The general shape of my attitude was coming together during my years at Oxford (1953-56), but more particularly during the seven years of (cheating) reclusion which immediately followed. I was in a state of disillusionment with all and sundry, but most of all with myself. I had failed to prove that I had any intellectual merit in my final exams, and I had woken up to the fact that the attitudes which I had accepted from childhood were virtually obsolescent. I needed to somersault in all areas of my previous outlook, (which is to say on key values, on religion, politics and family morality,) and to come down in new positions, which I might feel confident of holding for the rest of my life.

In some respects I was still concerned to retain my place within the tradition of moral values to which I had been raised - a tradition where there was a premium upon kindliness of disposition, in a vein of `Do as you would be done by'; also for the pursuit of the general happiness, and a tolerance of the vagaries in other peoples' behaviour, so long as it didn't detract from the general social well-being. But the particular requirement, where I was concerned, was to discern values which might fortify me in my efforts to emerge as the individual that I believed myself to be, without antagonising myself from the ranks of humanity as a whole.

The essential idea was that I must learn how to be true to myself, but that I must establish defensive bulwarks around my various stances so that I could no longer be browbeaten by those who had been emotionally close to me during my upbringing. It was an attitude of Individualism that I needed to develop. In personality I was excessively introspective and self-centred perhaps, so the contemplation on these subjects had already been exercised. But I still had to bring the various threads of my thinking together so that its cohesive logic became self-evident.

I had no wish to adopt some brand of Individualism which might seek to promote my own interests above those of society in general. What I desired was to comprehend (and even to empathise with) the way society is gradually coming together over the extended course of history into a vaguely unified core, while managing to perceive the necessary safeguards to encourage the potential fulfilment of each individual personality, and more especially my own. It was an attitude which might now be described as a quest for individualism within what I recognised as a slowly centralising society.

There was still the danger that I might perceive this dichotomy as irresolvable, feeling obliged to take up cudgels against the forces of centralisation so as to promote greater prospects for the liberty of individuals to act as might suit them the best; (and it would of course have been possible to advocate any manner of suspect values under a banner where the interests of the individual were held paramount). There was indeed much in my personality to prompt such a solution - not least the paranoid tendencies which convinced me, at times, that society at large (or at least particular members of it) were ganging up against me to disseminate tales indicative of my attributed outsider status. Even at this early date, the tabloids seemed to be orchestrating such a conspiracy. But I managed to perceive that this would not be the wisest solution for me: that I must discover my new set of values from within the notion that man can be at one with society, and that his values should reflect this. It was a question of endeavouring to perceive where the two sets of interest (of Self and Society) might be rendered compatible, and even in harmony. Within this line of thinking, my attention came to focus upon the values of Candour and Empathy.

This might best be explained in terms of what I was coming to regard as the ideal society. The individual for his part should be striving to acquire an ability (and the daring) to reveal himself in its entirety for society to have the capacity to understand him comprehensively. But the other side of this coin is that those who represent society, within its many institutions, should be striving to develop the ability to place themselves within the shoes of each individual, who renders himself thus transparent for their analysis. Provided that the officials of state can develop such a capacity for empathy, then the individual can afford his display of total candour, which otherwise he might judge ill-advised.

To present an extreme situation, the worst serial killer in our midst should be in a position to know that, if he were to give himself up and explain his antisocial behaviour to the best of his capacity, then the authorities who then have him in charge will furnish him with all the psychological assistance and supervision that he might require to emerge (for the first time perhaps) as a useful and reintegrated member of society.

No one should expect the full emergence of these values within this day and age, and with society such as we find it. But within my own vision at least, they furnish the image of a society in the direction of which I believe that we are just gradually evolving. The limitations are contained largely in the query as to which should come first - the individual's candour, or society's capacity for empathy? It is the chicken/egg situation which discourages bold improvisation from the one direction or the other. But it leaves me in any case striving to develop an attitude of true candour, in the hopes that society at large will then make its (infinitesimally small) shift towards an enlargement of its capacity for empathy - until (after centuries perhaps) a discernibly new pattern of human behaviour might just conceivably start to emerge.

It has subsequently been brought to my attention that the ideal of Candour might be employed as the excuse for intrusively insensitive comment as a form of aggression, which clashes with any sincere attempt at practising Empathy. For this reason I have modified the original motto, so that it should now read as ‘Empathy and Candour - with Tact’.

I shall be examining the subject of my adopted stance upon the subjects of religion, politics and family morality within these subsequent essays.