Giving & Taking: One cannot exist without the other but there are nuances

      “It is better to give than to receive”. English, even more than many other languages, has shades of meaning according to the exact word used. The word “receive” is passive. Something arrives and you passively receive it. There is no action upon the receiver’s part except to act as a receptacle.

“I received a package in the mail”.

     In the first paragraph, “giving” is an active verb. You are deliberately choosing to remove something in your possession and place it into the possession of someone else or in some other place. You are using an active “give” and a passive “receive”. It is also possible to be an unwilling, passive, person/location that has something available to be used/possessed by someone else or another place. In this case, it is best to use the passive verb “possess”. Possessor A transfers X to possessor B.

“They took what they wanted”.

     “Don’t be a taker”. In this case, “take” is very active. You are removing something from someone, or some place, and taking possession of it. Whether it wants to be possessed by you is of no consequence. Only in the case of an active giver is everything voluntary.

     Confused yet? People get confused and they use the wrong terms all the time. We say that being a taker is bad and a giver is good. But it really depends on the other end of the transition.

• If both are passive, no transaction occurs.

• If one is active and the other passive then the transaction may be unwilling and, most of the time, the morality of a society says that an unwilling transaction is bad. (There are those, of course, that say “might makes right” — if you CAN take then it is all right for you to take. In general, people will SAY that forcing something upon (“giving to”) a person is not proper but may accept the act. If you CAN give but the other doesn’t want it then it indicates a certain amount of hubris.)

• If both are active, it is assumed that it is a willing transaction.

     The above is complicated enough, isn’t it? But we haven’t gone into the situation of an active end and an active refusal. I try to give you something (active) but you refuse to accept it (active refusal). I try to take something from you (active) and you refuse to let it go (active refusal). These situations are conflict cases — conflict of desire — and they are often the basis of wars, vendettas, grudges, and resentments.

     There are more exact replacements, or synonyms of the various verbs within a given situation.

     Taking from someone without their permission (active or passive resistance) is theft.

     Giving to someone without their desire to have it can be called charity or it can be called hubris.

     Adages must be applied carefully. Sometimes it is NOT better to give than to receive.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Gifting: An Intersection of Desires

     ‘Tis the season (although, fairly, this newsletter’s topic may be a bit on the late side) for gifts and giving. Together, they create a situation of “gifting”. To gift someone is to give and for it to be accepted. Just giving is not sufficient. You might say, “well if I have given something to them then they have accepted it, haven’t they”. No, not really. To just take possession is not quite the same as acceptance. acceptance is a combination of receiving, possession and acknowledgement.

     Giving is also not quite as clearcut as many might tend to believe. If you give there are no attachments. It is no longer “yours” and any preconceptions you may have had about how that gift would be used or appreciated is no longer in your hands. They may throw it away, ignore it, sell it, put it into a “white elephant” sale, or put it onto a pedestal as their newly favorite possession. Whatever they do with the gift is fully their right.

     Nor is a gift necessarily appreciated — although that is the goal. When choosing a gift, there are at least two people’s desires coming into play. (It is possible that it must also be appreciated by a third party or parties.) High priority is giving something that the recipient will want. However, highest priority is to give something that the recipient will want AND something that you will enjoy giving to the other — an intersection of desires.

     If it is something that only the recipient will enjoy, it may still be a good gift — but it is somewhat of an anonymous gift. The gift could have come from anyone — or even could have come from themself. When you give something that you want to give, it means that the gift means something to you also. There is a much better chance that the gift will act as a mutual experience between the two of you. This can foster greater closeness and increase the likelihood that the gift (if kept) will remind the recipient of you.

     It is sometimes said that a true gift is “something from oneself” or “a gift of the heart”. Certainly, in the Christian tradition, the gifts to the Christ child from the Three Magi are of less importance than (in modern tradition — not noted anyplace in the Bible) those gifts from “the little drummer boy”. They are still of import — not because they are expensive, precious, items of the time, or as they may be interpreted as representing — but because of the long, and difficult, journey of the Three Magi. It is the journey, and recognition, that is the true gift.

     Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Substack link

Taking and Receiving, Giving and Relinquishing: A matter of flow

 

     "It is better to give than receive." Although not universally accepted, a lot of us would agree with that statement. But, if there is no one who is willing to receive, is it possible to give? And if that is the case, isn't receiving just as important as the giving?

     "Don't be a taker." Once again, not universally agreed upon, though most would agree with the sentiment. But, is not a taker another name for a receiver?

