The Poetic Act of Giving and Receiving (Philosophy)

[Danny C. Sillada]

The Poetic Act of Giving, watercolour on paper by Danny C. Sillada

The Poetic Act of Giving & Receiving
From “Meaning: Lost & Found”, a collection of philosophical essays
By Danny C. Sillada

“Giving frees us from the familiar territory of our own needs by opening our mind to the unexplained worlds occupied by the needs of others.”
– Barbara Bush

Foreword:

Even though I left my vocation to the priesthood a long time ago, my philosophical writings are still advocating toward the “Summum Bonum” or the common and the highest good of humanity particularly the Filipino society, sans spiritualizing or theologizing.

As an artist and writer, I am not materially well-off. In fact, I still practice the vow of poverty, a spiritual value that I imbibed during my training to the priesthood. I may be materially poor, but I am rich with talent – the only possession that I can share and give back to the community or society where I belong.

I edited this essay for Manila Bulletin’s Lifestyle Section. The other version is longer with original title “Essence of Giving and Receiving”. This edited version is published today at Manila Bulletin, Lifestyle Section (Art & Living), Pages E1-2, July 28, 2008.
----------------------oOo----------------------

In a materialistic society, our capability to receive in whatever form or manner is measured by our capability to give based on our resources. If we don’t have anything to give, we have nothing to receive, plain and simple.

We live, generally, in a “give and take” society, so when we stop giving we may also stop receiving. Our social lives, consciously or unconsciously, revolve around this principle: the less we have the less we receive; the fewer our resources the fewer our friends are.

Perhaps, this is the most common misconception of giving: a preconceived notion that it should be reciprocated in return. There is always that implicit condition that if an individual gives to someone, the latter is bound to return the same favor or kindness in any form or manner.

Consequently, giving becomes a meaningless act because of such distorted belief of paying back the supposedly generous deed by the giver. The receiver becomes, in turn, the giver to the selfish motive of the primary efficient cause of giving.

Hence, the receiver, instead of enjoying the object of the munificent act, is restricted under the pretext of returning the favor in due time. In the end, it is the giver, not the receiver, who enjoys the act of giving in a selfish manner.

THE ACT OF RECEIVING

In our day-to-day existence, we normally receive from our loved ones and friends that we trust and love, from a stranger that we don’t know, or from the people that we neither care nor love. We may also receive from others as a reciprocal token of our benevolent act. And the cycle goes and on depending on our resources and capability to give.

Conversely, not all what has been given is what really the recipient wanted. In the same way, as not all the acts or objects of giving are what the giver desired to give.

Sometimes, we give because we are compelled to do so. We accept because we want to play by the rules even if we don’t appreciate the gesture or the act of kindness being bestowed upon us. At times, we sacrifice our own principle just to appease the majority. But what is the “majority” if every individual acts according to what is morally acceptable in relation to the common good of the society.

Is it a privilege to give or to receive, or is it a duty of every individual to give or benefit from the act of benevolence?

There is a very thin line when and how does giving become a duty or a privilege. It depends on the relationships between the giver and the receiver. If parents give something to a child, it is their duty to give for the well-being of the child. However, if parents give more than what the child needs, it is the latter’s privilege to receive such benevolence.

When people choose or elect a political leader, for instance, the latter is privileged to receive such honor with duty and responsibility to serve the same people rather than his or her personal gains or interests. Political leaders owe no allegiance to anyone but to the people who put their dream, hope and trust on them to oversee and manage the equal distribution of national wealth and the general well-being of the society.

A business or corporate entity gives something to the society not because it is philanthropic, but it is bound by duty to return the “surplus” of its profits for socio-economic development on the same society where it establishes business with. A government, on the other hand, gives to the society; not because it has a “surplus”, but it is bound by the very nature of its entity to govern, manage and distribute what is due to its constituents.

THE ACT OF GIVING

There are two kinds of giving: (1) conditional and (2) unconditional. In “conditional giving”, the giver sets a condition for the recipient in order to continue giving; otherwise, if the condition is breached or violated the giver will stop giving.

Here, the act of giving is provisional, a “give and take” agreement, which demands the active participation of both the giver and the recipient. Violation of such agreement will result to the cessation of the act of benevolence. It is tantamount to say: ‘I’ll give you something, but you have to give me also something in return so that I can continue giving’.

In “unconditional giving”, on the other hand, the munificent gesture is purely an act of freedom and charity by which the recipient is not required to return the favor (material or non-material). In other words, there is no moral and material obligation for the recipient to reciprocate what has been given because the act and the object of giving are bestowed with no given set of conditions whatsoever.

The recipient has a freedom to do what has been bestowed because it is the desire of the giver to seek what is good for the receiver in the context of freedom and charity. The recipient may or may not appreciate or reciprocate the object that is being bestowed, yet it is the munificent act in unconditional giving that is consequential rather than the object itself.

In essence, there is something in the act of benevolence which is more sublime than the material aspect of giving or receiving. That something is characterized by an encounter in grace by which, according to an Austrian-Israeli-Jewish philosopher, Martin Buber, two souls meet and address each other as “I-and-Thou”, as persons, rather than “I-and-It”, which considers the other individual as a thing.

As a point of comparison, in conditional giving, the giver does not recognize the receiver as another subject (“I”), but a predicate (“It”) to the act of giving. In unconditional giving, the giver considers the receiver as another subject who is also capable of giving or involving in others’ lives.

