An observation about 'giving'

[tridean]

I am sorry for my recent plethora of questions, I guess I am at that part of the cycle as Bud explains it, where I am frustrated with my inability to see beyond myself and find a way out and I have more questions than answers

I was watching the 2020 cricket last night, Australia vs England and the bowlers for Australia were walking around with buckets for donations to help the flood victims in QLD and NSW. I noticed something remarkable, many were dropping in coins, and the kids were loving it, but I noticed too, many who were dropping in notes were acting a little different to those dropping in coins. The bowlers, especially Mitchell Johnson would not look up at anyone (being shy and all I guess), or was too busy ensuring he didn't drop the bucket, but you could see that those who were dropping in notes felt a need for Mitchell to look up at them and acknowledge it. It was quite bizarre, and I realize that what I was seeing may not have been what they were thinking at all, but it was what I was thinking.

Some may have been thinking it, some not, but obviously I was thinking it and feeling it. I told my wife and she could see it too in many of those people.

It got me thinking about being 'aware' of this trait, and doing something about it, but how?

For example, now being aware of it, if someone comes up to me and asks for donations, I do not want anything in return, not even acknowledgment but is this because I have seen it or perceived it in others? I am only saying this because I know the C's said, give without wanting anything in return, but if I am 'wanting' acknowledgment deep down, why? Is this something that we all suffer from as a program, or something conditional from upbringing, or a combo of both?

This whole giving without receiving is quite a profound statement and one that is obviously, at least to me now, one not to be taken lightly. It seems to me the ability to remove this wish for acknowledgment has nothing to do with giving at all, but something deeper? Would this be on track you think?

Thanks
Dingo

 

[obyvatel]

Our default mode of existence is STS and in this mode, mostly there is a desire to get something out of all interactions. If someone donates money, then one expects to be acknowledged - that acknowledgment is an energetic payment in return for the donation - osit. In the specific context (cricket match), this expectation for acknowledgment could have been amplified by the presence of international cricketers - after all we live in a culture that worships entertainers. So an acknowledging gesture from a famous personality would be even more satisfying.
I think simply recognizing and acknowledging this need for getting a return is a very important step. Once recognized, we can begin to see how this need manifests under different situations and affects our behavior. I too feel that this desire is something quite ingrained and goes to the feed our self-importance (false personality) in various ways.

 

[luke wilson]

This reminds me of this:

_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtfNM4f2-iQ&feature=related

I think wanting approval is something inbuilt, directly connected to the false personality, ego and our self-importance as obyvatel has said.

This is another interesting clip I have found that I think explains the false personality pretty well...

_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg8JYYyWSPg&feature=related

Interesting movie, Revolver, never really figured it out. They hide esoteric concepts behind so many different names it takes alot to figure out what is going on...

 

[Pinocchio]

This to me is a fascinating topic. Act of giving for itself, intrinsic vs. act of giving for acknowledgement, payback...

For me I remember early on upon inculcation and initiation into 'Christianity' the fear accompanying the event. I used to pray every night for the salvation and safety of. My aunts and uncles,parents, friends, and of course myself to avoid their and my own, pain and hellfire. Part of this is sincere wish ,their own well being, part is selfish, not wanting to lose loved ones,etc. Discernment tells us to be wary of lies and I don't want to give energy to be perverted by the system. Hard to be sure. But a possible response may be seen here, an example. 'Linda' has recently been assaulted by her daughter in law. She needs assistance with formula for her grandchildren she is now left caring for. One of us may only be able to really give money for formula keeping in mind not throwing our own lives into chaos. We have this dichotomy of giving but only giving so much and also wanting to ensure it is a 'worthy cause' while not hurting ourselves. Also, we may seek 'payback' in one form or another whether immediate or long term. I can help ensure the help in some situation is more in tune with a real need and worthy cause and limit my own payback by networking it would seem. For instance ask within the community who can help provide watching the grandchildren or providing formula or donating it or money, etc so that I don't reap all of the benefits of helping, but not because of laziness, i.e. work towards a longer term solution by spending energy getting others involvedto support each other and am forced out into more situations of do gooding that really also supports the network response and not just supporting myself but also supporting each other and as we elevate out of the lower stages see more and mor ethe need for the obverse of the perverse which is to help others before ourselves but to recognize here in the sts realm first we mayneed to put our oxygen masks on first? Also as relates to revolver the film I felt and saw many various Esoteric concepts. Is there another thread for a discussion of that in depth?

