“ALL THIS TALK about psychology, the inner workings of the mind, is a waste of time; people want work and food. Are you not deliberately misleading your audiences when it is obvious that the economic situation must first be attacked? What you say may ultimately be effective, but what is the good of all this stuff when people are starving? You can’t think or do anything without having a full stomach.”
“所有这些心理的、头脑内部运作的讨论，都是浪费时间； 人们想要工作和食物。 很显然，必须先攻击经济形势， 你难道不是在故意误导你的听众吗？ 你说的可能最终是有效果的， 但是当人们挨饿时，所有这些东西有什么益处？ 你不能在没有温饱的情况下思考或做任何事情。”
One must of course have something in the stomach to be able to carry on; but to have food for all, there must be a fundamental revolution in the ways of our thinking, and hence the importance of attacking the psychological front. To you, an ideology is far more important than the production of food. You may talk about feeding the poor and of having consideration for them, but are you not much more concerned with an idea, with an ideology?
当然，一个人必须胃里有东西才能继续； 但是，为了给所有的人提供食物， 我们的思考方式，必须进行根本性的革命， 因此，这就是攻击心理壁垒的重要性。 对你来说，一种意识形态远比食物的供给更重要。 你可能会谈论养活穷人和考虑他们， 但你不是更关心一个观念，一种意识形态吗？
“Yes, we are; but an ideology is only a means of gathering people together for collective action. Without an idea there can be no collective action; the idea, the plan comes first, and then action follows.”
“是的，我们是； 但一种意识形态只是一种手段，以便于把人们聚拢并采取集体性的行动。 没有一个观念，就不可能有集体性的行动； 观念、规划在前，随后行动。”
So you also are concerned with psychological factors first, and from that what you call action will follow. You do not mean, then, that to talk of psychological factors is deliberately to mislead the people. What you mean is that you have the only rational ideology, so why bother to consider further? You want to act collectively for your ideology, and that is why you say any further consideration of the psychological process is not only a waste of time but also a deviation from the main issue, which is the setting up of a classless society with work for all, and so on.
所以，你首先考虑的，也是心理因素， 从中，你所谓的行动就会随之而来。 那么，你就不会说： 谈论心理因素是故意在误导人们。 你那种手段的内容，就是只有你才拥有理性的意识形态， 所以，为什么不愿意进一步去考察呢？ 你想根据你的意识形态采取集体性的行动， 那就是为什么你会说 任何对心理过程的进一步考察不仅是浪费时间， 而且偏离了这个主题 —— 建立一个没有阶级、所有人都有工作等等的社会。
“Our ideology is the result of wide historical study, it is history interpreted according to facts; it is a factual ideology, not like the superstitious beliefs of religion. Our ideology has direct experience behind it, not mere visions and illusions.”
“我们的意识形态是通过广泛地研究历史而得出的结果， 它是根据事实解释的历史； 它是一种有实据的意识形态，不像宗教里的迷信的信仰。 我们的意识形态背后有直接的经验，而不仅仅是愿景和幻想。”
The ideologies or dogmas of organized religions are also based on experience, perhaps that of the one who has given out the teachings. They also are founded on historical facts. Your ideology may be the outcome of study, of comparison, of accepting certain facts and denying others, and your conclusions may be the product of experience; but why reject the ideologies of others as being illusory when they also are the result of experience? You gather a group around your ideology, as do others around theirs; you want collective action, and so do they in a different way. In each case, what you call collective action springs from an idea; you are both concerned with ideas, positive or negative, to bring about collective action. Each ideology has experience behind it, only you refute the validity of their experience, and they refute the validity of yours. They say that your system is impractical, will lead to slavery, and so on, and you call them warmongers and say that their system must inevitably lead to economic disaster. So both of you are concerned with ideologies, not with feeding people or bringing about their happiness. The two ideologies are at war and man is forgotten.
组织化的宗教意识形态或教条，也是基于经验， 也许那是传授教义的人的经验。 它们也是建立在历史事实之上的。 你的意识形态可能是研究、比较、 接受某些事实、否定其他事实的结果， 你的结论可能是经验的产物； 但是，为什么反对别人的意识形态， 把它们当作是虚幻，尽管它们也是经验的结果？ 你围绕着你的意识形态聚集一群人，就像其他人围绕着他们的意识形态一样； 你想要集体性的行动，他们也以不同的方式这样做。 在每种情况下，你所谓的集体性的行动都源于一种观念； 你们都关心观念，无论是主动的还是被动的，以便于产生集体性的行动。 每一种意识形态的背后都有经验， 只不过你在反驳他们经验的有效性，他们也反驳你们经验的有效性。 他们说你的制度不切实际，会导致奴隶制，等等， 你称他们为好战分子，说他们的制度必然会导致经济灾难。 所以你们俩都关心意识形态， 而不是养活人们或给他们带来幸福。 这两种意识形态处于战争状态，而人却被遗忘了。
“Man is forgotten to save man. We sacrifice the present man to save the future man.”
