Action Is Not Mere Motion
We cannot of course say that all motion is bad, but we can at least say that the value of motion is never comparable with that of action. What we commonly call impulse is a manifestation of the reflex action of some sense or faculty. When we speak of a man's motions as "blind," "wild," or "furious," it is always a case of response to external stimulus or of the application of external force. Such motions are not spontaneous and they therefore pursue no definite course; they have no basis in the consciousness of the individual and no precise direction or aim; the individual's concern with them is limited to the passing moment of their duration; he envisages nothing as to what may be their result. There may be great initial activity and force, but because there is no basis in reason, consciousness and spontaneity, momentary agitation is succeeded by relapse into quiescence. A man who lives by passion and impulse, who moves rather than acts is like a bell, which when struck vibrates and emits sound but unless struck is silent. All passive and transient activity, arising from mere impulse and sense-stimulation, is in opposition to the positive action required of us by our revolutionary philosophy, for such motion has no lasting effect and is powerless to transform the lives of men.
It is imperative therefore that there should be no confusion of what we mean by action with what is better termed motion. The action of which I have been speaking is the operation of man's innate faculties according to the true natural laws of his being; it is what I have called the expression of conscience in practice, the exercise of conscience. Although we colloquially speak of "violent actions" and "wrong-minded action" in describing men's conduct, such conduct, being that of men acting under the influence of impulse or illusion, should properly be classed as a form of motion. It is not what we mean by action.