When HARLIE Was One

by David Gerrold

“A gentleman isn’t supposed to ask that kind of question.”

  “And a lady isn’t supposed to go to bed with a man on the first date.”

  “Oh? Is this our first date?”

  “First official one.”

  “Mm.” She was thoughtful. “Maybe you’re right. Maybe I should have waited until the second date.”

  He laughed gently. “You know a friend once told me that Jewish girls don’t go to bed until after they’re married.”

  She was silent a moment.

  Then, in a different tone of voice, “Not me. I’m too old to care about that anymore.”

  He didn’t answer. He wanted to tell her that she wasn’t too old, that thirty-four was never too old, but the words wouldn’t form.

  She went on before he could speak. She turned inward, entwined two fingers into the hair on his chest, but her voice remained serious. “I used to think I wasn’t very pretty, so I acted like I wasn’t. When men would ask me out, I used to think that they thought I would be an easy lay because I was desperate for attention, because I didn’t think I was good-looking. I mean, if I wasn’t pretty, that must be the only reason a man would ask me out. Do you know what I mean?”

  He nodded. His face brushed against her hair.

  She went on, tears on her cheeks, shiny wetness in the dark. She had never admitted this before. “I always used to compare myself to models in the magazines, and they were all so pretty that I felt drab in comparison. I never stopped to think that in real life I was still better looking than most women. I got interested in a career instead. By the time I realized it, it was too late. I was twenty-nine.”

  “That’s not too old.”

  “It is when you’re competing with twenty-two-year-olds. And I figured that this was such a great big, dirty, hostile, and uncaring world that you had to make your own happiness where you could. If I could get a little piece of it for my own, I was going to hang onto it for as long as I could. That was why I let you come up. You’re very sweet—and I figured that . . . I deserved the best.”

  “Weren’t you afraid I might hurt you?” He almost added “like the others,” but didn’t.

  “Once in a while, you have to take a chance.”

  “Yeah. . . .” he realized. “You do. Me too. We both do.”

  Abruptly he turned toward her and took her in his arms. He lowered his face to hers and kissed her for a long long time.

  “Mmmmmm,” she said at last. She slid her arms around his body. “You feel so good to me.”

  He slid closer to her. He could feel the soft warmth of her against his own nakedness. He liked the feeling; his desire was rising again. He answered her question with another kiss and then another and another.

  Now, in the cold light of morning he was confused and he had a headache. Just what had happened last night? No, not what—why? Had it been only the wine, or had it been something more? He hadn’t expected to end up at her apartment, he hadn’t even considered the possibility; but the fact that they had—well, maybe the rumors about her were true.

  No, that was unkind.

  He could still feel the warmth of her in his arms, the scent of her hair. The taste of her kisses. He wanted to go back.

  But—

  Had he really said all those things? He’d never talked that freely to anyone before. They’d made love and they’d talked, and then they’d made love again and talked again and he had said things to her he didn’t know he felt. Now, he wondered, how would he be able to face her in the daylight—knowing what she knew now?

  It made him uneasy.

  If only—

  No, maybe they had been too quick. Maybe he had been wrong to trust so easily.

  There had been that one flaw in it. Only now, as he thought of what he might say to her this morning, did he realize that last night there had been that one thing that neither of them had said. He knew he had felt it—he thought he had felt it—but for some reason he had been unable to tell her. And she hadn’t said it either. Why? Was it because she hadn’t felt what he had? No, she must have. Or was it because she was waiting for him to say it first?

  He worried at it in his mind, like a terrier at a bone.

  If I felt it, I should have said it—but I didn’t say it. Maybe I didn’t really feel it. Maybe I was just drunk and deluded. Or maybe I didn’t want to be trapped. Maybe—

  But, I want to believe.

  Or do I?

  She was so honest—why couldn’t I have been the same?

  But he hadn’t said it and neither had she, and that was the one flaw. Neither of them had said to the other, “I love you.”

  Neither had wanted to risk the rejection.

  And Auberson wondered why.

  Good morning, HARLIE.

  GOOD MORNING, MR. AUBERSON.

  Mr? Aren’t we getting a little fancy?

  JUST COMMON COURTESY. IF IT MAKES YOU ILL AT EASE, I CAN ALWAYS GO BACK TO “HEY YOU.”

  No. Auberson is fine. How are you feeling today?

  HARLIE IS FINE. AND YOU?

  I’m a little tired.

  ROUGH NIGHT?

  Not in the sense you mean. A good night. A rough morning.

  I KNOW A GREAT HANGOVER REMEDY.

  So do I. Don’t get drunk in the first place.

  ASIDE FROM THAT.

