He was mistrustful of activity which he saw as an imperfect, a blemished form of passivity. He delayed necessary actions as long as possible and looked forward to the speedy restoration of quiescence. In fact the sole purpose he recognised in action was this restoration of what might better be described as idleness, otium. In this state, however, he remained at the mercy of what came down the pipe. Usually this was in the form of an excess or a deficiency, or a dissonance in the texture, and his actions were adjustment, control of feedback or containment of leakage. These required a clear sense of decorum, a knowledge of limits, an unreflective knowledge ready to hand. The cycle of action, the readjustment of the flow was more internal than external and might even involve the deliberate resistance to a current that was welling up from embodied feeling, a stubborn or active passivity. The more perfect quietness was the goal, paradoxical because it could not be pursued. In the active-passive duality it was clear that the latter was the container of the former, and of the very idea of duality itself.