“人被遗忘是为了拯救人。 我们牺牲现在的人，以拯救未来的人。”
You liquidate the present for the future. You assume the power of Providence in the name of the State as the Church has done in the name of God. You both have your gods and your holy book; you both have the true interpreters, the priests – and woe to anyone who deviates from the true and the authentic! There is not much difference between you, you are both very similar; your ideologies may vary, but the process is more or less the same. You both want to save the future man by sacrificing the present man – as though you knew all about the future, as though the future were a fixed thing and you had the monopoly of it! Yet you are both as uncertain of tomorrow as any other. There are so many imponderable facts in the present that make the future. You both promise a reward, a Utopia, a heaven in the future; but the future is not an ideological conclusion. Ideas are always concerned with the past or the future, but never with the present. You cannot have an idea about the present, for the present is action, the only action there is. All other action is delay, postponement, and so no action at all; it is an avoidance of action. Action based on an idea, either of the past or of the future, is inaction; action can only be in the present, in the now. Idea is of the past or of the future, and there can be no idea of the present. To an ideologist the past or the future is a fixed state, for he himself is of the past or of the future. An ideologist is never in the present; to him, life is always in the past or in the future, but never in the now. Idea is ever of the past, threading its way through the present to the future. For an ideologist the present is a passage to the future and so not important; the means do not matter at all, but only the end. Use any means to get to the end. The end is fixed, the future is known, therefore liquidate anyone who stands in the way of the end.
你为了未来而消灭现在。 你以国家的名义承担上天的权力， 就像教会以上帝的名义所做的那样。 你们俩都有你们的神和你们的圣经。 你们都拥有真理的解释者、牧师 —— 并且为任何一位偏离真理和正宗的人感到悲哀！ 你们之间没有太大的区别，你们俩都很相似； 你的意识形态可能会有所不同，但过程或多或少是一样的。 你们俩都想通过牺牲现在的人来拯救未来的人 —— 好像你们知道未来的一切， 就好像未来是一个固定的东西，而你垄断了它！ 然而，你们俩都像其他人一样不确定明天。 有太多的不可估量的事实在造就未来。 你们俩都承诺一个奖赏、一个乌托邦、一个未来的天堂； 但未来不是一个基于意识形态的结论。 想法总是与过去或未来有关，却从不关心现在。 你不可能对现在有一个想法， 因为现在就是行动，这儿唯一的行动。 其余的一切行动都在拖延，推迟，因此，它根本就没有行动； 它在回避行动。 基于一个想法的行动，无论是基于过去还是未来，并非行动； 行动只能在当下、在现实之中。 想法是属于过去或未来，不可能有属于现在的想法。 对一个思想理论家来说， 过去或未来是一个固定的状态，因为他自己属于过去或未来。 一个思想理论家从来不在当下。 对他而言，总是生活在过去或未来，却永远没有活在这一刻。 想法永远属于过去，它通过现在，编织一条抵达未来的路。 对于一个思想理论家来说，现在是通往未来的过道，因此并不重要。 这个手段根本不重要，唯一的重点是这个目的。 使用任何手段来达到目的。 目的是固定的，未来是已知的， 因此，在通往目的的行程中，消灭每一个挡道的人。
“Experience is essential for action, and ideas or explanations come from experience. Surely you do not deny experience. Action without the framework of idea is anarchical, it is chaos, leading straight to the asylum. Are you advocating action without the cohesive power of idea? How can you do anything without the idea first?”
“经验对于行动来说，是至关重要的，而想法或解释源于经验。 当然，你不会否认经验。 没有思想体系的行动是无政府主义的， 它是混乱的，直接通向疯人院。 你在提倡没有思想凝聚力的行动吗？ 如果事先没有打算，你怎么能做任何一件事情呢？”
As you say, the idea, the explanation, the conclusion, is the outcome of experience; without experience there can be no knowledge; without knowledge there can be no action. Does idea follow action, or is there idea first and then action? You say experience comes first, and then action, is that it? What do you mean by experience?
正如你所说，想法、解释、结论，是经验的结果； 没有经验，就没有知识；没有知识，就不可能有行动。 是想法跟在行动后面，还是先有想法，后有行动？ 你说经验是第一位的，然后是行动，是那样吗？ 你说的经验是什么意思？
“Experience is the knowledge of a teacher, of a writer, of a revolutionary, the knowledge which he has gathered from his studies and from experiences, either his own or those of another. From knowledge or experience ideas are constructed, and from this ideological structure flows action.”
“经验是教师的知识，是作家的知识，是革命者的知识， 是他从自己的学习和经验中收集的知识， 无论是他自己的还是别人的经验。 从知识或经验中，构建出各种想法， 从这种意识形态体系中，衍生出行动。”
Is experience the only criterion, the true standard of measurement? What do we mean by experience? Our talking together is an experience; you are responding to stimuli, and this response to challenge is experience, is it not? Challenge and response are almost a simultaneous process; they are a constant movement within the framework of a background. It is the background that responds to challenge, and this responding to challenge is experience, is it not? The response is from the background, from a conditioning. Experience is always conditioned, and so then is idea. Action based on idea is conditioned, limited action. Experience, idea, in opposition to another experience, idea, does not produce synthesis but only further opposition. Opposites can never produce a synthesis. An integration can take place only when there is no opposition; but ideas always breed opposition, the conflict of the opposites. Under no circumstances can conflict bring about a synthesis.
经验是唯一的标准，是衡量的真正标准吗？ 我们所说的经验是什么意思？我们一起交谈是一个经验； 你正在对刺激做出回应，而这种对挑战的回应就是经验，不是吗？ 挑战和回应，几乎是一个同时进行的过程。 它们在一个背景框架内，是同一个持续的动作。 正是那个背景，对挑战作出了回应， 而这种对挑战的回应就是经验，不是它吗？ 回应源于背景，源于一种条件反射。 经验总是有限的，因此想法也是有限的。 基于想法的行动是有限的，是受限的行动。 经验、想法，以及与之相反的另一个经验、想法， 不会产生合成，却只能产生进一步的对立。 对立面永远不能合成一体。 只有在没有对立的情况下，才能发生融和。 但想法总是滋生对立、相互对立而产生出冲突。 在任何情况下，冲突都不能带来一个综合体。
Experience is the response of the background to challenge. The background is the influence of the past, and the past is memory. The response of memory is idea. An ideology built out of memory, called experience, knowledge, can never be revolutionary. It may call itself revolutionary, but it is only a modified continuity of the past. An opposite ideology or doctrine is still idea, and idea must ever be of the past. No ideology is the ideology; but if you said that your ideology is limited, prejudiced, conditioned, like any other, no one would follow you. You must say it is the only ideology that can save the world; and as most of us are addicted to formulas, to conclusions, we follow and are thoroughly exploited, as the exploiter is also exploited.
经验是背景对挑战的回应。 背景是过去的影响，过去是记忆。 记忆的回应是想法。 一种建立在记忆中的意识形态，被称为经验、知识，永远不可能是革命性的。 它也许称它自己是革命性的，但它只是一个被调整过的过去的延续体。 一种对立的意识形态或学说，仍然是想法，想法必定属于过去。 否定意识形态，也是一种意识形态； 但是，如果你说：你的意识形态是受限的、带有偏见、局限，就像其他人的一样， 那么，就没有人会跟随你。 你必须说：它是唯一可以拯救世界的意识形态。 由于我们大多数人沉迷于公式、结论， 我们遵循并被彻底剥削，因为剥削者也在被剥削。
Action based on an idea can never be a freeing action, but is always binding. Action towards an end, a goal, is in the long run inaction; in the short view it may assume the role of action, but such action is self-destructive, which is obvious in our daily life. “But can one ever be free from all conditioning? We believe it is not possible.”
基于想法的行动永远不是自由的行动，却总是被束缚。 从长远来看，为达到目的、为目标而采取的行动，并非行动。 从短浅的眼光来看，它可能承担了行动的主角， 但这样的行动是自我毁灭性的，在我们的日常生活中，它是显而易见的。 “但是，一个人能从一切的限制中解脱吗？ 我们相信这是不可能的。”
Again, the idea, the belief imprisons you. You believe, another does not believe; you are both prisoners to your belief, you both experience according to your conditioning. One can find out if it is possible to be free only by inquiring into the whole process of conditioning, of influence. The understanding of this process is self-knowledge. Through self-knowledge alone is there freedom from bondage, and this freedom is devoid of all belief, all ideology.
又来了，这又是一个想法，这个信念囚禁了你。 你相信，而另一个人不相信； 你们俩都是你们的信念的囚徒，你们俩都根据自身的局限来体验。 一个人只有调查局限和影响的整个过程， 才能发现是否有可能自由。 对这一过程的理解，就是自我认识。 唯有通过自我认识，才有摆脱束缚的自由， 而这种自由没有任何信念、任何的意识形态。