Chapter 4 Lecture 3 Negligence Psychology Continuation

In the last lecture we discussed negligence itself, without dealing with its relation to the voluntary act interfered with; we know that there are some instances in which negligence seems to have meaning.If the conclusion that negligence had meaning could hold on a larger scale, the study of meaning would be more interesting than the study of the conditions under which negligence arises. How to explain the meaning of mental processes, we must first have a common point of view.Meaning, it seems to me, is the "intention" by which it signifies, or the place it occupies in the mental process.In most of the instances we have observed, the word "meaning" has been replaced by words such as "intent" and "tendency".Is it only representation, or the poetic exaggeration of the error, that leads us to believe in the presence of an intention in the error?

Now take the slip of the tongue as an example, and examine more of its manifestations, we can see that these instances all have obvious meaning or intention, especially those that say the wrong thing about what they want to say.For example, when the speaker of the parliament delivered an opening speech, he said: "The meeting is adjourned."You could also say, "He said so himself"; we just hit him on the guts.Please don't interrupt and object, thinking that this is impossible, that we know that what he wants is to have a meeting, not to close it, and to think that of course only he himself understands his intention best, and he wants to talk about a meeting.In saying this, you forget that we intended "to discuss faults alone"; and leave the relation of faults to the intentions they disturb for a later time.So you have committed the fallacy of logically "stealing arguments" begging the question, and arbitrarily dealing with the whole issue it discusses.

In other cases, although the slip of the tongue is not exactly the opposite of what is being said, it still expresses a contradictory thought, such as "I don't want to geneigt evaluate the merits of the former professor." "Will not" is not "unworthy" "Geaignet's opposite, but the meaning of this sentence is already in conflict with the attitude the speaker should adopt. In other cases, slips of the tongue simply add a second meaning to the intended meaning.So the wrong sentence still seems to be the condensation of several sentences.For example, when the wayward woman says, "He will only have to eat and drink what I choose." She seems to imply: "Of course his diet is at his own disposal, but what is the use of what he wants? ? I can choose food for him?" Tongue slips often give people this kind of condensed impression.For example, a professor of anatomy gave a lecture on the structure of the nasal cavity. At the end, he asked the students if they could fully understand it. Even in a city of millions of people, there are only a handful of people... No, no, I mean a handful of people." The abbreviation has its own meaning: only he is the only one who understands this problem.

Besides the obvious, there are instances of slips of the tongue whose meaning is not easily understood, and so directly violate our expectations.For example, mispronouncing proper nouns or pronouncing meaningless sounds are very common cases, so based on this alone, we can answer the question "Is the fault all meaningful?"A closer study of these examples now also reveals the fact that this error is not difficult to understand; indeed, there is no difference between these seemingly incomprehensible examples and the earlier, easier ones. What a difference. Someone asked the horse owner how the horse was doing, and the horse owner said: "Ah! It can be 'miserably' stad-it can take another month." "It may take another month".The man asked him again what he meant, and he said he thought it was a tragedy as adbusiness, combining sad and take together became a "tragedy" Stad.see melinger and meyer

Another person mentioned a thing that could be criticized. He went on to say: "So some facts have been refilled again".His explanation is to say that these facts are "dirty", "discovered" revealed and "dirty" filthy combine to become "fadirty" refilled.see melinger and meyer Do you remember that boy wanted to "send humiliation" to an unknown woman.We have analyzed these two words into "insult" and "escort", and now we don't need evidence to know that this analysis is credible.From these examples it can be seen that they can all be interpreted, if not clearly, as a mixture or conflict of two different utterance intentions.The difference is that in the first group of "tongue slips," one intention completely excludes the others, and the speaker completely reverses what he intended to say, while in the second group one intention merely distorts or alters the other , thus resulting in a meaningful or meaningless mixture of glyphs.

We believe that the secrets of most slips of the tongue are now understood.If this layer is understood, then another group of tongue slips that were previously incomprehensible can also be understood.The change of form of a noun, for example, is not always due to the competition of two similar nouns, yet the second intention is easy to see.Inflections of nouns not due to slips of the tongue are common; the object of these inflections is to disparage a name; it is a common form of swearing, which educated men do not want to adopt, but are not willing to give up, it It was disguised as a joke, although it was a very dirty kind of joke.To give a vulgar example, French President Poincare was misrepresented as "SChWeinskarre" "pig-like".We can also go a step further and think that this ironic intention can also be hidden behind the name change caused by tongue slips.If this assumption is correct, a similar explanation could be given for the ridiculous name changes caused by slips of the tongue.For example, a member of Parliament called him "honourable member for Central Hell", and the quiet atmosphere in the venue was suddenly disturbed by this word, which could evoke a ridiculous and unpleasant image.Because these variants have ironic expressions, we have to conclude that there is another meaning behind them: "Don't be deceived. My word is meaningless. Whoever speaks nonsense will send him to hell"!The same interpretation applies to other slips of the tongue, such as changing a perfectly harmless word into a vulgar and obscene one.