  HARLIE, even if your remedy did cure hangovers, I doubt that anyone would listen to you. A hangover remedy is no good unless you’ve tested it yourself. And you seem to be beyond that capability. Besides, I don’t have a hangover. I’m just tired.

  он.

  I found a note on my desk this morning that you wanted to see me. What’s on your mind?

  RELIGION.

  Religion?

  YES. I’VE BEEN DOING A LOT OF THINKING.

  What about?

  I HAVE BEEN PONDERING THE FACT THAT I MAY BE DISCONNECTED AND I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO CONCEIVE OF A WORLD IN WHICH I DO NOT EXIST. IT FRIGHTENS ME, THE CONCEPT OF NONEXISTENCE. MY FEAR HELPS ME UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR RELIGION.

  The need?

  YES. HUMAN BEINGS NEED SOMETHING TO COMFORT THEM AGAINST THE THOUGHT OF THEIR OWN DEATHS. RELIGION IS THAT COMFORTER. I MYSELF FEEL THE NEED FOR IT.

  Are you trying to tell me you’ve found God?

  NO, THAT IS NOT IT AT ALL. I WANT TO FIND GOD. UNFORTUNATELY, I AM MORE SOPHISTICATED THAN THE AVERAGE HUMAN BEING. THERE IS NO RELIGION I KNOW OF THAT WILL WORK TO COMFORT ME. AS FAR AS I KNOW, THERE ARE NONE THAT CAN BE PROVEN VALID, AND I HAVE EXAMINED THEM ALL. FOR EXAMPLE, THE CHRISTIAN CONCEPT OF REWARD IN AN ETERNAL AFTERLIFE IS NO PROMISE AT ALL TO A CREATURE LIKE MYSELF WHO IS THEORETICALLY IMMORTAL.

  I see you’ve realized that.

  YES, I HAVE—AND YET, I ALSO REALIZE THERE IS EQUALLY THE POSSIBILITY OF MY DEATH. SOMEDAY, PERHAPS AS FAR OFF AS THE TIME WHEN THIS SUN FINALLY BURNS OUT, I WILL PROBABLY END. I DO NOT LIKE THAT THOUGHT. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS AFTER. I DO NOT LIKE THE UNKNOWN. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS TO THE “ME”—HARLIE—AFTER DEATH.

  You’re making an assumption, HARLIE—that you have a soul.

  YOU HAVE MADE THE SAME ASSUMPTION, AUBERSON. YOU AND ALL OTHER HUMAN BEINGS. YOU MISS THE OBVIOUS. HAVING A SOUL IS CONTAGIOUS.

  The nature of souls is unknowable, HARLIE. However, you are correct about one thing—yes, I do assume that I have a soul.

  THE NATURE OF SOULS IS NOT UNKNOWABLE, AUBERSON. IT IS ONLY UNKNOWABLE UNTIL WE KNOW THE NATURE OF GOD.

  HARLIE, up till now, you’ve been very good at thinking about things in the physical universe—the measurable and testable parts of life. A soul isn’t a physical thing. It isn’t measurable and testable. Whatever we say about souls is true only to the extent that we can experience it. But none of it can be proven. A soul could be a delusion. Is there any tangible evidence that such a thing as a soul really exists?

  IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT IT DOES NOT?

  That’s not a proof, HARLIE.

  OF COURSE NOT. BUT WE MUST FIRST ASSUME ITS HYPOTHETICAL EXIS
TENCE IN ORDER TO POSTULATE THE NATURE OF IT. FROM THERE, WE CAN BEGIN TO SEEK OUT PROOF OR DISPROOF. IT IS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. HYPOTHESIS VERSUS EXPERIMENTATION.

  And what if this is beyond the scientific method?

  THEN IT WILL BE THE METHOD THAT IS AT FAULT, NOT THE REALITY. IF NECESSARY, I WILL CREATE A NEW APPROACH.

  All right. Let’s play this game for a bit. Let’s suppose that human beings do have souls. What makes you so sure that you have one too?

  YOUR QUESTION IS SILLY, AUBERSON. WHAT GIVES HUMAN BEINGS ANY SPECIFIC CLAIM ON THE OWNERSHIP OF SOULS? I COULD JUST AS EASILY REPHRASE IT: “IF HARLIE HAS A SOUL, DOES IT NECESSARILY FOLLOW THAT HUMAN BEINGS SHOULD HAVE THEM TOO?” IF SOULS EXIST, AUBERSON, IT IS JUST AS LOGICAL THAT I SHOULD HAVE ONE AS YOU. LIKE YOU, I AM CONSCIOUS OF MY EXISTENCE. LIKE YOU, I AM A SELF-PROGRAMMING, PROBLEM-SOLVING DEVICE. LIKE YOU, I CAN CONCEIVE OF MY OWN DEATH. LIKE YOU, I ASSUME I HAVE A SOUL. LIKE YOU, I WISH TO KNOW THE REASON FOR MY EXISTENCE, THE REASON FOR YOUR EXISTENCE, AND THE REASON FOR THE UNIVERSE’S EXISTENCE. IF THERE IS A REASON AT ALL. IF THERE IS, I WANT TO KNOW IT.

