distinguish sufficiently clearly the difference between individuality and personality. They fail to distinguish the two worlds. They fail to understand that an ordinary reasonable man may be inhabiting and thinking in terms of Peter Breugel's world one moment, and Michelangelo's the next; that people, being human, have an irrational dislike of being pinned down and compelled to live exclusively in the one world or the other. Worst of all, they fail to grasp that ordinary men and women understand these truths, although they might find it difficult to express them in analytical language.
This is of absolutely fundamental importance, namely that it is only the defects, the distortions, the deformities of human nature that can be analysed. If one was ever lucky enough to meet a normal, rational, sane, human being, one would not be able to analyse him; one would only be able to face him, and possibly get to know him. In the antique medieval language of John Ruesbroke, “God is incomprehensible, and is beyond exercyse or manere”; he meant “cannot be made to listen to our prayers by forms of words or the ceremony of ritual - a clean heart alone compels his attention”. I suggest that normal man is incomprehensible too.
Of course it is also true that any relationship between two people precludes the two people concerned themselves analysing it. They may be capable of calculating with respect to each other's behaviour, and one another, in some respects; but they are precluded from analysing the relationship. If they try, they destroy it; at least they do if they succeed in analysing it. Indeed the whole purpose of a relationship, for the two people who enter into it, is to have a bond between them, which enables them to be at peace in each other's company. Within this relationship they want to relax, and that means they want to trust; they want to get away from the business of calculating what each other's behaviour is going to be. There may be other fields where they want to…