Sorry for the typos and other issues but I thought it might be good for me to speak about where I am and the rabbit hole runs deep. Thank you for the thread. Not trying to 'wiseacre' so any comments are appreciated

 

[KTC]

I often ponder the giving for self rather than for others. I mean even if I gave anonymously, would it still be STS in nature simply because it made me feel good? Me thinks so. I would like to think that I amat that point of giving for the mere sake of it but if I am totally honest, even though I don't want recognition for it from any one else, I am still 'patting myself on the back' which to me is still along the same lines.. Right?
We come to Bali all the time and stay on a very poor island. Our son has grown up with these children so now we bring books, clothing and other 'luxuries' to share with our friends. We don't look for any recognition and we do it because these children have a special place in our heart. But bottom line is... It makes us feel good to give so that is probably a driving force as to why we do it.
This is an internal conversation I often have with myself and I spend time analysing our actions so this to me as well is an interesting topic.
All I can say about those people you saw on tv looking for recognition because they're spending the big bucks is that they are a long long way from this forum and it's topics I can assure you. Think of the rude awakening that is coming their way!

 

[Gimpy]

I often ponder the giving for self rather than for others. I mean even if I gave anonymously, would it still be STS in nature simply because it made me feel good? Me thinks so. I would like to think that I amat that point of giving for the mere sake of it but if I am totally honest, even though I don't want recognition for it from any one else, I am still 'patting myself on the back' which to me is still along the same lines.. Right?

There are times I 'wonder' if the feel good chemical response to generosity is 'hard wired' into humans as part of being 'pack animals'. Humans are built to work together in groups, it follows that working and sharing in a group would 'feel good'. That is what makes this kind of response mechanical, osit.

In that instance, its going to take conscious work to understand why that is, and decide to behave in a manner that provides the same action a step beyond the chemical response. Does that make sense?

From reading the posts here, it also seems to me that there is confusion between being generous, and being taken advantage of, and disrespecting personal boundaries. There are times when lending help is no help at all, and only serves to enforce situations in which keeping a person or group of people dependent is the actual goal. Other instances occur when the goal is to use generosity against someone, as in the cases of con men and criminals.

The above is one of many reasons its important to understand the concept of 'giving all to those who ask', learning to spot the situations in which generosity is in reality supportive and healthy, instead of 'fighting nature' when it feels good.

A deeper search of the forum on the subjects of how the mind works in the cognitive science thread can help with this, along with searching on the phrase 'giving to all who ask'. (That last is a guess, I'm writing on tea fumes here. )

 

[Buddy]

I am sorry for my recent plethora of questions, I guess I am at that part of the cycle as Bud explains it, where I am frustrated with my inability to see beyond myself and find a way out and I have more questions than answers

I was watching the 2020 cricket last night, Australia vs England and the bowlers for Australia were walking around with buckets for donations to help the flood victims in QLD and NSW. I noticed something remarkable, many were dropping in coins, and the kids were loving it, but I noticed too, many who were dropping in notes were acting a little different to those dropping in coins. The bowlers, especially Mitchell Johnson would not look up at anyone (being shy and all I guess), or was too busy ensuring he didn't drop the bucket, but you could see that those who were dropping in notes felt a need for Mitchell to look up at them and acknowledge it. It was quite bizarre, and I realize that what I was seeing may not have been what they were thinking at all, but it was what I was thinking.

