“THE CONFLICT BETWEEN thesis and antithesis is inevitable and necessary; it brings about synthesis, from which again there is a thesis with its corresponding antithesis, and so on. There is no end to conflict, and it is only through conflict that there can ever be any growth, any advance.”
“论点与对立面之间的冲突，是不可避免的和必要的; 它带来了综合， 从中再次有一个论点及其相应的对立面，依此类推。 冲突没有尽头， 只有通过冲突，才能有任何增长，任何进步。”
Does conflict bring about a comprehension of our problems? Does it lead to growth, advancement? It may bring about secondary improvements, but is not conflict in its very nature a factor of disintegration? Why do you insist that conflict is essential? “We all know there is conflict at every level of our existence, so why deny or be blind to it?”
冲突是否能导向我们对问题的领悟？ 它会导致成长、进步吗？它可能会带来次要的改善， 但冲突的本质难道不是导致分裂的一个因素吗？ 你为什么坚持认为冲突是必不可少的？ “我们都知道在我们存在的每个层面上都存在冲突， 因此，为什么要否认或视而不见呢？”
One is not blind to the constant strife within and without; but if I may ask, why do you insist that it is essential? “Conflict cannot be denied, it is part of the human structure, and we use it as a means to an end, the end being the right environment for the individual. We work towards that goal and use every means to bring it about. Ambition, conflict, is the way of man, and it can be used either against him or for him. Through conflict we move to greater things.”
这个人不是对内外不断的冲突视而不见; 但是，如果我可以问，你为什么坚持认为它是必不可少的？ “冲突是不可否认的，它是人类结构的一部分， 我们用它作为达到目的的手段，目的是为个人提供正确的环境。 我们朝着这个目标努力，并利用一切手段来实现它。 雄心，冲突，是人类的方式，可以被用来反抗他，也可以用来支持他。 通过冲突，我们走向更伟大的事物。”
What do you mean by conflict? Conflict between what? “Between what has been and what will be.”
你说的冲突是什么意思？ 哪两者之间的冲突？“在过去和将来之间。”
The ‘what will be’ is the further response of what has been and is. By conflict we mean the struggle between two opposing ideas. But is opposition in any form conducive to understanding? When is there understanding of any problem? “There is class conflict, national conflict, and ideological conflict. Conflict is opposition, resistance due to ignorance of certain fundamental historical facts. Through opposition there is growth, there is progress, and this whole process is life.”
“将会是什么”是对过去和现在的进一步回应。 我们所说的冲突，是指两种对立的观念之间的斗争。 但是，任何形式的反对都有利于理解吗？ 什么时候会对任何一个问题有所理解？ “有阶级冲突，国家冲突和意识形态冲突。 冲突是反对，是由于对某些基本历史事实的无知而产生的抵抗。 通过反对，有成长，有进步，这整个过程就是生命。”
We know there is conflict at all the different levels of life, and it would be foolish to deny it. But is this conflict essential? We have so far assumed that it is, or have justified it with cunning reason. In nature, the significance of conflict may be quite different; among the animals, conflict as we know it may not exist at all. But to us, conflict has become a factor of enormous importance. Why has it become so significant in our lives? Competition, ambition, the effort to be or not to be, the will to achieve, and soon – all this is part of conflict. Why do we accept conflict as being essential to existence? This does not imply, on the other hand, that we should accept indolence. But why do we tolerate conflict within and without? Is conflict essential to understanding, to there solution of a problem? Should we not investigate rather than assert or deny? Should we not attempt to find the truth of the matter rather than hold to our conclusions and opinions?
我们知道，在生命的各个层面上都存在冲突， 否认它是愚蠢的。 但这种冲突是必要的吗？ 直到现在，我们一直认为它是必要的，或者用狡猾的理性为它辩护。 在自然中，冲突的意义可能大不相同。 在动物中，我们所知道的冲突可能根本不存在。 但对我们来说，冲突已成为一个极其重要的因素。 为什么它在我们的生命中变得如此重要？ 竞争、雄心、努力成为或不成为、达成的意愿，等等 —— 所有这些都是冲突的一部分。为什么我们接受冲突对存在至关重要？ 另一方面，这并不意味着我们应该接受懒惰。 但是，我们为什么容忍内外的冲突呢？ 冲突对于理解、解决问题是否至关重要？ 我们难道不应该去调查它，而不是去断言或否认吗？ 我们难道不应该试图找到事情的真相， 而不是去坚持我们的结论和观点吗？
“How can there be progress from one form of society to another without conflict? The ‘haves’ will never voluntarily give up their wealth, they must be forced, and this conflict will bring about a new social order, a new way of life. This cannot be done pacifically. We may not want to be violent, but we have to face facts.”
