I have a weird thinking process that has never made sense to anyone I have tried to explain it to. I talk to myself for long periods of time and then ask myself questions in between the talking to answer it. The questions I ask myself are usually questions I think another person would ask who is against what I have just said. I constantly look at what I said and try to find the argument against what I said and see if it is valid. So, sometimes I do that out loud in front of people and they often think I am completely insane and…well, maybe they are right. hahahhahahhaahhahaha!
[The most intelligent man’s] discourse appears like soliloquy intermixed with dialogue.
This sounds exactly like what my though process is. I want to get to know the both sides of an argument before I make a decision. Sometimes, there is a stalemate, such as in the case of first-person language which I continue to wrestle with until I have decided that one of the arguments is stronger than the other or makes more sense to me.
This is in the same paragraph as the previous post on Coleridge, so rigidity is still on his mind as he says this. It almost seems like he is saying here that talking to yourself about something (aka thinking) is the organic thing that “interferes with the forms of Method” rather than being rigid which destroys Method.