A Casual Act

    “Thank you all for braving this awful weather and somehow making your way to this inaugural class. I will attempt to make your sacrifice as rewarding as possible. The class as you know is “Casual Acts.” I have found that the term “casual acts” leaps to the presumption that acts are necessarily good. I can only assume that we tend to look to the more positive aspects of life as they are not as depressing. 

    This premise however overlooks an important aspect of humans ability to look out firstly for themselves. More definitively, humans are basically selfish. Selfish meaning greedy, egotistical… words that grip us, because they compel us to look at ourselves and we often don’t like what we see. Casual Acts is a course designed to encourage you examine that selfishness, but rather than encourage you to become more outgoing or generous, use that inherent selfishness to your personal benefit as well as for the good of others. 

    We often find ourselves coalescing with a thought or action by saying nothing, doing nothing, possibly the opposite of our intention.  To be able to change that dynamic, we must learn when not agreeing for one reason or another to just say “no.” I’m not talking about the declaration of an ex-first lady, but a stated defiance that resonates, and all from the implications of saying “no.”

    Don’t fall into the trap of saying more than, “no.” Don’t lessen the impact by adding or subtracting. The word “no,” has all the resonance of an airhorn in in elevator. Don’t say, don’t do, do not imply by extrapolating on the most powerful word in our language.

    What happens when a question is asked and the answer is immediately “no.” The one asking the question, requiring an action, or expecting a silent committal, find themselves on stage with no clothes, naked. 

    What options do they have at that point? None that don’t involve making fools of themselves. Many of you are parents and have therefore found yourself in the unique experience where logic has no value. “Please pick up your toys, wash up for dinner!” A simple declarative statement that is debunked with the simple return serve, “No!” “No” leaves you vulnerable, because you have played your hand and can only speculate as to the response. 

    Arguing, threatening, cajoling, bribing, all have been attempted throughout history with similar results. Unless you are prepared to go the route of water boarding, you will not move “that rubber tree plant.” So why try? 

    We, in many instances in our lives do not have the option to capitulate, which leads to either having our demands acted upon favorably, or using a form of power to force compliance. What is the result of that action? The recipient of our forceful action will rebel. We have begun a war and they have only two options. They can reconsider and comply, or say “NO!”

    You may have begun to see the power of one of our smallest words. “No” in fact, makes you a pacifist without you having to consider a philosophy you never thought about examining. It makes you a representative of the skeptical community that considers all options before consenting. The word “no” allows you to say nothing and everything as it leaves the speculation of what you mean, what you are up to, and what you would have done, had you said more.

    Let us not lull ourselves into state of delusion where we believe that others will respond as we would. In some countries you are jailed, beaten, even killed for refusing to do what you have been ordered to do, saying “no.” But there comes a time, luckily not here yet, where we will be forced to stand on principle and just say “no,” and accept the consequences. 

    The often-used philosophical conundrum used in an attempt to explain the ramifications of the word “no,” is manifested in the phrase, “there is no such thing as a pacifist in a fox hole.” I personally find the statement unconvincing. What would a pacifist be doing in a fox hole in the first place; just got lost, had no place better to be, looking for a boys night out? Pacifism is not the act of refusing to participate in violence, but knowing how to avoid conflict and therefore violence.

    You may be saying to yourself, “I’m not brave, I have no defining philosophical bent towards anything, I’d prefer to remain the mouse hiding in the corner.” I understand, but there will always be a time when you will need to make a decision, and hopefully during this class we will be able to explore the power of the word “no,” and use its lessons to embolden you by requiring yourselves to justify your words and actions by not having to become an orator, but by using the word “no” when you are not convinced of the consequences of what we are being asked to condone. 

    Before we begin, are there any questions? Anyone need to step out, use the bathroom, have a smoke, take an aspirin?....

Yes, you in the rear. A question?”

    I had just spent ten minutes explaining the two-letter word with negative connotations. I often wonder if the “irony” displayed by life does not hold a similar importance as the word “no.” Irony meaning, absurdity, sarcasm, humor, a word encapsulating the idealism inherent in nebulous thoughts and actions whose meanings are suppositions dedicated to explanations, where there are none.

    When asked to disobey our moral authority in an attempt to justify a philosophy or action, we have the ability to disrobe a notion of singular righteousness, providing the time necessary to examine our own inclination to procrastinate. 

    By refusing to engage in banter often times results in a change of expected linear progress that often results in a spur of the moment decision, like Iraq. Saying “no” provides us with our own stage on which to dance, juggle, sing as if we were in the shower and no one can hear us. It allows us to allow them to not only ask the questions, but assume the answers. It places them on thin ice, to use another misguided metaphor. 

    When we allow others to advertise their plan of attack, we force them to interrogate their reasoning if we just say “no.” We force them to explain their decision-making process, their motivation and resolve. They are required to justify firstly to themselves which allows the absence of logic to surface. Arguing with yourself, although not encouraged and should be, mandates that you are not pontificating on a thought or action that you yourself have not concluded to be correct and why. It is only when you can no longer remember who you are arguing with, that your conclusions become suspect. 

    “Yes, you in the rear.”

    “Would you mind repeating that? I had a call I had to take.”

    “NO!”