hummingwolf | True or False?

Current Music: Information Society, "Express Yourself"

True or False?

The true value of a sacrifice is not measured in cash. The value of the sacrifice depends upon its worth to the person who makes the offering. If you believe you are worthless, then all your self-sacrifice is meaningless. It is as if you, seeing a beggar on the street, give him the change you had in your hand after buying a candy bar at the convenience store, money you might have dropped on the sidewalk and not bothered to pick up. It may be true that you are not selfish, but you cannot be called generous if you give only what you do not value. Only when you value yourself will you have anything to offer to anyone else. Only when you value yourself can you act with love.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Makes sense. :) I would muse further, but my brain ain't producing much at the moment.

Actually, the more I muse 'pon it, the more I think there are too many assumptions in there that need further examination. There seems to be a tiny nugget of truth somewhere trying to make its way into the light if only a pile of mental debris can be swept out of the way.

It's an interesting point, but I'm not sure if I agree or not. I think the value of a gift or sacrafice as you put it is held in the reciever's value of it, not the giver. The giver may not recognize the value of their gift and therefore not appreciate what they've done, but the reciever will still benefit and probably be grateful for what they have recieved, which is the point.

It's an interesting point, but I'm not sure if I agree or not.

Heh. I'm reasonably sure I don't agree, at least not with all of it. The post was sparked by some assumptions some friends have been acting on in their own lives recently, with me trying to figure out where the assumptions take you if you follow them far enough.

I think the value of a gift or sacrafice as you put it is held in the reciever's value of it, not the giver

One assumption I find myself disagreeing with is that every gift has one true value. A gift affects both giver and receiver. The perceived value of the gift to the giver matters to the giver and will have an effect on the giver; the perceived value to the receiver matters to the receiver. If, say, someone living on Social Security gives half their income to someone they care about, while a billionaire gives 5% of their income to the same person, then the SS person is more generous than the billionaire and can justifiably see themselves as a generous person, while the recipient may still benefit much more from the billionaire's gift.

Eh, I'm still thinking about some stuff.

Those are both good points, too.
I think there is value on both sides of the gift, and I agree that the less you have, the more generous your gifts are.

I think the value of a gift or sacrafice as you put it is held in the reciever's value of it, not the giver. The giver may not recognize the value of their gift and therefore not appreciate what they've done, but the reciever will still benefit and probably be grateful for what they have recieved, which is the point.

I see it the total other way. I think the value of a gift or sacrifice it totally defined by the giver and not the receiver. The value of it is not how it will be received, but how you, the giver, perceive it.

Like, on one hand, you have someone that will go out of their way for someone else. If you give some of your spare change to a beggar and you needed it for yourself for example. If you give some of your time to someone even though you could have used it on yourself. Even if the receiver doesn't appreciate it, it makes you generous and it is a valuable sacrifice.

On the other hand, if you drop some spare change to a beggar and he greatly appreciates it but you give it to him for some kind of stupid reason like because your pockets were too heavy from too much spare change or something. Or if you make a sacrifice because you want to impress someone else. Even if the receiver greatly appreciates it more than beggar number one did, do you think the second person was more generous and therefor the sacrifice is more valuable for the second giver than it was for the first giver?

But then, ask CB...I always see stuff in black or white. But yeah, I think the value of a gift or sacrifice is entirely defined by the giver. However it is received doesn't change the fact you tried.

While it may mean more to give something valuable (that is, to the donor), there is also generosity when it doesn't involve sacrifice if the person didn't have to do it in the first place. And, as

sophy points out, it also depends on what value the recipient gives it.

What's the story behind this musing?

There are several assumptions in the post that I'm not at all sure I agree with (actually more than one I'm pretty sure I don't agree with), which is kinda why the subject line was "True or False?"

there is also generosity when it doesn't involve sacrifice if the person didn't have to do it in the first place

Yes. You asked what the story is behind the musing, and there really isn't one story. It's just that a bunch of friends and acquaintances have been revealing some of the assumptions they live by recently, and I found myself trying to follow the assumptions to some kind of conclusion. One of the assumptions I've come across is that love isn't love if it doesn't involve sacrifice, that "If you really loved me, you'd give up X, Y, and Z for me (even though I don't exactly need them to survive myself)." I tend to believe that a willingness to deny our own needs in order to focus on someone else is an expression of a high form of love, but I can't believe it's something anyone has any right to expect on a daily basis.

Were I the begger on the street (want my Paypal account number?) I would not care if the money came from someone with an abundance of money or if it came from someone who was giving something that was in effect, pocket change that they could care less about. The value to me is the same

What I do care about is that the immediate needs that I have are met. The money is not imbued with some special value or aura just because the person giving it values it more or less.

Not sure what this has to do with what you wrote, but it is what occured to me.

Hello there! Don't worry about whether what you said has anything to do with what I wrote--I was interested in pretty much any reactions people had, since my post was a reaction to other people's assumptions anyway.

Welcome to LiveJournal. Here's hoping you have lots of fun along the way!

Thanks, I have been having a blast on LJ. It is like being able to communicate with the best and worst of society, the smartest and the ... well no as intelligent all in one go.

Still would like to know what a fractal is in relation to what you were talking about in a later post. I probably should look it up, but I have been too lazy. Google here I come. *G*

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

True or False?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Zoop Says

Not really

Re: Not really

no subject

no subject

no subject