Hurrah! Thanks to the Scientologists' persistent mailings to our address I have now got an explanation of one of Shakespeare's more taxing soliliquays, all in plain English, courtesy of Mr L. Ron Hubbard. I quote directly from his article entitled 'Duplication - Cause and Effect':
'How long do you think you would actually survive in the state you're in right now if you couldn't be freely an effect? If you couldn't be an effect, for instance, of food, of shade, of water, you certainly wouldn't survive very long. Survival itself, when we get into the field of survival, is utterly dependant upon an individual being able to be an effect. But as he becomes less and less able to be an effect, so he more and more has to struggle to survive. And the struggles to survival is the struggle to be an effect but not to be an effect.
And that was what Shakespeare meant...when he wrote "to be or not to be".'
I swear I'm not making this stuff up.