“如何在没有冲突的情况下，从一种社会形式发展到另一种社会形式？ “富人”永远不会自愿放弃他们的财富， 他们必须被迫，这种冲突将带来一种新的社会秩序，一种新的生命方式。 这不可能以和平的方式进行。我们可能不想暴力，但我们必须面对事实。”
You assume that you know what the new society should be, and that the other fellow does not; you alone have this extraordinary knowledge, and you are willing to liquidate those who stand in your way. By this method, which you think is essential, you only bring about opposition and hate. What you know is merely an- other form of prejudice, a different kind of conditioning. Your historical studies, or those of your leaders, are interpreted according to a particular background which determines your response; and this response you call the new approach, the new ideology. All response of thought is conditioned, and to bring about a revolution based on thought or idea is to perpetuate a modified form of what was. You are essentially reformers, and not real revolutionaries. Reformation and revolution based on idea are retrogressive factors in society.
你假设你知道新社会应该是什么，而另一个人不知道; 只有你有这种非凡的知识，你愿意清算那些阻碍你的人。 通过这种你认为必不可少的方法，你只会带来反对和仇恨。 你所知道的只是一种另一种形式的偏见，一种不同的局限。 你的历史研究，或者你的领导人的历史研究， 是根据特定的背景来解释的，那个背景决定了你的回应， 这个回应，你称之为新方法，新的意识形态。 所有思想的回应都是受限的， 而带来一场基于思想或观念的革命， 就是在使一种被修改过的形式永久化。 你们本质上是修改者，而不是真正的革命者。 以观念为基础的宗教改革和革命是社会倒退的因素。
You said, did you not, that the contact between thesis and antithesis is essential, and that this conflict of opposites produces a synthesis? “Conflict between the present society and its opposite, through the pressure of historical events and so on, will eventually bring about a new social order.”
你说，难道你没有说过，论点和对立面之间的接触是必要的， 这种对立面的冲突产生出一种综合吗？ “当前社会与其对立面之间的冲突， 通过历史事件等的压力，最终将带来新的社会秩序。”
Is the opposite different or dissimilar from what is? How does the opposite come into being? Is it not a modified projection of what is? Has not the antithesis the elements of its own thesis? The one is not wholly different or dissimilar from the other, and the synthesis is still a modified thesis. Though periodically coated a different colour, though modified, reformed, reshaped according to circumstances and pressures, the thesis is always the thesis. The conflict between the opposites is utterly wasteful and stupid. Intellectually or verbally you can prove or disprove anything, but that cannot alter certain obvious facts. The present society is based on individual acquisitiveness; and its opposite, with the resulting synthesis, is what you call the new society. In your new society, individual acquisitiveness is opposed by State acquisitiveness, the State being the rulers; the State is now all-important, and not the individual. From this antithesis you say there will eventually be a synthesis in which all individuals are important. This future is imaginary, an ideal; it is the projection of thought, and thought is always the response of memory, of conditioning. It is really a vicious circle with no way out. This conflict, this struggling within the cage of thought, is what you call progress.
对立面与实际情况之间，有什么不同或区别吗？ 对立面是如何形成的？它不是对实际情况进行修改的投影吗？ 难道对立面不是它自己论点的要素吗？ 一个与另一个并不是完全地不同或相异， 而综合仍然是一个修改过的论点。 虽然定期涂上不同的颜色， 虽然根据情况和压力进行了修改，改革，重塑， 但论点始终是论点。 对立面之间的冲突是彻底的浪费和愚蠢。 在智力上或口头上，你可以证明或反驳任何东西， 但这不能改变某些明显的事实。 当今社会的基础是个人的进取性； 而它的反面，以及由此产生的综合，就是你所说的新社会。 在你的新社会中，个人的进取性与国家的进取性相抵触， 国家是统治者；国家现在是最重要的，而不是个人。 从这个对立面，你说最终会有一个综合， 其中所有个体都很重要。这个未来是想象，是一种空想。 它是思想的投射，思想永远是记忆、局限的回应。 它实际上是一个没有出路的恶性循环。 这种冲突，这种在思想牢笼中的挣扎，就是你所说的进步。
“Do you say, then, that we must stay as we are, with all the exploitation and corruption of the present society?”
