Duality--the yin/yang, the da'atsi (Navajo for yes, no, and maybe). Without darkness there is no light, without love no dispair. The dance with the Divine that is life and creation and revelation and redemption ceases without the duality of I and thou. Not to say that it is not possible for there to be some frame-of-reference (G!d's) where all of these combine. Chungzi swings from one side of the issue to the other depending on the Wing one is reading. Perhaps the oneness is inclusive of the diversity... nay, the oneness must be inclusive of the duality. That uncertainty is why I like the notion of agnosticism. I do not know there is no G!d (not like Rand, Dawlins and Hitchens). But I am not really willing to sit on top of my thatched rooftop to await the Giant Eagles to come and sweep me away to the Holy Land (as some Frankists did). That much being said I do not believe in a personal, transendent G!d (too many proofs of this leading astray) nor do I believe in material monism (rare for a scientist, I know)--there just is no way to reconcile the qualia of consciousness or the arrow of time in a coherent manner (I reject both mind-as-an-illusion and time-as-Einsteinian). So it just leaves me, happy? Reasonably.