of discourse called logic. All that one needs to relate possibles significantly one to another is a logical theory that makes clear the patterns by which one can think and discourse about them.* PT: Now there are a lot of problems [laughter], and l don't know where to start. Let me see. The one is the word "possibles." It is very interesting that the question does not use the classical term "potentials," which l always have used. "Possibles" indeed are thinkable; "potentials" are MORE than---logically speaking---thinkable: they are logically sufficient [?], in order to talk about them. But they have a standing, and I would call it an ontological standing, beside that ------------------------ Question of Paul Lee,^d later Prof. Tillich's assistant, who has taught philosophy at M.I.T. and the Univ. of California, Santa Cruz. After class, Dr. Lee expressed regret about mistaking "possibles" for "potentials," especially after hearing Tillich and Hartshorne^e on the subject for two hours!