joe dees wrote:
>
> We have already considered and rejected nonaction, or forbearance, or wu-wei (doing by nondoing) as a zero-point in this thread with the counterexample of the excellent swimmer who does nothing when hearing the entreaties of a drowning child. Such an absence of (inter)action would generally be considered morally deficient rather than neutral.
> >
> >
> Joe E. Dees
> Poet, Pagan, Philosopher
>
>
I'm thinking non-interaction in a more physical sense. A swimmer sitting on the shore, watching a drowing child, has knowledge of that drowning child. I'm making the implicit assumption here that knowledge can only come from interaction, and that if there is knowledge then there necessarily has been some causal chain linking the two agents.
By non-interaction, I mean agents between which there is no communication, and no causal chain whatsoever.
I didn't say it was a very USEFUL zero point, just one natural one. :)