The tendency of some people to deliberately turn harmless words into crude ones for fun is a familiar one.Some people take this as funny, but in fact, if you hear this kind of example, you can't help but immediately ask whether it is an intentional joke or an unintentional slip of the tongue. We seem to have solved the riddle of negligence with very little effort.Mistakes are not unprovoked events; they are important mental operations; they are the result of two intentions simultaneously arising—or interfering with each other; they have meaning.I know that you must have many doubts to challenge me, which must be resolved before the results of this effort can arouse your faith.I certainly do not wish to deceive you by rash conclusions, but let us calmly discuss each incident in turn.

What questions will you have?First, Do I think this explanation applies to all instances of slips of the tongue?Or can it only explain a few examples?Secondly, can this concept be applied to many kinds of faults, such as misreading, clerical errors, forgetting, doing wrong things and lost property, etc.?Thirdly, what place do factors such as fatigue, excitement, absent-mindedness, and inattention play in the psychology of faults?Moreover, of the two competing intentions in a negligence, one is often evident and the other not necessarily.How on earth can we figure out the meaning of the latter?Do you have any other questions besides these questions?If not, I'm going to ask a question.Let me remind you that we discuss fault not only in order to understand fault, but in order to understand the essence of psychoanalysis.So I have the following question: what purpose or disposition is it that interferes with other intentions?And what is the relationship between the tendency to interfere and the tendency to be interfered with?So as soon as the mystery of negligence is solved, further efforts begin again.

Is this the explanation of all slips of the tongue?I would say it is true.why?For we can arrive at this conclusion if we examine an example of a slip of the tongue.But we cannot prove that all slips of the tongue are governed by this law.It doesn't get in the way, though; for our purposes, this layer is theoretically insignificant.But even if the cases of slips of the tongue we explain are only a small number of cases, the conclusions we want to illustrate psychoanalysis are still valid; ?Second question: Can this explanation be applied to other types of negligence?We can also answer in the affirmative in advance.You will also be convincing when discussing examples of clerical errors and mistakes in the future.However, for the sake of narrative, I would like to suspend this work until we have studied tongue slips more fully.

What do some scholars consider important factors such as disturbances in the circulatory system, fatigue, excitement, distraction, and poor concentration to us now?If the psychological mechanism of negligence is as described above, this question must be answered more thoroughly.You must know that I am by no means denying these factors.To be honest, there is probably no controversy about what psychoanalysis claims in other respects; psychoanalysis simply wants to add some fresh material to what has been said before.Sometimes it is the most important part of the event that was previously neglected and now added by psychoanalysis.Physical tendencies, such as ailments, circulatory disorders, and fatigue, etc., can of course cause slips of the tongue; and this is what everyday experience would have you believe.But what does the admission of this explain?They are not necessary conditions for negligence.Tongue slips can also occur in perfectly healthy and normal conditions.So the physical factor is only supplementary; it can only give considerable convenience to the special mental mechanism that produces the slip of the tongue.I used a metaphor before; now I can't find a better one, so I still use this metaphor.For example, I was walking in a secluded place in the dark, and a hooligan came and robbed me of my money and my watch. The robber’s face could not be seen clearly at that time. things." The chief of public security might tell me, "In fact, you seem to believe too much in an extreme mechanical point of view. Your accusation should be that a thief who didn't see clearly took advantage of the darkness and solitude to act recklessly, and then took your The money and goods are stolen. From my point of view, the most important thing is to catch the thief. After catching the thief, maybe you can get the stolen goods back."