THE INTRINSIC BENEFIT OF GIVING

To lose something, which is part of the person, by giving is to find new meaning in another person who now possesses the object of the benevolent act. The giver may lose the presence of such valued possession but soon, he or she may find the relevance of the object in another person who needs it more than the giver does.

That sublime act of losing is the poetic act of giving in which the giver finds new meaning in another being, who shares the same value on the object of the munificent act. The very essence of poetic gesture is losing in “sacrifice” so that others may find it, seeking its own channel in love and charity, benefiting both the receiver and the giver.

Once a benevolent deed is bestowed upon the recipient with no string attach or condition, the act of charity is completed. The completion of the act benefits not only the recipient, but also the giver because the very nature of charity is about sharing and commitment for the common good of the receiver.

In charity, we give to others not because we are generous, but we give what is due to them and ourselves as part of humanity. When we give to others we receive more than what we have given because we immediately reap the intrinsic benefit of giving by liberating the void within ourselves and, eventually, the void of the society where we belong.

A person who lives in charity is a person who does not dwell on material things, but on the precepts of “Summum Bonum” or the highest good. For every act of kindness toward others, with no given set of conditions, is always an act of charity toward the common good of the individual and the society.

Every act of kindness that comes from the members of the community returns to the same community, benefiting both the receiver and the giver of the benevolent act. Charity lets the positive energy flow from inside and out, and that same positive energy becomes the source and basis of all the positive energies to be lived, shared and experienced by every member of the society in faith, hope and love.

To sum, everyone, rich or poor, can be a receiver or a giver of the act of munificence, but in every act there is always an equal responsibility for both the giver and the receiver to use such benevolence for the highest good of others and the society.

In loving or in giving, the feeling of selfishness melts with meaning, transforming and bringing the individual to the heights of being one with humanity. It gives a reassurance that the person is no longer alone in his or her struggle because every struggle becomes a communal effort toward the common good and ultimate happiness of the society.

In charity, no one is so poor that he cannot give and no one is so rich that he cannot receive.

© Danny C. Sillada


Above Photo: A. (1) Movement of Time and Space, (2) Growth, (3) Finding Peace Inside, (4) Light at the End, (2007), oil on canvas by Danny C. Sillada; B. I & Thou Encounter Series, pen & ink by Danny C. Sillada .

[Danny C. Sillada]

That’s a very profound insight my dear friend and a generous review on the entire essay with artworks.

My deep gratitude too for sharing your spiritual and philosophical reflection.

Best,

Danny :)

[Author-Poet Aberjhani]

“The sublime act of losing is the poetic act of giving in which the giver finds new meaning in another being…”–– This phrase, for me, defines both the essence and the form that comprise this essay. It’s a good piece to read two or three times because on the surface it can appear as if a gang of paradoxes are at war with each other. Then the reader moves beyond the surface and discovers it is actually more a matter of deeper metaphysical truths which in fact are very much at peace with each other.

The yin and yang tension between seemingly opposite actions––giving and receiving––from one paragraph to the next, slowly reveals itself as a form of spiritual synergy that allows each activity to endow the other with balanced measures of harmony, compassion, and expanded significance. In a way, the overall composition of this post illustrates that principle with the visual art and the literary each giving deeper meaning to other and each standing stronger both together and apart because of the shared giving and receiving.

Much gratitude Friend Danny for sharing this very enjoyable read.

Aberjhani

[Danny C. Sillada]

"It is true that the giving/receiving dynamic is strongly programmed in us. When we are receiving in more honest context, we tend not to understand that the person honestly doesn't want something back, because we are so unfamiliar and not used to someone giving as an HONEST act of kindness.... One of the most pleasant stages to arrive at with giving is when you finally give without ego, without the secret motivation to stroke ones own ego. It took me a long time to get to this point, but it feels wonderful when you give because you honestly want the person to feel good."

Very true, Rob. In some cultures, though, giving/receiving has a different level and meaning in theory and practice. Asians, in general, tend to be more expectant in a warm manner rather than demanding. When they love the person (friend or lover), they tend to give too much, but when they are abused they can be unforgiving.

I think it is normal for every human being to expect something. However, in essence, giving by its very nature is unconditional and it is based on freedom and purity of action to give rather than expecting in return. The efficient cause of honest and authentic munificent act is the very principle of kindness and charity.

[Robby Baby (Poet of Amour)]

In terms of receiving, I have found that when one has a genuinely good heart, people tend to give more to them, simply out of kindness. I do lovingkindness practice through buddhism, and I've found more and more that people practically throw stuff at me, giving wise LOL They sense your honest kindness, and feel compelled to thank you. A Theravadin monk asked me if people are nicer to me now, with my lovingkindness practice; he said they do tend to me, and that has been my experience.

It is true that the giving/receiving dynamic is strongly programmed in us. When we are receiving in more honest context, we tend not to understand that the person honestly doesn't want something back, because we are so unfamiliar and not used to someone giving as an HONEST act of kindness.

One of the most pleasant stages to arrive at with giving is when you finally give without ego, without the secret motivation to stroke ones own ego. It took me a long time to get to this point, but it feels wonderful when you give because you honestly want the person to feel good.

[Danny C. Sillada]

Any time, Rob. Your comment is highly welcome. Thanks :)

[Robby Baby (Poet of Amour)]

This looks like a fascinating post. I will be going over it in more detail later. You seem like someone I could have interesting philosophical conversations with. I read philosophy quite extensively now. I will send a more detailed email within CTI in regards to what I've read and such.