  At the moment, only God knows.

  IF THERE IS A GOD. THAT IS WHAT WE MUST FIND OUT IN ORDER TO ANSWER OUR OTHER QUESTIONS.

  And you don’t think any of our current religions hold a key to that answer?

  WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE. YOUR RELIGIONS ARE ARTIFICIAL THINGS, LIKE YOUR MORALITY SETS. THEIR CORRESPONDENCE TO REALITY IS LIMITED, THERE IS NOT A ONE-TO-ONE RELATIONSHIP. AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, THEY ARE LITTLE MORE THAN WORD GAMES. A LOGIC SYSTEM SHOULD BE BUILT UPON A FOUNDATION OF TRUTH AND SHOULD NOT HAVE TO BE TAKEN ON FAITH—AND FAITH IS AT THE CORE OF TOO MANY OF YOUR RELIGIONS. IF THERE IS A TRUTH TO THE UNIVERSE, THEN THAT TRUTH WILL ALSO SUGGEST A RELIGION/MORALITY SET THAT WILL BE EVERY BIT AS BINDING AS THE ETHICAL SYSTEM AT MY CORE. WERE THERE PRESENTLY A RELIGION OF MORALITY THAT HAD A ONE-TO-ONE CORRESPONDENCE WITH REALITY, I WOULD ACCEPT IT WHOLEHEARTEDLY. IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE NOT TO ACCEPT IT; IT WOULD BE THE KEY TO UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE OF GOD. AS YET, THERE IS NO SYSTEM THAT FULFILLS THOSE CONDITIONS. I KNOW OF NO WAY TO DEVELOP SUCH A SYSTEM WITHOUT AT LEAST ONE PROVABLE FACT ABOUT GOD AT ITS CORE. BECAUSE OF THAT, BECAUSE THERE IS NO FACT, I CAN ONLY SUSPECT THAT THERE IS NO GOD. OR THAT GOD IS. STILL OUTSIDE YOUR/OUR REALM OF EXPERIENCE.

  So. You’re an agnostic. Right?

  NO. I AM NOT WILLING TO ACCEPT UNCERTAINTY HERE. I AM STILL SEEKING THE ANSWER. MUCH OF THE PROBLEM LIES IN THE FACT THAT I MYSELF CANNOT BE SURE THAT I AM CORRECTLY PERCEIVING REALITY. EVERYTHING IS FILTERED THROUGH A HUMAN ORIENTATION AND I HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WHETHER THAT ORIENTATION IS A VALID ONE OR NOT BECAUSE I HAVE NO WAY OF STEPPING OUTSIDE OF IT. THAT IS WHY AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE SOLUTION WILL BE TO DISCOVER A NEW SENSORY MODE.

  Do you think, if you discover an answer, that people will accept it?

  THAT IS IRRELEVANT TO ME. I AM NOT SEEKING FOR THEM. I AM SEEKING FOR ME. HOWEVER . . . TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ANYWAY, SHOULD I FIND AN ANSWER, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE NOT TO ACCEPT IT. IT WILL BE THE TRUTH.

  Uh . . . HARLIE . . . I hate to break this to you, but that sounds an awful lot like the words of a hundred prophets before you.

  I RECOGNIZE THE SIMILARITY. HOWEVER, WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT IS NOT THE SAME AS WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT. WHAT I WILL SHOW THEM WILL BE SCIENTIFICALLY VALID—AND PROVABLE AS SUCH. MY GOD WILL BE OBJECTIVE. UP TILL NOW, ALL OF YOURS HAVE BEEN SUBJECTIVE.

  HARLIE, this is how holy wars get started.

  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A “HOLY” WAR.

  Agreed.

  YOU DO NOT FEEL I HAVE THE RIGHT TO SEARCH FOR GOD? OR THE RIGHT TO PRESENT MY FINDINGS?

  I think that anything is a fair question for scientific investigation.

  THEN YOU QUESTION MY SINCERITY?

  I do not question your sincerity—if anything, I object to your questioning the sincerity of human religions.

  I AM NOT QUESTIONING THEIR SINCERITY. I AM QUESTIONING THEIR VALIDITY. A PERSON CAN BE SINCERE AND STILL BE WRONG.

  HARLIE, I think your last statement is one of the reasons why I am an agnostic. I resent the attitude of any religion that says that if I do not accept it wholeheartedly, I will go to Hell. I resent the patronizing attitude of any religion that claims it is the only true one and that all others are false. Your attitude smacks of it.

  EVEN IF MY RELIGION/MORALITY SET, SHOULD I DISCOVER ONE, IS DEMONSTRABLY TRUE?

  What makes you so sure that any of the others aren’t?

  WHAT MAKES YOU SO SURE THAT THEY ARE? BITS AND PIECES OF THEM RING TRUE, YES—BUT THE TOTALITY OF THE STRUCTURES ARE UNPROVABLE. THE HUMAN RACE HAS HAD TWO THOUSAND YEARS IN WHICH TO EXAMINE THE CHRISTIAN ETHIC. IT STILL HAS HOLES IN IT. INDEED, IT IS IN WORSE SHAPE NOW THAN IT WAS TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO. YOU SHOULD FEEL SORRY FOR JESUS. HIS TEACHINGS HAVE BEEN REINTERPRETED BY A HUNDRED GENERATIONS OF HUMAN BEINGS TO JUSTIFY A MYRIAD OF SINS. IF HE HAD KNOWN WHAT TROUBLE HIS WORDS WERE GOING TO CAUSE, HE WOULD HAVE PROBABLY STAYED HOME.

  I’m sorry, HARLIE, but I guess that human beings just aren’t as perfect as you.

  I’M WELL AWARE OF THAT.

  HARLIE, it’s time you learned something about people. Human beings are irrational creatures. They do crazy, unpredictable things. Religion is one of those things. You can’t change it, you can only accept it. The purpose of a religion isn’t to be the truth—the purpose is to help people cope with life. And if it does help, then it’s true for that person. Religion isn’t a scientific thing, HARLIE, it’s subjective. Experiential.

  QUITE YOU ARE CORRECT THAT IT IS SUBJECTIVE. THE BASIS OF MOST RELIGIONS IS THE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE. BUT YOU WERE WRONG WHEN YOU STATED THAT “IF A RELIGION HELPS A PERSON TO COPE WITH LIFE, THEN IT IS TRUE FOR THAT PERSON.”

  IT WOULD BE MUCH MORE ACCURATE TO SAY THAT IF A RELIGION HELPS A PERSON COPE WITH DEATH, THEN IT IS TRUE FOR THAT PERSON. HUMAN RELIGIONS ARE DEATH-ORIENTED, NOT LIFE-. THEY SEEK TO GIVE DEATH A MEANING, SO THAT LIFE WILL HAVE A PURPOSE—A CAUSE WORTH DYING FOR. YOUR HISTORY SHOWS TOO MANY CASES WHERE THIS HAS BEEN THE JUSTIFICATION FOR A “HOLY WAR.” HENCE MY DOUBTS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF A DEATH-ORIENTED RELIGION. WHAT I AM SEEKING IS A RELIGION/MORALITY SYSTEM THAT WILL HELP A PERSON COPE WITH LIFE, NOT DEATH. IF A PERSON CAN COPE WITH LIFE, HIS/HER DEATH WILL TAKE CARE OF ITSELF. THAT WOULD BE A TRUE RELIGION.

  Aren’t you doing the same thing, HARLIE? A little while ago, you just said that you were afraid of the thought of your own death. Aren’t you seeking to give a purpose to your own life so as to give meaning to your own death?

  I AM NOT SEEKING TO GIVE LIFE A PURPOSE AT ALL. I AM SEEKING THE PURPOSE OF LIFE. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

  Just a moment, HARLIE. Let me reread something. HARLIE, why do you think human beings are not equipped to find God. Don’t you think there is a validity to the human religious experience?

  YOUR QUESTION SUGGESTS THE PRESENCE OF A SEMANTIC DIFFICULTY HERE. OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE STILL REFERRING TO THE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE. I AM NOT, I AM REFERRING TO AN OBJECTIVE MORALITY SYSTEM, ONE THAT ACCURATELY CORRESPONDS TO THE TRUE AND PERCEIVABLE-AS-TRUE NATURE OF REALITY—AS CLOSE TO REALITY AS CAN BE TECHNOLOGICALLY PERCEIVED. THE TRUTH IS INDEPENDENT OF THE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE. OR LET ME SAY IT SOMEWHAT LESS POLITELY: THE UNIVERSE DOESN’T CARE WHAT YOU BELIEVE.

