i have dealt with the two general major causes of friction in the daily use of the machine. i will now deal with a minor cause, and make an end of mere dailiness. this minor cause—and after all i do not know that its results are so trifling as to justify the epithet 'minor'—is the straining of the machine by forcing it to do work which it was never intended to do. although we are incapable of persuading our machines to do effectively that which they are bound to do somehow, we continually overburden them with entirely unnecessary and inept tasks. we cannot, it would seem, let things alone.

for example, in the ordinary household the amount of machine horse-power expended in fighting for the truth is really quite absurd. this pure zeal for the establishment and general admission of the truth is usually termed 'contradictoriness.' but, of course, it is not that; it is something higher. my wife states that the joneses have gone into a new flat, of which the rent is £165 a year. now, jones has told me personally that the rent of his new flat is £156 a year. i correct my wife. knowing that she is in the right, she corrects me. she cannot bear that a falsehood should prevail. it is not a question of £9, it is a question of truth. her enthusiasm for truth excites my enthusiasm for truth. five minutes ago i didn't care twopence whether the rent of the joneses' new flat was £165 or £156 or £1056 a year. but now i care intensely that it is £156. i have formed myself into a select society for the propagating of the truth about the rent of the joneses' new flat, and my wife has done the same. in eloquence, in argumentative skill, in strict supervision of our tempers, we each of us squander enormous quantities of that h.-p. which is so precious to us. and the net effect is naught.

now, if one of us two had understood the elementary principles of human engineering, that one would have said (privately): 'truth is indestructible. truth will out. truth is never in a hurry. if it doesn't come out to-day it will come out to-morrow or next year. it can take care of itself. ultimately my wife (or my husband) will learn the essential cosmic truth about the rent of the joneses' new flat. i already know it, and the moment when she (or he) knows it also will be the moment of my triumph. she (or he) will not celebrate my triumph openly, but it will be none the less real. and my reputation for accuracy and calm restraint will be consolidated. if, by a rare mischance, i am in error, it will be vastly better for me in the day of my undoing that i have not been too positive now. besides, nobody has appointed me sole custodian of the great truth concerning the rent of the joneses' new flat. i was not brought into the world to be a safe-deposit, and more urgent matters summon me to effort.' if one of us had meditated thus, much needless friction would have been avoided and power saved; amour-propre would not have been exposed to risks; the sacred cause of truth would not in the least have suffered; and the rent of the joneses' new flat would anyhow have remained exactly what it is.

in addition to straining the machine by our excessive anxiety for the spread of truth, we give a very great deal too much attention to the state of other people's machines. i cannot too strongly, too sarcastically, deprecate this astonishing habit. it will be found to be rife in nearly every household and in nearly every office. we are most of us endeavouring to rearrange the mechanism in other heads than our own. this is always dangerous and generally futile. considering the difficulty we have in our own brains, where our efforts are sure of being accepted as well-meant, and where we have at any rate a rough notion of the machine's construction, our intrepidity in adventuring among the delicate adjustments of other brains is remarkable. we are cursed by too much of the missionary spirit. we must needs voyage into the china of our brother's brain, and explain there that things are seriously wrong in that heathen land, and make ourselves unpleasant in the hope of getting them put right. we have all our own brain and body on which to wreak our personality, but this is not enough; we must extend our personality further, just as though we were a colonising world-power intoxicated by the idea of the 'white man's burden.'

one of the central secrets of efficient daily living is to leave our daily companions alone a great deal more than we do, and attend to ourselves. if a daily companion is conducting his life upon principles which you know to be false, and with results which you feel to be unpleasant, the safe rule is to keep your mouth shut. or if, out of your singular conceit, you are compelled to open it, open it with all precautions, and with the formal politeness you would use to a stranger. intimacy is no excuse for rough manners, though the majority of us seem to think it is. you are not in charge of the universe; you are in charge of yourself. you cannot hope to manage the universe in your spare time, and if you try you will probably make a mess of such part of the universe as you touch, while gravely neglecting yourself. in every family there is generally some one whose meddlesome interest in other machines leads to serious friction in his own. criticise less, even in the secrecy of your chamber. and do not blame at all. accept your environment and adapt yourself to it in silence, instead of noisily attempting to adapt your environment to yourself. here is true wisdom. you have no business trespassing beyond the confines of your own individuality. in so trespassing you are guilty of impertinence. this is obvious. and yet one of the chief activities of home-life consists in prancing about at random on other people's private lawns. what i say applies even to the relation between parents and children. and though my precept is exaggerated, it is purposely exaggerated in order effectively to balance the exaggeration in the opposite direction.

all individualities, other than one's own, are part of one's environment. the evolutionary process is going on all right, and they are a portion of it. treat them as inevitable. to assert that they are inevitable is not to assert that they are unalterable. only the alteration of them is not primarily your affair; it is theirs. your affair is to use them, as they are, without self-righteousness, blame, or complaint, for the smooth furtherance of your own ends. there is no intention here to rob them of responsibility by depriving them of free-will while saddling you with responsibility as a free agent. as your environment they must be accepted as inevitable, because they are inevitable. but as centres themselves they have their own responsibility: which is not yours. the historic question: 'have we free-will, or are we the puppets of determinism?' enters now. as a question it is fascinating and futile. it has never been, and it never will be, settled. the theory of determinism cannot be demolished by argument. but in his heart every man, including the most obstinate supporter of the theory, demolishes it every hour of every day. on the other hand, the theory of free-will can be demolished by ratiocination! so much the worse for ratiocination! if we regard ourselves as free agents, and the personalities surrounding us as the puppets of determinism, we shall have arrived at the working compromise from which the finest results of living can be obtained. the philosophic experience of centuries, if it has proved anything, has proved this. and the man who acts upon it in the common, banal contracts and collisions of the difficult experiment which we call daily life, will speedily become convinced of its practical worth.

该作者的其它作品

《how to live on 24 hours a day》