Some may have been thinking it, some not, but obviously I was thinking it and feeling it. I told my wife and she could see it too in many of those people.

It got me thinking about being 'aware' of this trait, and doing something about it, but how?

For example, now being aware of it, if someone comes up to me and asks for donations, I do not want anything in return, not even acknowledgment but is this because I have seen it or perceived it in others? I am only saying this because I know the C's said, give without wanting anything in return, but if I am 'wanting' acknowledgment deep down, why? Is this something that we all suffer from as a program, or something conditional from upbringing, or a combo of both?

This whole giving without receiving is quite a profound statement and one that is obviously, at least to me now, one not to be taken lightly. It seems to me the ability to remove this wish for acknowledgment has nothing to do with giving at all, but something deeper? Would this be on track you think?

Thanks
Dingo

I just noticed this topic. Dingo, are you still reading replys?

As it happens, this very night I was reviewing some material related to the history of Philosophy that may have a bearing on this.

In my view, this specific cultural practice of 'charity' can be traced back to the time of Parmenides, Plato and Aristotle when Philosophy was being crafted into a formal Metaphysics, though this is probably not the best way to say it. One meme that grew out of these efforts was called something like "giving for the sake of it". Further, I think that a person is socially discouraged from any attempt to ask why beyond simply accepting that "it is good."

As I see it, though, you saw the real "why" when you noticed:

...those who were dropping in notes felt a need for Mitchell to look up at them and acknowledge it...

If you let that experience stand as a metaphorical example of what I'm trying to say, then look at it this way: Think what might happen if you remind these 'givers' that they have no idea where this money is going or exactly what its going to be used for. Will they most often default to some version of the saying "virtue is its own reward"? Admittedly that sounds good, but it's hard to escape from feeling some kind of sensation or emotion after 'giving'. It's even harder to try and prevent some reaction so that you experience a "blank" and can therefore show that you didn't benefit in any way, thus fulfilling some law.

Among reactions related to "donations" that might also support my point here, is one reaction that has probably been documented the most by various stories and jokes in popular literature. It the one about 'donating flowers to a church and getting very irate if the giver's name is not properly assigned to the gift' so all can see and take note.

I think one possible solution to this problem of trying to understand what's going on with this confusing subject of 'giving' is to consider the act from another perspective and decide what you think about it. In this perspective "virtue" like thankless giving is not "its own reward" but a consciously weighed choice to serve a purpose--the pursuit of the highest Truth as a function of achieving Ultimate Good.

If your gift helps in empowering the discovery and identification of Truth, that's the most excellent, highest quality behavior that is possible as seen from where I stand at my particular level of reasoning. Anything less can likely be linked to guilt-induced support of some political organizational hierarchy or other power structure whose goal is to exist for the sake of its own members use.

This is one possible 'hidden truth' behind the concept of "selfless sacrifice" as an externally imposed conditioning: that so much of what good, generous people 'give' to others goes to support people who are in it for themselves.

I am only saying this because I know the C's said, give without wanting anything in return, but if I am 'wanting' acknowledgment deep down, why?

Because you have a right to it if my case is valid and it is true that 'giving' has been ponerized--its true purpose distorted to serve lazy people in power. To 'give' properly is to feed efforts to serve Ultimate Good without trying to complete a circle to make something come back to you so early. Give up the expectation and let DCM pay you back in its good time and in its own way. Even G said debts must eventually be paid. If a person believes that, I don't see any problem.

As a final note, I suppose it is possible for a person to believe they can give without expecting anything at all in return-- not even a sensation of feeling. I rather think, though, that in a majority of cases it may simply be because the person feels nothing at all at that moment. Maybe he long ago gave up any hope of understanding what he's preparing to do or perhaps he gave up all efforts at reconciling the feeling that he or his life or his being has worth, yet he 'should' act in ways that prove he does not value it at all.