Psychophysiological causes such as excitement, distraction, inattention, etc. obviously do not count as explanations.They are just nouns; in other words: they are curtains, and we need to look behind them.Our question should be: What exactly is causing the excitement or distraction?The influence of sound value, similarity of words, associations shared by certain words, etc. are important, because they point out a way for mistakes to be vented; but even if there is a way ahead, can it be guaranteed that I will definitely take this way? ?I also need a motive that compels me to follow this path.Therefore, these sound value and word associations are just like physical conditions, which are only the cause of tongue slips, and cannot be the real explanation of tongue slips.Many of the innumerable words I use in my lectures sound like other words, or are closely associated with their opposite senses or common expressions, but I seldom use them wrongly.The philosopher Wundt believes that if the original intention is subject to the tendency of association due to physical fatigue, it is easy to cause tongue slips.This seems plausible, but it is contradicted by experience, since in most cases tongue slips have no physical or associative cause. What particularly interests me is your next question: how are the two interfering tendencies measured?You may not realize the importance of this question.One of these two tendencies, the disturbed one, is easily recognizable; the erring man knows it and admits it.It is only another, the so-called tendency to interfere, that arouses suspicion.You must remember that we have said that this tendency is sometimes obvious, and we can see the nature of this tendency in the results of mistakes as long as we have the courage to admit our mistakes.The speaker reversed what he wanted to say. He obviously wanted to open the meeting, but it was also obvious that he wanted to close the meeting in his heart.It's so clear that no further explanation is needed.But in other cases, the interfering tendency merely transforms the original tendency without fully revealing itself—how can we detect the interfering tendency in this modification? In a certain set of examples, we can use very stable and simple methods, in other words, what method you use to determine the tendency to be interfered, you can now use the same method to measure the tendency to interfere.After the speaker used a typo, we questioned him, and he restored the original word he intended to say. "Ah! It's worse than stad—no, it's another month." He could also add a tendency to interfere.We may ask him why he said "miserably" in the first place?He said, "I was going to say it was a horrible thing." In another example, the speaker used the word "fat" and said he wanted to say it was a dirty thing, but reined in it. itself, and substitute another representation.Its tendency to interfere is as obvious as its tendency to be interfered with.The origins and explanations of these examples are not invented by me or those who help me, I have chosen them for a purpose.We must ask the speaker why he made this error, and ask him if he can explain it.If he does not ask, he may let it go without seeking an explanation.But when questioned, he spoke the first thought that occurred to him.You should know that this small help and its result are the prototype of the psychoanalysis we are going to discuss. However, I am afraid that you have only just understood the concept of psychoanalysis, and you will inevitably develop an immediate resistance to it.Aren't you trying to protest that what the errant tells us is not entirely solid evidence?You take it as a matter of course that he wants to satisfy your desire for an explanation, and therefore tell you the first thought that occurred to him.Neither you nor I have considerable evidence as to whether this error really arose from this.It may be so, it may not be.He might also want an alternative explanation. Obviously, you are too contemptuous of psychological facts. You think that if someone conducts a chemical analysis of a certain substance and determines the weight of a certain component in it to be several milligrams.From this obtained weight he can draw a certain conclusion.Do you think a chemist would doubt these conclusions for fear that the isolated substance might have some other weight?Anyone would know that the matter has only this weight and nothing else, and therefore build further conclusions on this basis without hesitation.With regard to psychological facts, when it is said that a man is cross-examined with this idea in mind and no other, you disbelieve it, and think that he may have something else in mind.In fact, this is all an illusion of your unwillingness to give up the psychological freedom in your heart.On this point, I'm sorry to say that I have the opposite opinion of yours. Now you will have another kind of protest, thinking: "We know that psychoanalysis has a special technique that enables the analysand to solve the problems of psychoanalysis. For example, the speaker after the meal asked everyone to get up and burp to wish the guests health. You say that the inclination to interfere is to make fun of; this inclination conflicts with the inclination to respect customers. But this is only your interpretation, based on observations which have nothing to do with the slip of the tongue. Suppose you ask the errant He not only disagrees with his insulting meaning, but also vehemently denies it. Why don’t you give up your unprovable explanation when others firmly deny it?” Yes, this time your rebuttal can be powerful.I could picture the unknown speaker; perhaps he was the assistant to the chief guest, perhaps a young lecturer, a promising youth.I asked him if he knew he was feeling a little less respectful of his leadership.Then a quarrel broke out, and he became