Exploring Two Quotes~

I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts. ~John Locke - Never act until you have clearly answered the question: "What happens if I do nothing?" ~Robert Brault

Based on the above quotations, I have generated some thoughts. Regarding John Locke’s quote, I must state that I agree with it to a degree. To expand upon that minimal agreement, I have come up with two scenarios. In the first scenario a human is thinking about something that they want to do. To achieve their end, whatever their end may be, the goal must be thought upon and run in various ways to create the action. The problem I find with the action is that we cannot explore the thoughts themselves in full form. What I mean is that one cannot get into another’s head and experience their processing of information. If we see only the result and we see that result judged as good (What is good?) or bad (What is bad?), how are we truly to interpret their thoughts?

If an average Joe living a simple life grows extra food to help his neighbor, we could see it as good. However, what if Joe has an end that has not yet come to fruition yet? What if Joe wants something from his neighbors that perhaps they would not be willing to give otherwise? How long of a history do we give to a man’s actions before we can say what Joe did was good or bad? How do we interpret their thoughts if the course is not yet full run or full known? Let us say that Joe gives for the rest of his life simply because he wanted to and sought nothing in return. Would Joe’s thoughts be easier to judge in this one specific regard? What if Joe’s neighbor told Joe he knew that Joe was cheating on his wife and they struck a deal for life? What if that tad of information were kept just between them? How then is the action viewed if KNOWN?

In exploring Brault’s quote, I have to mention that “doing nothing” is in fact doing something. It is in itself an action. Say hello to Joe again as I must use the poor pseudo man for my endeavor. Joe has his sights on something which is based on interaction with a group of individuals. Joe has been active within the group for five years, but wants out without having to say why he wants out of the group. The group has a good rapport with each other and is open for the most part. Joe feels that he no longer belongs although he still gets on with the other members. Thus, he has thought up various reasons to leave, but feels that it will create ill will.

When Joe joined the group, it was on the contract that the joining was for life and that those within the group would never part from the whole. Within the past five years, Joe’s views had changed leaving him feeling out of sorts and uncomfortable. He thought about “what happens if I do nothing?” and came to the conclusion that he would remain exactly where he is now by default. Thus, his participation would still be within the group.

Another way to look at this is what if Joe decided that his “doing nothing” would mean not showing up for the meetings, ignoring their calls, and ignoring their house visits. These too are actions, however, is it clearly thought about? No. How long would Joe expect to live with their calling and visits? How would this affect other aspects of his life?

If the ties of the individual are very good despite contract and, respect is a factor of the group/individuals, then it might be in Joe’s interest to calculate each individual’s reaction to his proposal to leave. The “doing nothing” in staying while he thinks, gives him the opportunity to speak to all and perhaps tell the truth in hopes of being respected despite the contract while still maintaining the friendship of the group. This would be an interesting feat.

I guess I could have gone more in depth with this, but my facilities are on the wane. ~ Maggie ~ November 30, 2009 @ 7:42 p.m. EST