The distinction of "simple generosity"
I'm interested in creating a distinction of generosity called simple
generosity, in contrast to hijacking any natural and contextual uses
of the notion of generosity.
unconditionality than it's size or intention. Generosity can connote
very small gifts given from ideological or theological principle and
ver large gifts given from public pride or private anonymous altruism.
Generosity can occur in the immediacy of personal interaction or
through enough intermediaries as to make the giver's knowledge of the
receiver impossible or unlikely. Generosity can result in families
united or disastrously divided. It can engender trust or suspicion,
whatever its context of intent. I'm creating the distinction of "simple generosity" because we need a
specific form of generosity that means:
Sharing and receiving unconditionally and unexpectedly from a motivation of resonant joy in the present.
I'm just using the distinguisher "simple" for the time being. It coud
be anything. Let me know if you come up with something more practical
or interesting.
- Sharing and receiving is direct, without intermediaries, because sharer and receiver experience each other's (resonant) joy directly
- Sharing and receiving is only from an intention to experience our joy in the joy of another, not from an intention of ego, social, economic, political, or religious gratification or extrinsic rewards otherwise
- Sharing and receiving only that results in resonant joy, so unilateral joy of any kind falls outside the scope of simple generosity - including giving that sacrifices our happiness for the sake of another's happiness or gain, or theirs for ours.
We need this kind of distinction because it presents another way of
being in relationship with others in our world. It takes us beyond
generosity motive questioning and either-or approaches to generosity.
It creates a more sustainable connection space.