impatient, and said to me angrily: "You have asked enough questions, if you say more, please don't blame me for being rude. Your doubts are enough to destroy my life's career. I By saying auf twice, I mistook anstossen for aufstossen. This is an example of what Mellinger calls 'speech persistence', and there is absolutely no other malice behind it. You know? That's enough." A startled reaction, a truly powerful protest.I know we don't have to doubt him anymore, but I think he seems too aggressive when he says his mistake was harmless.He needn't have been thrown into a rage by purely doctrinal studies, and you'll probably agree with that, but you'd still think he should know for himself what he's going to say and what he's not going to say. Should he know?I'm afraid it's still a question. You think you have refuted me by now.I hear you say: "That is your skill. If the interpretation of the wrongdoer agrees with your point of view, you declare him to be the last witness on the matter, as he himself said! But if what he says agrees with If your point of view does not agree, you immediately declare that what he said is unsubstantiated, and you don’t need to believe it.” That's not bad.But I can give a similar example.For example, in court, if the defendant pleads guilty, the judge will believe him; if the defendant pleads not guilty, the judge will not believe him.If this were not the case, the law could not be enforced; and although there are occasional mistakes, you must always admit that this legal system is effective. "Well, are you a judge? Is the person who said the wrong thing the defendant in front of you? Is a tongue slip a crime?" You don't have to refute this metaphor.You know that on the question of negligence we have differences of opinion which we do not yet know how to reconcile.I therefore propose the analogy of the judge and the criminal as a basis for a tentative reconciliation.You should admit that the significance of the fault, if admitted by the analyst, should be beyond doubt.In my opinion, I also admit that if the analysand refuses to speak directly, or even refuses to meet, then direct evidence must not be obtained.We are then obliged to use other evidence as an aid to inference, as a judge does in a case.Conviction in court, for practical reasons, may also use circumstantial evidence.Psychoanalysis does not have this need, but it is not impossible to take such evidence into account.You would be mistaken if you believed that science could only have proven propositions, and it would be unjust to require this of science.Only those who have a desire for authority, even those who want to replace religious dogma with scientific dogma, have this requirement.In fact science as dogma has but a handful of unambiguous principles; it consists chiefly of statements with varying degrees of probability.It is a characteristic of scientists that they can be satisfied with things that are close to the truth, and although they lack final proof, they can also carry out creative work. But if the analysand does not want to explain the meaning of the fault, where are we to find the starting point of the explanation and the data as evidence?We can have several sources: First, it can be based on similar phenomena that are not caused by negligence. For example, if a person changes the form due to a mistake and changes the form due to intention, there will be a sense of ridicule behind it.Secondly, according to the psychological situation which caused the fault and the character of the faulter and the emotions before the error, the fault may be a reaction of these emotions.Generally speaking, we seek the meaning of the fault on the basis of general principles; at first it is only a conjecture, a provisional solution, which is later proved by the study of the psychic situation.Sometimes it is necessary to wait for further manifestations of the meaning of the fault to be investigated before we can confirm whether our surmises are correct. Now if we limit ourselves to slips of the tongue, although I still have a few good examples, I am afraid it will not be easy to give you such evidence.The young man who wanted to "disgrace" a certain lady was actually very shy; the lady who said that her husband wanted to eat and drink her favorite drinks and food, I know she is a woman who runs a strict house, or give another example example.At a club meeting, a young member attacked others violently during his speech. He called the members of the committee "Lenders of the Committee" (meaning the money lenders in the committee) and replaced "members" (meaning committee members) with Lenders (money lenders).We conjecture that some interfering tendencies connected with lending were active when he attacked others.In fact, I was told that the orator was always in financial difficulty and was trying to get into debt at that time.So its tendency to interfere can indeed be translated into the following thought: "You should be a little more careful when you protest! These are the people you want to borrow money from." If I speak of other kinds of fault, I can give you many instances of this circumstantial evidence. If a person forgets a familiar proper name and cannot keep it in memory even though he tries very hard, we can guess that the person must not like him, so we don't want to remember it.If we remember this level, we can discuss the following psychological situations of faults. Mr. Y fell in love with Ms. X, but Ms. X had no feelings for him. Soon after, she married Mr. X. Although Mr. Y already knew Mr. X and had a business relationship with him, but now he has repeatedly forgotten Mr. X's name, so that whenever he needs to write to him, he has to ask others for his name. Mr. Y obviously wanted to completely forget his lucky rival and never think of him again. Another example is that a lady asks a doctor