In this incarnation, I've added some basic detail and made a few gross corrections. Background is indicated and it will dissolve into lesser prominence as I lighten the foreground and darken the back (but that's a ways off yet).
Concerning the "action"
The extremes of action in a painting range from a static posed subject like a portrait to the wild perspective of comic books (like Spiderman - just read that Gil Kane died). Artist's who do comic books are the most skilled at unorthodox and gimmicky viewpoints. I certainly admire their ability to draw an object from any position ... the wilder the better.
However, there is a reason for not doing so in a philosophical work of art. It takes the viewer's attention away from the main focus of the work which is the philosophical content given the work by the artist. Thus, a comic book is short on introspection and long on action which is what kids are most capable of understanding. Adults cannot for long be satisfied with a non-intellectual work of art (unless they are those who drool at modernistic "pap" smears).
Therefore, it seems that no matter how involved my figures start out, I tend to stiffen them up into righteous poses so as not to get in the way of what I want to convey to the viewer.
Take a look at Rubens copy of Leonardo's Battle of Anghiari. It's so busy that not much in the way of philosophical meaning could be attached to it. But if you really want action ... this is a pretty good example (strikingly well made).
My next installment will come much sooner and will have much more detail.
I think I'm getting interested ...