The Dilemma of Action

In my previous post I spoke a lot of taking action in the world and not allowing the conscious mind to get caught in a loop of hesitation (often stimulated by a struggle between fear and the desire to overcome that fear). This stems from a long trend of my own experiences in which I have had a tendency, particularly in childhood, to avoid being deliberately involved in my own life. I tended to stick to the shadows and watch the world, rather than participate in it. Whether from fear, or from exclusion due to a peer group that saw me as an oddity that should be ostracized from the primary enclave, I was not often a contributing part of the larger whole.

As I strove to break out of my cocoon and become something stronger and more capable of experiencing life -- I fought to instill within myself a more outgoing and social personality. It was a long struggle with the internal turmoil of self-assessment that teetered between self-confidence and self-deprecation. Even now, standing where I am, writing in this moment, there are wavering fragments of self-criticism that do not contribute to a peace of mind. In keeping with the effort to find a true comfort within my own skin, I am now wearing this body in appreciation for its complexity. The perfections and imperfections are not separate, but merely complement one another in such a fashion that breathing is artwork.

Now, I have become an entity capable of taking action. I have found a lot of common ground between my previous indecisiveness and my desire to be spontaneous and capable of enjoying the active participation in the world around me. I could list off achievements of mine that are a direct result of this success in engaging the world, but that would merely be living in the past, and not living in this moment. Instead, I am utilizing this blog post to reflect on something else that has occurred to me in the process of contemplating Zen philosophy. It is the apparent contradiction of "taking action".

Now I know I said in my first post that there is no duality, no contradictory nature to true existence. All contradiction and separation between states is merely an illusion created in trying to separate the world into as many pieces as possible, in an effort to categorize and control. This is something I whole heartily agree with, but also something that a future blog post should likely explore in more detail (purely for the sake of my own intrigue into this incredible experience of ours known as life).

In our "Westernized" view of the world, we have a tendency to believe that the only true proof of anything is "in the action", and not in the words. I would call this cliche, but then the very nature of something being cliche is yet another separate blog I must write. (cue laughter). Instead, let us explore this notion of the idea that we must take action upon a belief to prove it true. The rationale behind action is, that anything short of altering the physical world around us, achieves nothing. If we say one thing, but do not actually demonstrate a willingness to take any actions necessary to uphold those statements, we are merely preaching. Preaching without direct involvement is an apparent testament to our own hypocritical nature. It is not to say that this philosophy of action is not a valid perspective. Many a battle has been fought by those who listened, while those who motivated stood by in idle chatter in the cheap seats of observation -- awaiting the outcome of the chess match as the king awaits check mate.

Some would argue that the burden of leadership is in making the decisions and being required to have others follow those decisions. The argument can break down further. One one side we see the lack of direct involvement as protecting of the mind while the extremities of the body take the necessary risks to protect the "more vital organs". Alternatively, we can observe the lack of involvement as that of a parasite that cannot allow itself to be exposed to the direct and harsh realities of the outside world it is attempting to influence. Of course this is all a much more complex situation, in which shades of gray and levels of "involvement" are now being discussed. It is not my desire to create an entire essay on the conditions of human leadership as a commentary on government. This is not a political piece. I am merely exploring aspects of involvement in the world and the methods by which some people are more mentally involved and others are more physically involved. Both of these forms, be they the leaders barking orders at peons, or be they the peons obeying those orders -- are participating in the world through a type of action.

So if I sit by the wayside and neither tell anyone what to do, nor do anything that someone tells me to do. If I truly sit in a full lotus position, and close my eyes and meditate. Then, I am truly not taking action. If I sit at home and watch TV every night, I am taking no action. If I do not speak with other people, I am taking no action.

By the very effort of writing this blog and making it available for other people to consume, I am taking action.

After reading through all of these words thus far, I am sure you're waiting for me to draw some moral or ethical perspective or reach a conclusion based on evidence. You're sitting there twiddling your thumbs thinking: "So, is action the best way to live, or is inaction the best way to live?"

But I am not entirely done exploring these ideas.

Through the lack of action, I may allow some great tragedy to occur.

If I do not tell another person that I see someone carrying a loaded firearm into a public place, I may allow that person to commit murder and take the lives of other people.

If I am sitting somewhere (location is not important), and someone falls to the ground clutching their chest in clear indication of a heart attack, and I sit there and do not call for help or attempt CPR -- am I killing that person? Does a lack of effort to prevent death, constitute murder? Why should I help a complete stranger? How could I allow another human being to perish?

Most Western philosophies stem from schools that teach ethics and morals as absolutes. There are no other alternatives. Good and evil are separate, and all that exists in life is the struggle between the two. But, what if this is a lie? What if good and evil are not separate, but merely there to complement one another? Just as night and day complement one another. No life would function without change. Equilibrium is peace, but equilibrium is more accurately described from a biological perspective as: death. But the contemplation of good and evil are also yet another blog topic I should save for another, more focused discourse.

Let us say that action in a pool of water disturbs the sand at the bottom of the water. The sand rises and turns to cloudy mud. In stepping into the pool and moving around (taking direct involvement), the pool becomes cloudy and impossible to see in. Only by standing still, or removing one's self completely from the pool, can one allow the muddied water to settle, once more making the water clear. Clear water is the only type of water we can see through. If we wish to see the world in which we wish to involve ourselves, we must sit still. Sitting still is necessary to gain the perspective. Clear perspective to be able, through thoughtful contemplation, be capable of arriving at appropriate decisions to potentially take the first correct action in the first place.

One could argue, the less action taken, the more peaceful the world is. Of course taken to the literal end of that perspective, the only truly peaceful world is one completely lacking in any life form of any kind. The complete absence of life, defeats the entire purpose of living. A complete removal of the self from the world, while it may bring about peace, defeats the entire purpose of the individual existence. I don't theorize that removal of the self from the world is something to strive for. Complete absence to provide the world with a true equilibrium (equilibrium is peace), is merely creating a dead world. Death is not the ultimate goal of living, it is merely the end of the story.

I believe appropriate balance through thoughtful contemplation, is the best approach. Complete and total involvement in the world is just as unhealthy as complete removal. You will muddy the waters constantly and never see anything with the possible clarity to enjoy life or "make a difference". And to be cliche: stopping to smell the roses allows you to actually experience the roses. Is not experiencing life the primary thing we should all strive for? If one is either too busy to stop and experience, or one does not experience at all -- one completely misses the roses in both cases. I think. I don't stop thinking. I don't merely think and prevent action by only thinking. Realizing the difference between this post and the previous one about thoughtful contemplation, is key. I am saying here: apply the thoughtful contemplation and use it to decide the appropriate times to sit still and appreciate the movement around one's place of stillness; alternatively, use the appropriate moments of involvement in the world, to enjoy and achieve ones goals. In this fashion, one resolves the dilemma of action, by realizing that all things are connected. All connections imply that one will do as one chooses, and choice is key to the nature of being a part of the whole, and a whole of the part.