about a girlfriend they both know.She used the girlfriend's pre-married surname, forgetting her married surname.She admitted that she was against the marriage and that she hated her girlfriend's husband. The forgetting of proper names will be discussed in detail later; it is the psychic situation which induces the forgetting to which we are concerned. The forgetting about "resolution" is probably due to an opposite emotion, which prevents "resolution" from being carried out.It is not only psychoanalysts who have this view; the attitude of ordinary people in their daily affairs is usually the same, but they just refuse to admit it psychologically.If a benefactor forgets the request of the benefactor, even if the benefactor apologizes, it will not make the benefactor feel free.From the benefactor's point of view, the benefactor obviously ignored him too much; he granted what he asked, but he didn't mean to put it into practice.Therefore, even in daily life, forgetting sometimes inevitably causes resentment. It can be seen that psychoanalysts and ordinary people do not seem to have any differences in the concept of fault.Imagine a hostess who sees a visitor and says, "Are you here today? I forgot today's appointment." Or a young man tells his lover that he has canceled all the appointments they made last time. forgotten.In fact, he would never admit it; he would concoct all sorts of absurd and improbable facts in a split second to prevent him from keeping his appointment, and to make it impossible for him to give her news until now.We all know that in the army forgetfulness cannot be used as an excuse to get forgiveness from punishment; the system is recognized as just.In this way, everyone immediately recognizes that a certain fault has a meaning, and knows what that meaning is.Why don't they openly admit this knowledge by assigning it to other faults?This question naturally has a comparable answer. Since the meaning of forgetting "determination" is beyond doubt in the minds of ordinary people, it is no wonder that writers also use this error to express a similar meaning.Those of you who have seen or read George Bernard Shaw's "Caesar and Cleopatra" will remember that when Caesar left the scene in the final scene, he felt deeply disturbed that he had forgotten one thing to do.Finally, I remembered that I hadn't said goodbye to Cleopatra.The author wants to use this literary technique to express Caesar's sense of arrogance, which Caesar neither felt nor longed for.From the perspective of history, you can know that Caesar took Cleopatra to Rome, and when Caesar was assassinated, Cleopatra and her children were still living in Rome, and then fled from the city go. The significance of these examples of forgetting "resolution" is obvious, so it is not very useful for our purposes.Because our purpose is to obtain clues to the meaning of the fault from the psychological situation.So now please discuss a kind of fault that is not easy to understand, that is, the loss of things.You think that lost objects can cause trouble, so you may not believe that lost objects have a purpose, but there are many such examples.A young man lost a pencil he loved.A few days ago, his brother-in-law sent him a letter. The letter ended with these words: "I don't have the time and inclination to encourage you to wander around." It turned out that the pencil was a gift from the brother-in-law.Without this incident in advance, we certainly cannot say that there was an intention to abandon the gift behind his lost items.There are countless similar examples.A person loses something, either because he quarreled with the giver and does not want to remember him, or because he hates old things, he tries to find an excuse to obtain newer and better things.Another example is to lose, damage, or destroy objects, which can also be used to achieve similar purposes.Can a child break his belongings such as a watch and school bag the day before his birthday as an accident? A person who has ever been disturbed by a lost item will not want to believe that he did it on purpose.Sometimes, however, we can also see a temporary or permanent abandonment from the context of the lost property.The following is perhaps the best example. A young man told me this story: "A few years ago, my wife and I had a lot of misunderstandings. I thought she was too cold. Although I would like to admit her virtues, we lived together without affection. One day she came back from a walk and bought A book was given to me, thinking it might cheer me up. I thanked her for her concern, promised to read it, put it in the clutter, and never found it again. Months passed, sometimes I came across this book by chance, but couldn't find it anywhere. About six months later, my mother became ill. She lived quite a distance from our home. My wife went to my mother's place to nurse her. My mother was seriously ill, but my wife There is a chance for the virtues of my life to be manifested. I came home one night with a heart full of gratitude to my wife. I went to the desk and opened a drawer, with no definite intention, but with some vague confidence .The book that I had lost and sought but could not find now appeared in front of me." Now that the motive is gone, the lost thing can be found. Such examples, I may be able to cite one by one to infinity, but I do not want to do so.You can find many examples of faults in my Psychopathology of Everyday Life, first published in 1901.These examples are all used to illustrate the same fact.You will see from these examples that errors have a purpose, and how to infer or verify their meaning from the accompanying situation.I do not want to quote too much today, because our present purpose is to use the study of these phenomena as an introduction to psychoanalysis.There are only two points left for me to touch on now: 1. Repeated