二四、與普耳君一段文字因緣

（二月）

前記自紐約歸，車中讀一文論“不爭(zhēng)之道德”（本卷第一一則，五二七頁(yè)），歸后作長(zhǎng)書投之作者普耳君（Frederick J. Pohl），表吾之同意。其人得之，甚感吾意，今日答一長(zhǎng)書，遂訂交焉。

吾書之大旨如下（錄原書一節(jié)）：

What the world needs today, it seems to me, is a complete dethronement of the undue supremacy of the Self. The morality of our age is too much self-centered. The idea of self-preservation has scarcely ever been challenged, and consequently many expediencies have been done in the name of self-preservation, nay, many crimes have been committed in its name! To remedy this inveterate evil, we must extend our present conception of meum to its widest horizon possible, we must overthrow the superstition that self-preservation is the highest duty. We must take the attitude of non-resistance, not as the expedient attitude, but as the right attitude, not out of necessity, but at our own volition. The salvation of the world, I believe, must be sought in some such long forgotten truths as this…(Feb 2)

〔中譯〕

在我看來(lái)，當(dāng)今世界迫切的需要就是徹底廢除過(guò)分的自我至上。當(dāng)今的道德過(guò)于推崇自我中心。自我保存的思想很少遭到批評(píng)，自然許多出于私利的考慮都借著自我保存的名義得以進(jìn)行，而且許多罪惡也以它的名義而發(fā)生！為了改正這個(gè)積習(xí)已久的錯(cuò)誤，我們應(yīng)盡力拓展現(xiàn)時(shí)這個(gè)自我觀念，推翻自我保存的迷信，不應(yīng)以它為最高的本能，而應(yīng)采取不爭(zhēng)主義的態(tài)度，不應(yīng)抱謀私利的態(tài)度，而應(yīng)采取正義的態(tài)度。這種不應(yīng)是被迫的，而應(yīng)是自覺自愿的。我以為世界的拯救應(yīng)從那些久已被人忘卻的真理中去尋找……

（二月二日）

普君答書曰：

Your letter of appreciation of my communication to the New Republic gave me the greatest pleasure. More than that it gave me encouragement when I was sorely in need of it. The certainty that there was at least one reader with sufficient clarity of vision to see the truth made me believe that there were others also. I thank you most sincerely for writing what you did.

I found only two sympathizers before I sent the communication, and since it appeared, even members of my family have told me that they were sorry to have me put myself on record as believing such nonsense. I have an article of some length which I have been vainly trying to have published, and I had almost reached the conclusion that it was no longer worth while trying to place it when your letter came and gave me new enthusiasm.

The war fever sweeps men so easily! …There is need for men to carry on a fight not for pro-German or anti-German sympathy but for anti-war sentiment. Deeper than that, it is ant-use-of-physicaforce. that needs advocacy, or—what you pointed out as the heart of the whole matter—anti-self-preservation. The Belgian Poet Maeterlinck says that 'self-preservation is the profoundest of all our instincts'. Surely he thought very superficially. —Of course we may agree with him that self-preservation is the profoundest instinct, but many men have in all ages found many claims more insistent than that of self-preservation. Self-preservation is not the profoundest motive of human action. Men will die for duty, honor, love, etc, even for revenge. The individual must be willing to sacrifice life for duty and honor. Must not the state also? Do not claims of duty and honor and the ideal of the Brotherhood of States appeal to govemments as well as to individuals? They do, but their appeal has either not been recognized or the way to answer their appeal has not been lollowed. The idea of self-preservation must be challenged!

In your letter you say "We must take the attitude of non-resistance, not as the expedient attitude, but as the right attitude". I have carried out this thought in my article which I have called "Effective Resistance to War". I do not believe in "non-resistance". At 1east I don't like the term. It's flabby and weak. I like better the term "Effective Resistance". Resistance by means of physical force is the leasf effective means of resistance. Ordinarily the world thinks that a man who uses some form of force other than physical with which to resist, is merely a non-resister. Most of the world thinks only with material or physical conceptions. Spiritual resistance, the resistance of forgiving one's enemies, of "turning the other cheek", etc, is the most positive and effective kind of resistance. …

〔中譯〕

你的來(lái)信贊賞我在《新共和》上發(fā)表的文章，使我極為高興。在我需要支持之時(shí)，你給了我莫大的鼓勵(lì)。這說(shuō)明至少還有一個(gè)讀者能以清晰的眼光看清這個(gè)道理，這使我相信還會(huì)有其他人也能接受。對(duì)于你信中所表示的誠(chéng)意我極為感謝。

在我寄出這篇文章之前我僅找到了兩個(gè)同情者。文章發(fā)表之后，甚至連我的家人也對(duì)我說(shuō)他們不敢茍同我所發(fā)表的謬論。我還有一篇更為詳細(xì)的文章，我一直試圖將其發(fā)表。正當(dāng)我?guī)缀蹙鸵艞夁@個(gè)努力，認(rèn)為它沒有發(fā)表價(jià)值之時(shí)，我收到了你的信，它給了我新的熱情。

戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的狂熱消滅人類是何等的容易！……人類有必要進(jìn)行一場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)，這場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)不是為了滿足親德或是反德的情緒，而是為了反戰(zhàn)的情緒。在更深刻的意義上，是反對(duì)使用有形的力量，只需要倡導(dǎo)，或者正如你所指出的，整個(gè)問(wèn)題的關(guān)鍵在于反對(duì)自我保存。比利時(shí)詩(shī)人梅特林克說(shuō)過(guò)：“自我保存乃人類最基本的本能?！彼@種想法過(guò)于膚淺。當(dāng)然我們可以同意他的說(shuō)法。但是不少人在各個(gè)時(shí)代里都發(fā)現(xiàn)還有許多權(quán)利比自我保存更起作用，自我保存不是人類最基本的沖動(dòng)。人會(huì)為了責(zé)任、榮譽(yù)、愛情，甚至復(fù)仇等而犧牲自己的生命。個(gè)人可以為責(zé)任和榮譽(yù)心甘情愿地去死，難道一個(gè)政府就做不到嗎？既然責(zé)任感、榮譽(yù)感以及國(guó)與國(guó)之間的兄弟情誼能感召個(gè)人，難道就不能感召政府嗎？他們確實(shí)發(fā)出了感召，只不過(guò)還沒有被對(duì)方所認(rèn)識(shí)，或者還沒有反響罷了。自我保護(hù)主義必須受到挑戰(zhàn)！

你在信中說(shuō)：“應(yīng)采取不爭(zhēng)主義之態(tài)度，不應(yīng)抱謀私利之態(tài)度，而應(yīng)采取正義之態(tài)度?！蔽乙言谖业奈恼轮斜磉_(dá)了同樣的想法，我將其稱之為“對(duì)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的有效抗?fàn)帯薄Ｎ也⒉幌嘈拧安粻?zhēng)”，至少我不喜歡這個(gè)名詞，它是軟弱的。我更喜歡“有效的抗?fàn)帯边@個(gè)詞。使用體力的抗?fàn)幨切Ч畈畹目範(fàn)幏绞?。通常大家都認(rèn)為一個(gè)人如若采取非體力的方式去抗?fàn)?，那么這個(gè)人便是一個(gè)不爭(zhēng)主義者。絕大多數(shù)人僅僅只想到物質(zhì)和體力的概念，而精神的抗?fàn)帲瑢捤∽约旱臄橙说目範(fàn)?，“遞上另一邊臉”去的抗?fàn)?，才是積極的最為有效的抗?fàn)帯！?