Irrational! we are told.  How can new being come in local spots and patches which add themselves or stay away at random, independently of the rest?  There must be a reason for our acts, and where in the last resort can any reason be looked for save in the material pressure or the logical compulsion of the total nature of the world?  There can be but one real agent of growth, or seeming growth, anywhere, and that agent is the integral world itself.  It may grow all-over, if growth there be, but that single parts should grow per se is irrational.

But if one talks of rationality and of reasons for things, and insists that they can’t just come in spots, what kind of a reason can there ultimately be why anything should come at all?  Talk of logic and necessity and categories and the absolute and the contents of the whole philosophical machine-shop as you will, the only real reason I can think of why anything should ever come is that someone wishes it to be here.  It is demanded, demanded, it may be, to give relief to no matter how small a fraction of the world’s mass.  This is living reason, and compared with it material causes and logical necessities are spectral things.

In short the only fully rational world would be the world of wishing-caps, the world of telepathy, where every desire is fulfilled instanter, without having to consider or placate surrounding or intermediate powers.  This is the Absolute’s own world.  He calls upon the phenomenal world to be, and it is, exactly as he calls for it, no other condition being required.  In our world, the wishes of the individual are only one condition.  Other individuals are there with other wishes and they must be propitiated first.  So Being grows under all sorts of resistances in this world of the many, and, from compromise to compromise, only gets organized gradually into what may be called secondarily rational shape.  We approach the wishing-cap type of organization only in a few departments of life.  We want water and we turn a faucet.  We want a kodak-picture and we press a button.  We want information and we telephone.  We want to travel and we buy a ticket.  In these and similar cases, we hardly need to do more than the wishing—­the world is rationally organized to do the rest.

But this talk of rationality is a parenthesis and a digression.  What we were discussing was the idea of a world growing not integrally but piecemeal by the contributions of its several parts.  Take the hypothesis seriously and as a live one.  Suppose that the world’s author put the case to you before creation, saying:  “I am going to make a world not certain to be saved, a world the perfection of which shall be conditional merely, the condition being that each several agent does its own ‘level best.’  I offer you the chance of taking part in such a world.  Its safety, you see, is unwarranted.  It is a real adventure, with real danger, yet it may win through.  It is a social scheme of co-operative work genuinely to be done.  Will you join the procession?  Will you trust yourself and trust the other agents enough to face the risk?”