Brother Rongxi: Your letter of July 14th offers exceptionally insightful observations on various points. Indeed, physical health is a major issue. You argue that Chinese scholars often sacrifice their bodies for the sake of learning because of the extremely poor conditions in their families, society, and schools—these are objective reasons, and they are valid. However, there are also subjective factors, namely psychological inertia. Once reading becomes a habit, people tend to keep going without taking breaks. According to hygienic principles, after each hour of mental work, one should rest for fifteen minutes; yet I often continue for three or four hours straight, sometimes even day and night, not out of enthusiasm but out of sheer exhaustion that I cannot shake off. In my view, manual laborers in China are generally quite strong, whereas those who suffer from frailty are almost exclusively scholars. To correct this problem, on the societal level, we must strive to create a healthier environment. On the individual level, we should cultivate the habit of combining work with study; at the very least, we ought to balance reading with play. My own life has become excessively strenuous. While Mr. Huai Zhong was still alive, he repeatedly urged me to moderate my workload and get more rest, but I could never bring myself to follow his advice. Now I have resolved to spend two months in the city and then one week in the countryside. This time, I went to Pingxiang specifically to rest, and henceforth I plan to take such trips roughly once every two months.

Your discussion of the “four illusions” is the most thorough I have ever encountered. If only we could print forty million copies of your words and distribute one to every person in China! Emotional life is indeed crucial in human existence, but emotions should not be used to judge matters. Generalizing from a part to the whole constitutes a spatial error; extrapolating from a moment to eternity is a temporal error; and projecting one’s feelings onto external reality while ignoring objective facts is a combined emotional-spatial fallacy. All four represent logical errors. Recently, I have frequently engaged in heated debates with friends, all revolving around these same four pitfalls. I am relatively confident that I make fewer mistakes concerning the latter three, but when it comes to emotional judgments, I am unfortunately prone to them. However, my emotional responses do not stem from the examples you mentioned; rather, they arise from interpersonal issues. I often find myself disapproving of certain figures in the public sphere or noticing flaws in their character, which leads me to doubt the validity of their arguments. Dismissing someone’s views simply because of personal feelings is undoubtedly a weakness of mine, one that I must work to correct in the future. I frequently fall into these same logical errors when speaking passionately or agitatedly—though in such cases I am usually aware that I am making a mistake, akin to knowingly breaking a rule (this also applies when writing).

Regarding the “Association for Promoting Industry and Learning,” I understand it has been renamed the “World Industrial Society.” As I lack detailed information, please write to me about its organization, activities, and other relevant matters. I have not yet received your reply. As for exchanging publications, I can certainly arrange that. Please continue sending your manuscripts to the Changsha Cultural Bookstore, where I will receive them.

A marriage system based on capitalism is utterly unacceptable. In theory, it legalizes the most unjust form of rape while prohibiting the most reasonable expression of free love. In practice, the countless grievances voiced by men and women worldwide can all be traced back to this very system. I believe many people have already spoken out against this marriage regime, yet no concrete action has been taken. The reason for this inaction lies solely in fear. Upon hearing about the “Xiang-Cai Alliance,” I was delighted: Xiang and Cai have broken free from that fear and are advocating for a world without marriage. I propose that we follow their lead and establish a “No-Marriage Alliance.” For those who have already entered into marriage contracts, I oppose any attempts at humanitarian intervention to dissolve them. For those who remain unmarried, however, we should actively promote the idea of foregoing marriage altogether. Once the alliance is formed, its members should immediately organize themselves into an “army,” initially adopting a defensive stance—protecting ourselves from external adversaries while simultaneously consolidating internal order to ensure that every member faithfully upholds the alliance’s commitment to abolishing marriage. Later, we can shift to a more proactive approach, beginning to disseminate our message globally and launching campaigns to challenge the institutions that uphold the current marriage system, ultimately striving to liberate all of humanity from this oppressive framework and integrate everyone into our alliance. What I have said may sound like a joke, but in truth, the “family hardships” you lament cannot be avoided without employing such seemingly humorous measures. Even if no one else supports my proposal, I will nonetheless proceed as a lone advocate. I firmly believe that all men and women trapped within the existing marriage system are essentially part of a “rape collective,” and I have long declared my refusal to join such a group. Should you disagree with my views, I kindly request that you express your opposition in writing. Wishing you progress, Ze Dong, November 16, 1920.