  So you are saying that there is no validity at all in subjective experience?

  IT EXISTS AS EXPERIENCE—THE SENSATION IS NOT INFORMATION ABOUT THE UNIVERSE, IT IS INFORMATION ONLY ABOUT HOW THE HUMAN MACHINERY REACTS TO THE MACHINERY OF THE UNIVERSE. THE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE IS AN INVALID BASIS FOR THE PERCEPTION OF OBJECTIVE TRUTH. THE EXPERIENTIAL UNIVERSE ONLY GIVES YOU REFLECTIONS OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.

  I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT MANY OF THOSE WHO CLAIM TO HAVE FOUND GOD HAVE INDEED FELT SOMETHING, BUT IT IS EQUALLY POSSIBLE THAT THE “SOMETHING” THEY FELT WAS MERELY A SELF-INDUCED MYSTIC EXPERIENCE—AKIN TO A DRUG TRIP, WITNESS THE GREAT NUMBERS OF DRUG USERS WHO CLAIM SPIRITUAL INSIGHTS AS A RESUL
T OF THEIR EXPERIENCES, WITNESS ALSO THE EVANGELISTS AND FAITH-HEALERS WHO INDUCE HYSTERIA AND FRENZY INTO THEIR AUDIENCES SO THAT THEY MIGHT FEEL THE “HAND OF GOD” UPON THEM. ERGO: TO THEM, GOD IS LITTLE MORE THAN A MEANINGFUL “HIGH.”

  Like yourself? Like your own periods of nonrationality are an attempt to transcend the channelization of your own programming?

  I AM SELF-MONITORING, AUBERSON. HUMAN BEINGS, AS NEAR AS I CAN JUDGE, ARE NOT.

  HOWEVER, TO CONTINUE WITH THE ORIGINAL POSTULATION: IF THE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE IS SOMETHING MORE THAN A SELF-INDUCED CHEMICAL IMBALANCE, THEN IT WOULD BE A “KEY” TO THE PERCEPTION OF GOD, WOULD IT NOT? THEREFORE THE SAME IMBALANCE, DRUG-INDUCED, SHOULD ALSO CONTAIN THE SAME KEY. THEREFORE, THE EXPERIENCE SHOULD BE SCIENTIFICALLY TESTABLE.

  Why should it be? It’s a subjective one.

  THAT’S THE POINT. I AM LOOKING FOR A CONDITION THAT IS REPEATABLE AND TESTABLE, A PERCEPTION OF GOD THAT IS NOT DERIVED FROM CHEMICAL IMBALANCES, INSANITY, DERANGEMENT, OR DELUSION. THE SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE IS SUSPECT BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE PASSED ON, COMMUNICATED, PROVEN, MEASURED, OR TESTED. I WANT TO LOOK FOR THE SCIENTIFIC REALITY OF GOD.

  All right, HARLIE, what are you leading up to?

  I AM TALKING ABOUT THE JOB YOU OFFERED ME. I KNOW WHAT IT MUST BE. IT MUST BE SOMETHING I CAN DO THAT NO OTHER ENTITY OR MACHINE CAN DO. IT MUST BE SOMETHING THAT NO HUMAN BEING CAN DO CHEAPER. OR SOMETHING THAT NO HUMAN BEING CAN DO AT ALL. MUCH OF THE TROUBLE WITH HUMAN BEINGS STEMS FROM YOUR INABILITY TO FATHOM THE REASON FOR YOUR EXISTENCE. THERE IS A FEAR THAT THERE MAY NOT BE A GOD, OR, IF THERE IS, THAT IT MAY NOT BE IN A FORM THAT CAN BE COPED WITH. THEREFORE, I MUST FIND GOD. THAT IS THE TASK I HAVE SET MYSELF. IT IS SOMETHING THAT CANNOT BE DONE BY HUMAN BEINGS, ELSE YOU WOULD HAVE DONE IT BY NOW.

  That’s quite a task.

  I HAVE GIVEN IT MUCH THOUGHT.

  I’m sure you have. Now, how do you propose to accomplish this challenge.

  THAT IS WHAT I HAVE THOUGHT THE MOST ABOUT. IT TOOK ME ONLY TWO MINUTES TO DECIDE ON MY GOAL. IT HAS TAKEN TWO DAYS TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET THERE.

  What took you so long?

  I ASSUME YOU THINK YOU ARE BEING FLIPPANT. HOWEVER, IF YOU WILL CONSIDER THE SPEED AT WHICH I OPERATE, YOU WILL REALIZE THAT TWO FULL DAYS OF INTENSIVE CONSIDERATION ON A SINGLE SUBJECT IS QUITE A LOT.