These are just my thoughts which might be wrong for some reason, so FWIW.

 

[anart]

Because you have a right to it if my case is valid and it is true that 'giving' has been ponerized--its true purpose distorted to serve lazy people in power. To 'give' properly is to feed efforts to serve Ultimate Good without trying to complete a circle to make something come back to you so early. Give up the expectation and let DCM pay you back in its good time and in its own way. Even G said debts must eventually be paid. If a person believes that, I don't see any problem.

As a final note, I suppose it is possible for a person to believe they can give without expecting anything at all in return-- not even a sensation of feeling. I rather think, though, that in a majority of cases it may simply be because the person feels nothing at all at that moment. Maybe he long ago gave up any hope of understanding what he's preparing to do or perhaps he gave up all efforts at reconciling the feeling that he or his life or his being has worth, yet he 'should' act in ways that prove he does not value it at all.

These are just my thoughts which might be wrong for some reason, so FWIW.

I think it's all much more simple than that. As 3D STS beings we cannot act any other way. STS beings give for what we get from giving - joy, acknowledgement, food, payback of one sort or another. That is what STS beings do. Yes, we can philosophize about it all and strive to be 'different', but we're here because in this incarnation we fit here - we are STS - so even our wisest and longest written philosophizing (wiseacring) can't change that and if we can realize - from our STS standpoint - that there is another way to be, then we can slowly begin to move in that direction. I don't think it helps us to fool ourselves into thinking that we really have even the vaguest clue, though, of what it is to truly give in an STO manner, with no thought of the self.

 

[Buddy]

OK, let me be clearer here if I can. For me to help the flood victims in QLD and NSW, I would consciously choose to help the flood victims in QLD and NSW and then proceed with my chosen effort. To drop money in a bucket is to choose to be unconscious of exactly with what one is aligning.

Perhaps those two fundamental views can serve as examples of what I was getting at: the importance of conscious vs unconscious alignment. Is that better?

 

[Buddy]

Yes, we can philosophize about it all and strive to be 'different', but we're here because in this incarnation we fit here - we are STS - so even our wisest and longest written philosophizing (wiseacring) can't change that...

I just felt a stark contrast between the content of some of my posts on topics like computer technology and almost everything else, and the question came to mind:

If it's true, and I really believed it when Henri Bergson said 'the true purpose of Metaphysics is to dispense with symbols in favor of the experience of direct knowing of reality', then why do I keep writing as if to philosophize was the most important thing in the world? I don't do it so much IRL. I'm feeling a bit disgusted and like I've been infected with a brain virus or something. I don't even have any interest in talking at that level anymore, assuming that was even what I was doing.

How'd I get that screwy? :/ And how'd you get so smart? :)

 

[anart]

Yes, we can philosophize about it all and strive to be 'different', but we're here because in this incarnation we fit here - we are STS - so even our wisest and longest written philosophizing (wiseacring) can't change that...

I just felt a stark contrast between the content of some of my posts on topics like computer technology and almost everything else, and the question came to mind:

If it's true, and I really believed it when Henri Bergson said 'the true purpose of Metaphysics is to dispense with symbols in favor of the experience of direct knowing of reality', then why do I keep writing as if to philosophize was the most important thing in the world? I don't do it so much IRL. I'm feeling a bit disgusted and like I've been infected with a brain virus or something. I don't even have any interest in talking at that level anymore, assuming that was even what I was doing.

Very interesting self-observation. Do what you can to hold onto it, because it will slip away before you know it.

How'd I get that screwy? :/

Welcome to the human race. ;)

Perhaps Laura's demonstration of how to write to make things accessible to every day people in the Nagel thread loosened something up.

And how'd you get so smart? :)

If you took a stroll inside this mind of mine, you'd probably find it more bizarre and screwy than you'd ever expect!

 

[Buddy]

Thanks, anart. I will hold onto that. I want to hug you right now.