“Subjective conscious mind is an analog of what is called the real world.”

Newtonian Studies (1965).
Context: There is something for which Newton — or better to say not Newton alone, but modern science in general — can still be made responsible: it is splitting of our world in two. I have been saying that modern science broke down the barriers that separated the heavens and the earth, and that it united and unified the universe. And that is true. But, as I have said, too, it did this by substituting for our world of quality and sense perception, the world in which we live, and love, and die, another world — the world of quantity, or reified geometry, a world in which, though there is place for everything, there is no place for man. Thus the world of science — the real world — became estranged and utterly divorced from the world of life, which science has been unable to explain — not even to explain away by calling it "subjective".
True, these worlds are everyday — and even more and more — connected by praxis. Yet for theory they are divided by an abyss.
Two worlds: this means two truths. Or no truth at all.
This is the tragedy of the modern mind which "solved the riddle of the universe," but only to replace it by another riddle: the riddle of itself.

The View from Nowhere. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986, p. 16. ISBN: 0195056442.

Source: Realistic models in probability (1968), p. 1

Source: The Van Alen Legacy

Source: Fallen Leaves (2014), Ch. 6 : Our Souls

The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory (1996)

Letter to Madame Mohl (13 December 1861) http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA13&dq=Women+have+no+sympathy+and+my+experience+of+women+is+almost+as+large+as+Europe.&client=firefox-a&id=totpAAAAMAAJ#v=onepage&q=Women%20have%20no%20sympathy%20and%20my%20experience%20of%20women%20is%20almost%20as%20large%20as%20Europe.&f=false, pp. 13-15
The Life of Florence Nightingale (1913)
Context: I have read half your book thro' and I am immensely charmed by it. But some things I disagree with and more I do not understand. This does not apply to the characters, but to your conclusions, e. g. you say "women are more sympathetic than men." Now if I were to write a book out of my experience I should begin Women have no sympathy. Yours is the tradition. Mine is the conviction of experience. I have never found one woman who has altered her life by one iota for me or my opinions. Now look at my experience of men. A statesman, past middle age, absorbed in politics for a quarter of a century, out of sympathy with me, remodels his whole life and policy — learns a science the driest, the most technical, the most difficult, that of administration, as far as it concerns the lives of men, — not, as I learnt it, in the field from stirring experience, but by writing dry regulations in a London room by my sofa with me. This is what I call real sympathy.

Source: The Limits of Evolution, and Other Essays, Illustrating the Metaphysical Theory of Personal Ideaalism (1905), The Harmony of Determinism and Freedom, p.325