“你是说，那样的话，我们必须保持原样， 面对当今社会的所有剥削和腐败吗？”
Not at all. But your revolution is no revolution, it is only a change of power from one group to another, the substitution of one class for another. Your revolution is merely a different structure built of the same material and within the same underlying pattern. There is a radical revolution which is not a conflict, which is not based on thought with its ego-made projections, ideals, dogmas, Utopias; but as long as we think in terms of changing this into that, of becoming more or becoming less, of achieving an end, there cannot be this fundamental revolution.
一点也不。 但你们的革命不是革命， 它只是权力从一个群体到另一个群体的改变，一个阶级取代了另一个阶级。 你的革命只是一个由相同的材料和相同的底层模式构建的不同结构。 有一场激进的革命，它不是冲突， 它不是基于思想及其自我制造的投射 —— 理想、教条、乌托邦； 但是，只要我们这么考虑 —— 把‘这’变成‘那’、多一点或少一点、不达目的不罢休， 就不可能有这种根本性的革命。
“Such a revolution is an impossibility. Are you seriously proposing it?”
“这样的革命是不可能的。你是认真地提议吗？”
It is the only revolution, the only fundamental transformation. “How do you propose to bring it about?”
这是唯一的革命，唯一的根本性转变。 “你打算如何实现它？”
By seeing the false as the false; by seeing the truth in the false. Obviously, there must be a fundamental revolution in man’s relationship to man; we all know that things cannot go on as they are without increasing sorrow and disaster. But all reformers, like the so-called revolutionaries, have an end in view, a goal to be achieved, and both use man as a means to their own ends. The use of man for a purpose is the real issue, and not the attainment of a particular end. You cannot separate the end from the means, for they are a single, inseparable process. The means is the end; there can be no classless society through the means of class conflict. The results of using wrong means for a so-called right end are fairly obvious. There can be no peace through war, or through being prepared for war. All opposites are self-projected; the ideal is a reaction from what is, and the conflict to achieve the ideal is a vain and illusory struggle within the cage of thought. Through this conflict there is no release, no freedom for man. Without freedom, there can be no happiness; and freedom is not an ideal. Freedom is the only means to freedom.
看到假即是假；在虚假中看到真实。 显然，人与人的关系必须有一场根本性的革命。 我们都知道，如果不增加悲伤和灾难，事情就不能像现在这样继续下去。 但是，所有的改革者，像所谓的革命者一样，都有一个目的，一个要实现的目标， 他们都把人作为达到自己目的的手段。 为了某个目的而利用人，是真正的问题，而不是达成某个特定的目的。 你不能把目的和手段分开，因为它们是一个单一的、不可分割的过程。 手段即是目的；通过阶级冲突，就不可能实现无阶级的社会。 用错误的手段达到所谓正确目的，其结果是显而易见的。 通过战争，或通过为战争做准备，不可能有和平。 所有的对立面都是自我的投射；理想是来自现实的反应， 而为实现理想而产生的冲突，是在思想的牢笼内，上演的一场徒劳而虚幻的挣扎。 通过这场冲突，人类没有释放，没有自由。 没有自由，就没有快乐；自由不是一个理想。 自由本身，即是实现自由的唯一途径。
As long as man is psychologically or physically used, whether in the name of God or of the State, there will be a society based on violence. Using man for a purpose is a trick employed by the politician and the priest, and it denies relationship. “What do you mean by that?”
只要人在心理上或身体上被利用， 无论是以上帝的名义还是以国家的名义，都会有一个以暴力为基础的社会。 为了一个目的而利用人是政治家和牧师使用的伎俩， 它否认了关系。“你这是什么意思？”
When we use each other for our mutual gratification, can there be any relationship between us? When you use another for your comfort, as you use a piece of furniture, are you related to that person? Are you related to the furniture? You may call it yours, and that is all; but you have no relationship with it. Similarly, when you use another for your psychological or physical advantage, you generally call that person yours, you possess him or her; and is possession relationship? The State uses the individual and calls him its citizen; but it has no relationship with the individual, it merely uses him as a tool. A tool is a dead thing, and there can be no relationship with that which is dead. When we use man for a purpose, however noble, we want him as an instrument, a dead thing. We cannot use a living thing, so our demand is for dead things; our society is based on the use of dead things. The use of another makes that person the dead instrument of our gratification. Relationship can exist only between the living, and usage is a process of isolation. It is this isolating process that breeds conflict, antagonism between man and man.
