If you think about it, the near-miracle of two people working as one, that is with full mutual cooperation, with a full understanding of the functions each is to perform, and with full harmony in their public performance, must have as its object the achievement of a common purpose. I have occasionally experienced this in the Law, both in teamwork with another barrister, and in cases of some complexity with the police officer in charge of the case. Lawyers often speak of the meeting of two minds, for instance, when two people agree on a contract which is intended to be legally binding. But you need much more than the meeting of two minds for successful cooperation between two members of a team. And it is appropriate to talk about the marriage of two minds, or the interpenetration of two minds; provided one remembers that there are many degrees of mutual trust. The C.of E. uses the word “communion” very freely; but again one wants to remember that there are many degrees of communion, ranging from a modest intimacy and a modest trust, to absolute mutual confidence. So with the interpenetration of two minds, there are many degrees; but of course the greater degree of harmony, the more their cooperation will resemble an oiled machine in its smooth operation, and the more likely it is to lead to a successful conclusion. This is because the smoother their cooperation, the more single-minded their sense of purpose is likely to be. Those who have to conciliate many and varied interests, in pursuit of their objective, have difficulty in maintaining any sense of purpose at all. When there is complete harmony of cooperation, concession may enter into their thinking, but hardly conciliation. But this kind of language is only appropriate when there is a definite objective in view.
It is quite inappropriate when considering a human family. You need much more than the interpenetration of two minds for a coherent family. You need emotional harmony as well; although again it is as well to remember that there is a wide range of harmony, from mere politeness and good manners to a deep sympathy for the other’s feelings, which are instinctively appreciated. But it is an emotional interpenetration to some degree. How is this achieved? A spiritual union, whether it is comparatively deep or comparatively superficial, whether emotional or purely mental, is achieved by a spiritual creation. It is not created by physical union. It may be celebrated by physical union; but a spiritual union is created by a spiritual creation. We all know the folly of thinking that fleeting sensations of pleasure will lead to a permanent and reliable loyalty. Fleeting sensations of pleasure, by themselves, lead to the desire for more fleeting sensations of pleasure; and that is about all there is to it. You ignore the spiritual side of human affection, at your peril. Only spirit begets spirit.