CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Society › Philosophy › Giving and receiving

Giving and receiving

Started by swiftcobra15 · · 👁 9 views · 45 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants swiftcobra15Jonathan Brooks8Harold James9Amistyfox812Elizabeth Ruiz65mistybisonurbangardener7Harold Adams5rustymaker5Lawrence Robinson5Keith Lee2Jessica Scott5Sandra Wilson68Kenneth Peterson5Edward Flores4analogsurfer15Jerry Green59steelridge58
Jerry Green59 Jerry Green59 Member
34 messages
joined Dec 2007
#41 ·
Quote:


Coastline says:


On this forum, we are constantly witnessing the rise of these generous donors—self-proclaimed prophets and "sages"—who unselfishly offer their "Truths" to everyone interested (and even more to those who couldn't care less 😁). They seem genuinely wounded when we ungrateful types refuse to accept them.



So, I’ll wrap this up by paraphrasing that famous old saying.
God, deliver me from the GIVERS,
and I will defend myself against those who seek.


I suggest we open a "Us vs. Them" subforum under Philosophy, since this is already the fourth thread (if my math hasn't failed me) on this exact subject. 😁

Some scoundrels are "them," while the perfectly righteous are "us."
(That’s the theme.)

What is the difference between being good and being right?

There isn't one.

"We" are always good and right, whereas "they" are always total losers. 😁
rustymaker5 rustymaker5 Regular
352 messages
joined Mar 2008
#42 ·
Edward Flores4 said:That’s not it at all... they're both part of the same thing!

Giving and receiving are really just "heads" and "tails" on the exact same coin. Just like any other transaction you'll run into, this one is mutual. You can't have a sale without a buyer, and you can't have a gift without someone to accept it.

The truth is, giving and receiving don't actually have opposites... the act of giving and the act of receiving are essentially ONE single thing. Sure, you can negate them—by not giving or not receiving—but true opposites don't exist in the action itself. Opposites are just things we create when we start categorizing stuff; they come from our labels, not the actions themselves. Actions don't have opposites—an action triggers a reaction, which brings us right back to those two sides of the same coin. We only see "opposites" once we start grouping behaviors into abstract categories or statistics.

You know, looking at it that way now, I think you might actually be right!
When I give, I am also receiving, regardless of whether the values balance out perfectly... maybe that's exactly why we get this illusion of opposition in the first place...🤔

I suppose if we had to find an opposite for giving, it would be imposing, and for receiving, it would be seizing. But that's only because we feel the need to categorize everything... in the end, it's pretty hard to view the whole world through the lens of a single coin... 🤷
Jerry Green59 Jerry Green59 Member
34 messages
joined Dec 2007
#43 ·
rustymaker5 said:You know, looking at it that way now, I think you might actually be right!
When I give, I am also receiving, regardless of whether the values balance out perfectly... maybe that's exactly why we get this illusion of opposition in the first place...🤔

I suppose if we had to find an opposite for giving, it would be imposing, and for receiving, it would be seizing. But that's only because we feel the need to categorize everything... in the end, it's pretty hard to view the whole world through the lens of a single coin... 🤷

It seems someone failed to read the introductory 😁
rustymaker5 rustymaker5 Regular
352 messages
joined Mar 2008
#44 ·
Jerry Green59 said:It seems someone failed to read the introductory 😁

Look, I did read it, and honestly, I wasn't even on board with the whole thing to begin with... but I guess it just goes to show that change is pretty much the only thing you can actually count on in this life... 😁
steelridge58 steelridge58 Regular
397 messages
joined Mar 2008
#45 ·
analogsurfer15 said:Exactly. Without reciprocity, you don't actually have a giver—you just have someone making an offer. There’s no receiver until they actually step up and take what's being offered.

A mugger isn't a "giver," and someone forcing something on you—like dumping trash in your yard—isn't a giver either. And if you actually pick up that trash? You aren't a receiver... you're just a fool.🙂

Little Bud starts out as an offerer, then becomes a giver once people show up to take, and eventually becomes a receiver once those takers start giving back. So, are we offering to give, or are we offering (and giving) just so we can receive?

Can you even truly be a giver without also being a receiver? Or do people who are *only* givers and *only* receivers actually exist in the real world? I'm thinking about it, really thinking... but I can't quite wrap my head around a real example...🙂

There’s also that old expression—offered as if it were accepted. 🙂

It’s that awkward moment when you try to give someone something, but they aren't interested, so you just sort of shrug and say, "well, consider it offered as received." 🙂 It’s this strange little middle ground between the giver and the receiver where the hand-off didn't quite land, 🙂 since nobody actually took anything, yet there wasn't a hard rejection either that would leave the giver feeling stung or insulted. It's honestly just a polite way to save face! It lets everyone maintain their freedom to give or refuse while still treating the gesture like a completed gift that did its job. 🙂
And sometimes, the person being offered something will use it too, saying "offered as received" to signal that, for all intents and purposes, they've accepted it. 🙂
It's basically just a verbal handshake to smooth things over.

*Thanks for bringing me into the conversation—consider me both offered and accepted.
Edward Flores4 Edward Flores4 Regular
428 messages
joined Mar 2008
#46 ·
rustymaker5 said:You know, looking at it that way now, I think you might actually be right!
When I give, I am also receiving, regardless of whether the values balance out perfectly... maybe that's exactly why we get this illusion of opposition in the first place...🤔

I suppose if we had to find an opposite for giving, it would be imposing, and for receiving, it would be seizing. But that's only because we feel the need to categorize everything... in the end, it's pretty hard to view the whole world through the lens of a single coin... 🤷

Giving and receiving are really just two different sides of the exact same action. An action doesn't have an "opposite"... it has a reaction. And a reaction isn't an opposite either—it's just what happens next. Think about it—scratching your head, skiing down a mountain, or even popping a zit—none of those things have a literal "opposite" state... so why should giving and receiving be any different?

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads