<SPAN name="XI"></SPAN>
<h2>XI</h2>
<h2>AN INTERLUDE</h2>
<br/>
<p>For ten chapters you have stood it, but
not without protest. I know the feeling
which is in your minds, and which has
manifested itself in numerous criticisms
of my ideas. That feeling may be briefly
translated, perhaps, thus: 'This is all
very well, but it isn't true, not a bit!
It's only a fairy-tale that you have been
telling us. Miracles don't happen,' etc.
I, on my part, have a feeling that unless
I take your feeling in hand at once, and
firmly deal with it, I had better put my
shutters up, for you will have got into the
way of regarding me simply as a source
of idle amusement. Already I can perceive,
from the expressions of some
critics, that, so far as they are concerned,
I might just as well not have written a
word. Therefore at this point I pause,
in order to insist once more upon what I
began by saying.</p>
<p>The burden of your criticism is:
'Human nature is always the same. I
know my faults. But it is useless to tell
me about them. I can't alter them. I
was born like that.' The fatal weakness
of this argument is, first, that it is based
on a complete falsity; and second, that
it puts you in an untenable position.
Human nature <i>does</i> change. Nothing can
be more unscientific, more hopelessly
mediæval, than to imagine that it does
not. It changes like everything else.
You can't see it change. True! But
then you can't see the grass growing—not
unless you arise very early.</p>
<p>Is human nature the same now as in
the days of Babylonian civilisation, when
the social machine was oiled by drenchings
of blood? Is it the same now as in
the days of Greek civilisation, when there
was no such thing as romantic love between
the sexes? Is it the same now as
it was during the centuries when constant
friction had to provide its own cure in the
shape of constant war? Is it the same
now as it was on 2nd March 1819, when
the British Government officially opposed
a motion to consider the severity of the
criminal laws (which included capital
punishment for cutting down a tree, and
other sensible dodges against friction),
and were defeated by a majority of only
nineteen votes? Is it the same now as
in the year 1883, when the first S.P.C.C.
was formed in England?</p>
<p>If you consider that human nature is
still the same you should instantly go out
and make a bonfire of the works of Spencer,
Darwin, and Wallace, and then return
to enjoy the purely jocular side of the
present volume. If you admit that it
has changed, let me ask you how it has
changed, unless by the continual infinitesimal
efforts, <i>upon themselves</i>, of individual
men, like you and me. Did you suppose
it was changed by magic, or by Acts of
Parliament, or by the action of groups on
persons, and not of persons on groups?
Let me tell you that human nature has
changed since yesterday. Let me tell
you that to-day reason has a more powerful
voice in the directing of instinct than
it had yesterday. Let me tell you that
to-day the friction of the machines is
less screechy and grinding than it was
yesterday.</p>
<p>'You were born like that, and you can't
alter yourself, and so it's no use talking.'
If you really believe this, why make any
effort at all? Why not let the whole
business beautifully slide and yield to
your instincts? What object can there
be in trying to control yourself in any
manner whatever if you are unalterable?
Assert yourself to be unalterable, and you
assert yourself a fatalist. Assert yourself
a fatalist, and you free yourself from all
moral responsibility—and other people,
too. Well, then, act up to your convictions,
if convictions they are. If you
can't alter yourself, I can't alter myself,
and supposing that I come along and
bash you on the head and steal your
purse, you can't blame me. You can only,
on recovering consciousness, affectionately
grasp my hand and murmur: 'Don't
apologise, my dear fellow; we can't alter
ourselves.'</p>
<p>This, you say, is absurd. It is. That
is one of my innumerable points. The
truth is, you do not really believe that
you cannot alter yourself. What is the
matter with you is just what is the matter
with me—sheer idleness. You hate getting
up in the morning, and to excuse
your inexcusable indolence you talk big
about Fate. Just as 'patriotism is the
last refuge of a scoundrel,' so fatalism is
the last refuge of a shirker. But you
deceive no one, least of all yourself. You
have not, rationally, a leg to stand on.
At this juncture, because I have made you
laugh, you consent to say: 'I do try, all
I can. But I can only alter myself a very
little. By constitution I am mentally
idle. I can't help that, can I?' Well,
so long as you are not the only absolutely
unchangeable thing in a universe of
change, I don't mind. It is something
for you to admit that you can alter yourself
even a very little. The difference
between our philosophies is now only a
question of degree.</p>
<p>In the application of any system of
perfecting the machine, no two persons
will succeed equally. From the disappointed
tone of some of your criticisms
it might be fancied that I had advertised
a system for making archangels out of
tailors' dummies. Such was not my hope.
I have no belief in miracles. But I know
that when a thing is thoroughly well done
it often has the air of being a miracle.
My sole aim is to insist that every man
shall perfect his machine to the best of
<i>his</i> powers, not to the best of somebody
else's powers. I do not indulge in any
hope that a man can be better than his
best self. I am, however, convinced that
every man fails to be his best self a great
deal oftener than he need fail—for the
reason that his will-power, be it great or
small, is not directed according to the
principles of common sense.</p>
<p>Common sense will surely lead a man to
ask the question: 'Why did my actions
yesterday contradict my reason?' The
reply to this question will nearly always
be: 'Because at the critical moment I
forgot.' The supreme explanation of the
abortive results of so many efforts at self-alteration,
the supreme explanation of
our frequent miserable scurrying into a
doctrine of fatalism, is simple forgetfulness.
It is not force that we lack, but
the skill to remember exactly what our
reason would have us do or think at
the moment itself. How is this skill to
be acquired? It can only be acquired,
as skill at games is acquired, by practice;
by the training of the organ involved to
such a point that the organ acts rightly
by instinct instead of wrongly by instinct.
There are degrees of success in this procedure,
but there is no such phenomenon
as complete failure.</p>
<p>Habits which increase friction can be
replaced by habits which lessen friction.
Habits which arrest development can be
replaced by habits which encourage
development. And as a habit is formed
naturally, so it can be formed artificially,
by imitation of the unconscious process, by
accustoming the brain to the new idea.
Let me, as an example, refer again to the
minor subject of daily friction, and,
within that subject, to the influence of
tone. A man employs a frictional tone
through habit. The frictional tone is an
instinct with him. But if he had a quarter
of an hour to reflect before speaking, and
if during that quarter of an hour he could
always listen to arguments against the
frictional tone, his use of the frictional tone
would rapidly diminish; his reason would
conquer his instinct. As things are, his
instinct conquers his reason by a surprise
attack, by taking it unawares. Regular
daily concentration of the brain, for a
certain period, upon the non-frictional
tone, and the immense advantages of its
use, will gradually set up in the brain a
new habit of thinking about the non-frictional
tone; until at length the brain,
disciplined, turns to the correct act before
the old, silly instinct can capture it;
and ultimately a new sagacious instinct
will supplant the old one.</p>
<p>This is the rationale. It applies to all
habits. Any person can test its efficiency
in any habit. I care not whether he be
of strong or weak will—he can test it.
He will soon see the tremendous difference
between merely 'making a good resolution'—(he
has been doing that all his life
without any very brilliant consequences)—and
concentrating the brain for a given
time exclusively upon a good resolution.
Concentration, the efficient mastery of
the brain—all is there!</p>
<hr style="height: 2px; width: 45%;" />
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />