Action and Non-Action

In recent years, I have experienced a debate between two methods of thinking regarding actions in martial arts/life.

On the one side, my personal experience has supported that overly "passive" behavior does not pay off, but aggressive behavior does in many regards. This should be clarified. I do not mean "aggressive" in a violent sort of way. Rather, a better definition would be "proactive behavior with volition." It means to move decisively and confidently towards a desired outcome.

On the other hand, Tai Chi type thinking would say to not be proactive, and only to be reactive — responding to the world in a way that guides one through life via "non-action." It is adaptive to what is offered — something that I have also experienced in life, though usually only on a gross scale.

What I'm really finding though, at least in terms of life, is that neither of these alone is sufficient — like the two halves of the yin/yang, both of these have to work in concert with each other. In some places, you have to be aggressive, decisive, and active. In others, you must be passive, reactionary, and adaptive.

And, like the yin/yang, there is part of each in the other. Within aggressive behavior, there can be passivity; within non-action, there can be proactivity. The key I think, is distributing the methods appropriately (and not that they are separate in execution).

An example from sparring: previously I encouraged for people to not care about one's opponent and move with one's own plan of action. This would be the aggressive behavior. However, such action can also be reactive — as in the case of counter-attacking. My proactive plan might be to never throw an offensive technique and be adaptive to an opponent's movements to counter-attack. It doesn't have to be a blitzkrieg of attacks. Here, the reactive is found within the aggressive.

As in all things, finding the proper balance between these forces is key.