Xmac
11-23-12, 3:14pm
A close person in my life recently aquired a marketable skill. While looking for work she's providing that service free of charge to friends and friends of friends. In the most recent example she gave to our friend who tried to pay her money and she refused.
Later, we were talking about it along with another friend and she said she didn't want to charge for it, at least not yet. I pointed out that she wouldn't be charging for it because charging involves a required payment.
As I contemplated this further, the thought came that she didn't want to take any money. But even that is not acurate. Taking is active, not passive. If I take something I'm either stealing or getting what is available to anyone and I actively aquire it. There's a permission for one to get/aquire or an implied asking for another to give.
What was being called for was receivership, an absolutely essential part of exchange that is the passive form of taking. It is also regularly discredited or maligned in expressions like, "it is better to give than receive" or "he/she is such a taker". In receivership one allows the flow of life's offerings, whether it is money, service, compliments or even gratitude, and one experiences authentic abundance and gratitude which fosters more exchange; the flow.
If one looks at the yin and yang symbol one sees the black and white (or contrast) simultaneously. If one is governed by notions of giving being superior to receiving, then one ignores the black and sees only the white, their veiw is distorted; even illusory.
In the book The Giving Tree the apple tree, a symbol of nature or God, starts out as an assumed or implied "giver". It cannot be a giver i.e. there is no giving, without the boy receiving or taking. It's interesting to note that as the boy gets older, increasingly exposed to the material world, he begins to take the tree's capacity to give to others by taking its branches and then the trunk itself. Maybe it's a kind of stealing?
Anyway, I see that it is the expectation (which comes from some level of perceived lack) in exchange that gives receiving part of its "bad name". One can also give out of a sense of forced obligation and with expectation of reciprocation and/or an explicit communication of gratitude. The giver in the exchange is seen as the source, one who is elevated in status because the material (what is seen) moving from them is considered valueable and they are giving freely. But as in cases of regifting the gift that was not considered valueable by the receiver and may not be by the next receiver.
Recievership has another aspect to it that is feminine in nature because it is passive: being filled as opposed to filling, therefore mostly seen as weaker or lesser although I see this shifting closer to a more balanced state as time goes on.
A few years ago I was at a funeral in which the widower was a quadriplegic. His situation was such that he could not hug anyone back (or even move his head to kiss anyone) as he was receiving hugs. It captured my imagination such that I found myself not hugging my daughter back the next time she hugged me just to experience full receivership. It was strange but just as good because in giving hugs I receive and in receiving the hug only, I realized my presence is the gift my daughter received (or took).
In taking (without stealing) there also seems to be some stigma. However, if I offer to take and that offer is willingly accepted, where is the "sin" or debt? How is taking inferior? Haven't I given the other an opportunity to give? Which is to receive connection to me and him/her self?
As the front of one's head is not possible without the back, so to, giving is made possible by recieving and vice versa. Any prejudice that one is better than the other may be more about how each is done or how they're related to rather than any substantial difference.
Later, we were talking about it along with another friend and she said she didn't want to charge for it, at least not yet. I pointed out that she wouldn't be charging for it because charging involves a required payment.
As I contemplated this further, the thought came that she didn't want to take any money. But even that is not acurate. Taking is active, not passive. If I take something I'm either stealing or getting what is available to anyone and I actively aquire it. There's a permission for one to get/aquire or an implied asking for another to give.
What was being called for was receivership, an absolutely essential part of exchange that is the passive form of taking. It is also regularly discredited or maligned in expressions like, "it is better to give than receive" or "he/she is such a taker". In receivership one allows the flow of life's offerings, whether it is money, service, compliments or even gratitude, and one experiences authentic abundance and gratitude which fosters more exchange; the flow.
If one looks at the yin and yang symbol one sees the black and white (or contrast) simultaneously. If one is governed by notions of giving being superior to receiving, then one ignores the black and sees only the white, their veiw is distorted; even illusory.
In the book The Giving Tree the apple tree, a symbol of nature or God, starts out as an assumed or implied "giver". It cannot be a giver i.e. there is no giving, without the boy receiving or taking. It's interesting to note that as the boy gets older, increasingly exposed to the material world, he begins to take the tree's capacity to give to others by taking its branches and then the trunk itself. Maybe it's a kind of stealing?
Anyway, I see that it is the expectation (which comes from some level of perceived lack) in exchange that gives receiving part of its "bad name". One can also give out of a sense of forced obligation and with expectation of reciprocation and/or an explicit communication of gratitude. The giver in the exchange is seen as the source, one who is elevated in status because the material (what is seen) moving from them is considered valueable and they are giving freely. But as in cases of regifting the gift that was not considered valueable by the receiver and may not be by the next receiver.
Recievership has another aspect to it that is feminine in nature because it is passive: being filled as opposed to filling, therefore mostly seen as weaker or lesser although I see this shifting closer to a more balanced state as time goes on.
A few years ago I was at a funeral in which the widower was a quadriplegic. His situation was such that he could not hug anyone back (or even move his head to kiss anyone) as he was receiving hugs. It captured my imagination such that I found myself not hugging my daughter back the next time she hugged me just to experience full receivership. It was strange but just as good because in giving hugs I receive and in receiving the hug only, I realized my presence is the gift my daughter received (or took).
In taking (without stealing) there also seems to be some stigma. However, if I offer to take and that offer is willingly accepted, where is the "sin" or debt? How is taking inferior? Haven't I given the other an opportunity to give? Which is to receive connection to me and him/her self?
As the front of one's head is not possible without the back, so to, giving is made possible by recieving and vice versa. Any prejudice that one is better than the other may be more about how each is done or how they're related to rather than any substantial difference.