What do you give?
What do you take?
This is a multidimensional dynamic not restricted to quantitative measurement.
‘A mutual and cooperative interchange’ says the internet.
However, to many humans still in touch with their ancient knowledge and intuition know that reciprocity is a universal law, an understanding that cannot be reduced to a simplified definition. It is polar energies in action creating the spiral momentum of the universe.
It can be explored on macro and micro levels.
Reciprocity, the nature of giving and taking in balance can be something that we can align with through the action of our will.
When do we take and when do we give?
Reflection
This week we had a medium sized group online. It was a spacious conversation with some mysterious windows out into the universe and some sticky parts that sometimes bogged us down in the semantics of words and their meanings.
What do you give? And what do you take?
As we checked in by answering these seemingly innocent questions we soon discovered that answering; ‘what do you take?’, was a difficult task for everyone.
This was a curious hook, our inability to articulate what we take either suggests our ignorance of taking, our discomfort in taking or our inability to acknowledge that we ‘take’ anything at all. Even our fear of looking selfish by taking the last bit of cake or taking attention. Perhaps taking doesn’t fit into our curated idea of self? Or maybe it is slave morality keeping us small in the fear of being socially rejected by standing out.
We seemed to give a lot more attention to what we give. Giving is more acceptable than taking. Is there a taking in our giving?
It didn’t take long to discover that with every giving there is a taking. For example, people pleasers overly attending to the other, giving huge amounts of energy to maintain a certain harmony are taking control by giving. There are multiple dimensions in action here, the internal world of the people pleaser projecting outwardly in order to treat an uncomfortable feeling, a low sense of worth, reaction to fear, etc. This is a monopoly over the communal energetic space blocking authenticity and the ability to find a sustaining relationship dynamic. This dynamic is the energetic aspect of a one way conversation with limited if not any listening. The action of over giving hides the selfish reality that it is a function to protect and attend to the self. Is this true of all giving?
Why are we blind to what we take?
Is it too painful to acknowledge what we deem as negative qualities within ourselves? Are we so low in self worth that to address another fracture in our pursuit of perfection would destroy us entirely? Or perhaps we have never been educated in self inquiry that so much of our behaviour goes unchecked. It could be, that like the sentiment of only 10% of our brains are functioning may be relative to what we are actually conscious of within ourselves? We have 10% conscious awareness of ourselves, 90% are unconscious habits, stories we tell ourselves and the human animal?
There is a one dimensional aspect to our awareness. It is either giving or taking. However, we have discovered that in giving there is taking just as described in physics; every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Why have we drifted away from this universal understanding?
Our debt based economy definitely creates an illusion of deficit in which it is advantageous to have zero sum transactions. If every economic exchange was perfectly equal and represented then would there be power in currency and economics?
There is a huge investment and incentive to maintain a one dimensional view upon transactions but as far as nature and universe go this is a total delusion and presently we can see how this imbalance is impacting the earth and its inhabitants.
One human told a story of an explorer crossing a desert. Having packed all the food necessary they ran into several desert tribes who were extraordinarily generous with their food and water. As you can expect the explorer wasn’t as generous because it spoilt his carefully laid plans and put him at the mercy of fate, or the generosity of others if he was was to contribute at equal measure. The native people understood that generosity, giving and relationship was how they survived rather than carefully laid out plans. In the explorers case, logic, reasoning, and the construct of time (in terms of taking care of the future) become an obstruction to becoming aware of the natural law of reciprocity. Is it a lesson that nature teaches us?
Does it depend on the ontological incentive? Will I be rewarded in the afterlife? Nature will return to me an equal and opposite gift? God will witness my generosity? This can facilitate the awareness of it but may not lead to a timeless understanding.
If there is a deep understanding of reciprocity then we do not need to fear giving. Yet as we have previously discovered, if we give blindly as a function of control then we disrupt or obfuscate the natural to a fro reciprocal flow. Therefore there must be space given to listening, an awareness of our internal commands and fears and an active willingness to discover that with every action there is an equal and opposite response.
Comments