当我们为了相互满足而利用彼此时， 我们之间能有什么关系吗？ 当你为了舒适而使用另一个人，如同你使用一件家具，你和那个人有关系吗？ 你和家具有关系吗？你可以称它为你的，仅此而已； 但你与它没有关系。 同样，当你使用另一个人来获得你的心理或身体上的优势时， 你通常称那个人为你的，你占有他或她；占有是关系吗？ 国家利用个人并称他为公民； 但它与个人没有关系，它只是把他当作一个工具。 工具是一个死的东西，不可能与死去的东西产生任何的关系。 当我们为了一个目的而使用人时，无论多么高尚，我们都希望把他当成一个工具，一个死的东西。 我们不能使用活物，所以我们的需求是死物； 我们的社会是建立在使用死物的基础上的。 使用另一个人，使那个人成为死去的工具，以使我们满意。 关系只能存在于活着的人之间，而使用是一个孤立的过程。 正是这种孤立的过程，滋生了人与人之间的冲突和对抗。
“Why do you lay so much emphasis on relationship?”
“你为什么这么强调关系？”
Existence is relationship; to be is to be related. Relationship is society. The structure of our present society, being based on mutual use, bring about violence, destruction and misery; and if the so-called revolutionary State does not fundamentally alter this usage, it can only produce, perhaps at a different level, still further conflict, confusion and antagonism. As long as we psychologically need and use each other, there can be no relationship. Relationship is communion; and how can there be communion if there is exploitation? Exploitation implies fear, and fear inevitably leads to all kinds of illusions and misery. Conflict exists only in exploitation and not in relationship. Conflict, opposition, enmity exists between us when there is the use of another as a means of pleasure, of achievement. This conflict obviously cannot be resolved by using it as a means to a self-projected goal; and all ideals, all Utopias are self-projected. To see this is essential, for then we shall experience the truth that conflict in any form destroys relationship, understanding. There is understanding only when the mind is quiet; and the mind is not quiet when it is held in any ideology, dogma or belief, or when it is bound to the pattern of its own experience, memories. The mind is not quiet when it is acquiring or becoming. All acquisition is conflict; all becoming is a process of isolation.
存在就是关系；生活即关联。 关系即是社会。我们目前社会的结构以相互利用为基础， 带来了暴力、破坏和苦难； 如果所谓的革命国家不从根本上改变这种利用方式， 它唯一能产生的，也许在不同的层面上，仍然是进一步的冲突、混乱和敌对。 只要我们在心理上需要和利用对方，就不可能有关系。 关系就是共融；如果有剥削，怎么会有共融呢？ 剥削意味着恐惧，恐惧不可避免地导致各种幻想与痛苦。 冲突只存在于剥削之下，而不存在于关系之中。 冲突、对立、敌意， 存在于我们之间，当有人使用另一个人作为快乐、成功的手段时。 显然，这种冲突不能通过利用的手段来解决，来实现自我投射出的目标。 所有的理想，所有的乌托邦，都是自我投射出来的。 观看这一点，是最根本的， 因为那样，我们将体验到这样一个事实， 即任何形式的冲突都在破坏关系，破坏理解。 只有当头脑安静时，才有理解； 当头脑被任何意识形态、教条或信仰所把持时， 或者当它被束缚在自己的经验、记忆的模式中时，它就无法安静。 当头脑在获取或成为时，它无法安静。 所有的获取都是冲突；一切的成为，即是一种断绝的行为。
The mind is not quiet when it is disciplined, controlled and checked; such a mind is a dead mind, it is isolating itself through various forms of resistance, and so it inevitably creates misery for itself and for others. The mind is quiet only when it is not caught in thought, which is the net of its own activity. When the mind is still, not made still, a true factor, love, comes into being.
当头脑受到纪律、控制和查验时，它不安宁; 这样的头脑是一个死的头脑，它通过各种形式的抵抗将自己孤立起来， 因此它不可避免地为自己和他人制造出痛苦。 这个头脑要安宁，只有当它不被思想抓获，而思想即是它自己活动的网络。 当头脑宁息，而不是被镇压时，一个真实的因子：爱，就会产生。