     As an eclectic student of languages, I am always struck by the number of synonyms and antonyms for words. If you go to a thesaurus, you will find lists of such. When I look over the lists, I find myself sometimes saying "yes, that is very close" and, at other times, "why did they list that -- that doesn't seem very close to the original word at all." Sometimes, it is a matter of context and specific definition of the word. Words often have multiple meanings listed within a dictionary listing -- and the order of usage/recognition varies with the time in history as well as environment of the user.

     So, let's look at a few of the listed synonyms for "taker". It lists such words as parasite, scrounger, and dependent. It does also list the word "receiver". But if the word "receiver" is researched, it comes up with words such as beneficiary, possessor, or payee. There is definitely a different feeling to the words. So, even though a thesaurus may indicate some overlap between taker and receiver, they are used very differently. The same type of result can be found when researching the words giver and relinquisher.

     What is the difference? I would suggest that it is a matter of flow. Something will move from the giver towards the taker. It will also move from the relinquisher towards the receiver. But, in the case of the taker, the impetus of the movement is from the point of view of the taker. The taker is reaching toward the original possessor and bringing it towards them. The original possessor may, or may not, be willing for this movement.

     In the case of the receiver, it is implied that the receiver is NOT actively trying to obtain the object. The movement is being initiated by the giver.

     To rephrase common phrases -- to give is divine but, in order to give, there must
                                                        be a receiver.

                                                     -- when taking without permission there may be
                                                         relinquishing but not giving.

You Can't Give If No One Will Receive : a closed cycle of sharing

     Most (but not all) of us were taught, as we were growing up, that it is good to give to others. Some societies include sayings such as "it is better to give than receive". The lesson sticks with people better, or worse, with a lot of the adhesive depending on what those who are close to us actually DO ("lip service" doesn't work well as an example).
     Giving has no expectations of return. I give you a gift -- you may, or may not, give me back a gift. And that's OK. I give you a gift and you give it to someone else, exchange it, or I find it in the trash can at some later date; once I have transferred something to you then it is yours. That's OK also.
     It's OK but it's not ideal. Ideally, you give someone something they want and like (perhaps even need) -- such that they will not WANT to discard it but will treasure it (or, in the case of something transient as in food or money, the memory of it) as a type of bond between the two of you. For this to happen, the act of giving can no longer be unilateral. There must be an active receiver in addition to the giver. I give, you receive. In the 1990s, a group called "The Boomers" had a song called "The Art of Living" which talked about this situation.
     Many people are taught that they should give. Not a lot of people are taught that they need to receive -- and, certainly, not how they should receive. In the U.S., we have a lot of good givers (not always from as pure of motive as desired) but not a lot of good receivers.
     OK. We get lessons on how to be a good giver (not that everyone does such). Give without thought of return, including not having conditions attached to the gift. Give according to what is needed, or desired, rather than what one most wants to give. Give as you can -- but not more than what is comfortable such that you will resent it.
      What about that receiver side? There aren't many lessons on it. First thing is to recognize that receivers make givers possible. If you truly believe that giving is a good thing, then you need to learn how to be a good receiver. You don't need anything? Not even a compliment (which, if sincerely given, may be even better to receive than a material fortune)? Congratulations. Maybe you know someone else who does need what is being offered -- pass it along to that person, or group, giving credit to the person or group from whom it was originally given.
     You do need something? OK -- you have joined the ranks of the majority. If something is freely offered to you, the first thing is to NOT feel guilty for accepting it. You are providing an opportunity for them to give. But do be appreciative as they did not have to give. My relatives always told me to write a thank-you note but I still don't see any reason for such if you have already thanked them in person. But do thank them. What if you don't need it, want it, and don't know of anyone else who does need or want it? That is more awkward as they may have indeed felt that it was a generous offer on their part. Express appreciation and then suggest a more appropriate recipient. Let them know they have done something good and you want it to be used to the best extent possible.
     What if someone insists on "giving" you something even though you have insisted that you don't want it? Well, that is not really giving. I am not sure there is a specific word for it in English but it is more related to assault or forcing than giving. I cannot say what the "giver" feels under such circumstances but the one being forced to take something is not going to feel good about it. Of course, "receiving" something without a corresponding giver is just taking (perhaps stealing).
     Let's work towards the ideal of truly giving, with a full and joyous heart, and receiving, with appreciation and acknowledgement of self-worth. In a world where life is not often "fair", we can help to even things out.