"Master, do you know women?"
"Certainly not, neither do you."
"I don't understand."
"The ONLY person I know of, but though in a slapdash-, a rough-, Way is myself. I might even know a millionth part of my I. Because all ideation is in me, I just cannot know a thing about other persons, say, more than 'appearances', as I know of objects, fields etc. Now, another man, I cannot know, but I can guess by putting myself in HIS shoes AND compare it with the real self. This is the only thing I can do, compare MY person with myself in somebody's place. It is a(n ideational) pair of: I/notI (but probably similar to I). Inmediately upon encounter, I start with this trick, this principle of checking the 'not-I' aspects. He might not like reading and study, as I do, he might be prone to lamentation and worries about his health etc. etc. What remains of this mirrored I, 'might' be the same as I, but I 'know not'."
"But what about women?"
"Women are so absolutely- and fundamentally different from I, even a projected I in their shoes, that there is practically no point in trying-out this principle. Their body is different, their organs, bloodstream, hormones, their skin, outer forms, and most certainly their brains must be so different that all comparison, except with a female, must fail. A man, (I) cannot ever hope to guess how they think. Their logic, for instance, is so different from male-logic, that all prediction (the aim of 'knowing' the other) must fail. We (men), must then sail by appearances, by words uttered, and, we must keep an anchor out to windward. See Lucetta's explanation of female logic (Verona): 'I have no other but a woman's reason; I think him so because I think him so'. You may come to 'know' some other man after five years of friendship, yet, it is incomparably more and clearer than your knowledge of a woman after, say, a marriage of 50 years. You see, their Ways and True Words are different."