（二月）
前记自纽约归，车中读一文论“不争之道德”（本卷第一一则，五二七页），归后作长书投之作者普耳君（Frederick J. Pohl），表吾之同意。其人得之，甚感吾意，今日答一长书，遂订交焉。
吾书之大旨如下（录原书一节）：
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 ofmeumto 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 therightattitude, 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)
〔中译〕
在我看来，当今世界迫切的需要就是彻底废除过分的自我至上。当今的道德过于推崇自我中心。自我保存的思想很少遭到批评，自然许多出于私利的考虑都借着自我保存的名义得以进行，而且许多罪恶也以它的名义而发生！为了改正这个积习已久的错误，我们应尽力拓展现时这个自我观念，推翻自我保存的迷信，不应以它为最高的本能，而应采取不争主义的态度，不应抱谋私利的态度，而应采取正义的态度。这种不应是被迫的，而应是自觉自愿的。我以为世界的拯救应从那些久已被人忘却的真理中去寻找……
（二月二日）
普君答书曰：
Your letter of appreciation of my communication to theNew Republicgave 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. …
〔中译〕
你的来信赞赏我在《新共和》上发表的文章，使我极为高兴。在我需要支持之时，你给了我莫大的鼓励。这说明至少还有一个读者能以清晰的眼光看清这个道理，这使我相信还会有其他人也能接受。对于你信中所表示的诚意我极为感谢。
在我寄出这篇文章之前我仅找到了两个同情者。文章发表之后，甚至连我的家人也对我说他们不敢苟同我所发表的谬论。我还有一篇更为详细的文章，我一直试图将其发表。正当我几乎就要放弃这个努力，认为它没有发表价值之时，我收到了你的信，它给了我新的热情。
战争的狂热消灭人类是何等的容易！……人类有必要进行一场战争，这场战争不是为了满足亲德或是反德的情绪，而是为了反战的情绪。在更深刻的意义上，是反对使用有形的力量，只需要倡导，或者正如你所指出的，整个问题的关键在于反对自我保存。比利时诗人梅特林克说过：“自我保存乃人类最基本的本能。”他这种想法过于肤浅。当然我们可以同意他的说法。但是不少人在各个时代里都发现还有许多权利比自我保存更起作用，自我保存不是人类最基本的冲动。人会为了责任、荣誉、爱情，甚至复仇等而牺牲自己的生命。个人可以为责任和荣誉心甘情愿地去死，难道一个政府就做不到吗？既然责任感、荣誉感以及国与国之间的兄弟情谊能感召个人，难道就不能感召政府吗？他们确实发出了感召，只不过还没有被对方所认识，或者还没有反响罢了。自我保护主义必须受到挑战！
你在信中说：“应采取不争主义之态度，不应抱谋私利之态度，而应采取正义之态度。”我已在我的文章中表达了同样的想法，我将其称之为“对战争的有效抗争”。我并不相信“不争”，至少我不喜欢这个名词，它是软弱的。我更喜欢“有效的抗争”这个词。使用体力的抗争是效果最差的抗争方式。通常大家都认为一个人如若采取非体力的方式去抗争，那么这个人便是一个不争主义者。绝大多数人仅仅只想到物质和体力的概念，而精神的抗争，宽恕自己的敌人的抗争，“递上另一边脸”去的抗争，才是积极的最为有效的抗争。……