[. . .], so then, an individual human life is plural—singular, certainly, yet plural. A paradox; a conundrum? Of course this singular-plural life is both a paradox and a conundrum. What then should I–do I have to–say about the individual human life? Any choice a person makes in determining his I-ness amounts to an oppression of his many other selves, but for how long; if protracted, if one and only is persistently chosen, as if this were the best, the only, or the most natural and thus healthiest choice, it would amount to a Self too repressed in its attempts to reach out to others, themselves like himself, cut off from the many that populate his Self, their Selves, as well as others outside of him, family, friends, neighbors.
When the natural inclinations of the many selves Self are denied, the pressure on a person’s identity is enormous; the stress is exacting. Many of our psychological maladies are inherent from a mentality that does not support this healthy plurality of selves in our personality.
[. . .]
To express these in metaphors familiar to us from Freudian psychology, personality is to ego what mentality is to super-ego. Yet a question arises in the practicalities of our confusion. How is it that someone so awkward in mediating the fundamental nature of his Self could allow another to enter his being, to ask another to become a part of him? Desire here would not be enough to countermand this faith, and faith it is as long as it remains part of my beliefs, part of that structure of inferences from premises without direct tactile evidence. I am we; I am I.
[. . .]