Acts of reasoning are not interlocked with the total interlocking system of Nature as all its other items are interlocked with one antother… The knowledge of a thing is not one of the thing’s parts. (…)
Nature can only raid Reason to kill; but Reason can invade Nature to take prisoners and even colonise. Every object you see before you at this moment—the walls, ceiling, and furniture, the book, your own washed hands and cut finger-nails, bears witness to the colonisation of Nature by Reason: or none of this matter would have been in these states if Nature had had her way… [The relation between] Reason and Nature is what some people call an Unsymmetrical Relation. Brotherhood is a symmetrical relation because if A is the brother of B, B is the brother of A. Father-and-son is an unsymmetrical relation because if A is the father of B, B is not the father of A. The relation between Reason and Nature is of this kind. Reason is not related to Nature as Nature is related to Reason. (…)
[Nature], by rebelling against Reason, destroys both Reason and itself… The supernatural Reason enters my natural being… like a beam of light which illuminates or a principle of organisation which unifies and develops. Our Whole picture of Nature being “invaded” (as if by a foreign enemy) was wrong. When we actually examine one of these invasions it looks much more like the arrival of a king among his own subjects or a mahout visiting his own elephant. The elephant may run amuck, Nature may be rebellious. But from observing what happens when Nature obeys it is almost impossible not to conclude that it is her very “nature” to be a subject. All happend as if she had been designed for that very role.