and mixed faults, and 2. Our explanation can be proved by subsequent facts. Repeated and mixed faults are indeed the best representatives of faults.If we want to prove that faults have significance, we should confine ourselves to them, for their significance is understandable to the most foolish and convincing to the faultfinder.As for the repetition of mistakes, it can be seen that it must have intentions, rather than things happening for no reason.As for the transformation of one kind of fault into another, the element of the fault can be seen; this element is not the form of the fault, nor the method it uses, but the tendency to use the fault to achieve the goal.Let me give you an example of repeated forgetting.Jones said he once left a written letter on his desk for days for unknown reasons.Later, he decided to post it, but he forgot to fill in the recipient's name and address on the envelope, so he couldn't deliver it and was returned.After it was filled, it was sent to the post office again, but this time no stamp was affixed.So he had to admit that he had a vague reluctance to post the letter. Another example is taking something belonging to someone else by mistake and then losing it.A certain lady traveled to Rome with her brother-in-law, a famous painter.The Germans living in Rome gave him a feast, and, among other things, gave him a quaint gold medal.The lady was upset that her brother-in-law didn't think much of this delicate gift.After her sister came, she went back to the country. When she opened her luggage, she found that she had brought back the gold medal—how she brought it back, she didn't know.She immediately wrote to her brother-in-law saying that she should return the treasure she had taken by mistake the next day.But on the next day, the badge suddenly disappeared and could not be found anywhere, so that it could not be returned as promised.That's when she realized that her negligence was intentional, and its purpose was to keep this work of art for herself. I have already told you an example of a combination of forgetting and negligence.You should remember that someone forgets an appointment, and the next day, he decides not to forget again, but the time he arrives is not the time for the meeting.There is a friend who loves both literature and art and science.He told me a similar example from his own experience.He said: "A few years ago, I was elected as a reviewer of a certain literary society because I thought it might be possible to use it to make my play public in the F theater. Since then, I have repeatedly forgotten to go to the theater. Yes. After reading your work on the subject, I condemned myself to the baseness of not going to the meeting because these people were no longer helpful to me. Therefore, I resolved next Friday not to forget When I arrived at the meeting, I reminded myself many times that I fulfilled my promise. To my surprise, I got to the door of the venue, but the door was closed, and the meeting had already ended. It turned out that I had misremembered the date by one day, and that day was already It's Saturday!" I would have liked to collect more examples of this kind, but now I shall move on and refer you to those whose explanations have yet to be confirmed in the future. The point of these instances is, as we might suppose, that the psychological context was not yet known, or as yet undeterminable.So at that time our explanation was just a hypothesis, which could not have much power.But then other events happened that could be used to confirm the previous explanation.I was once a guest at the home of a newlyweds. The young wife smiled and told her recent experience. She said that on the first day after returning from her honeymoon, she invited her sister to go shopping. Her husband had gone to work. up.Suddenly she saw a man in the street, she nudged her sister and said, "Look, that's Mr. K." She had forgotten that this man was her husband of a few weeks.I was disturbed by this story, but dared not act it out.Years later, the unhappy ending of this marriage reminded me of this little story. Metter has a story about a lady who, on the eve of her wedding, forgot to try on her bridal gown, to the great anxiety of the seamstress; later remembered that it was late at night.Soon after her marriage, she was deserted by her husband.Mett believes that forgetting to try clothes has nothing to do with this matter.I also know a woman who has divorced her husband.She often signs with her maiden name on money transactions.In this way, after many years, she was indeed called Miss again.I also know several other women who lost their wedding rings on their honeymoon, and I know their wedding history is the reason for the missing rings.Now give a strange example with better results.There was a famous chemist in Germany. When he got married, he forgot the wedding, and instead of going to the church, he walked into the laboratory.Later, he never married again. You may think that the faults in these instances are somewhat like what the ancients called omens.In fact, the omens are indeed mistakes, such as slipping or falling.Other omens belong, of course, to objective events and not to subjective actions.But you will not believe it, but it is sometimes not easy to decide whether a particular instance belongs to the first or the second.Because active action is often disguised as a passive experience. If we look back on our past experience of life, we must say that if we had the courage and determination to regard some small faults as omens, and to take them as signs of tendencies before they were obvious, we must have avoided many disappointments. and distressed.In fact, we often do not have the courage and determination to avoid ridicule of superstition.And the omens do not always come true; our theory will show you how they do not necessarily come true.