THE LIE OF GIVE TO THE WORLD AND THE WORLD GIVES BACK
The lie of giving to receive in kind warps the true intent and purpose of kindness.
A general, somewhat frequently channeled notion is that it’s good to put goodness into the world because then the world will give it back. The way someone behaves toward the world dictates how the world behaves toward him, so nothing goes unnoticed, nothing remains unpaid.
The mantra of give to the world and the world gives back is closely tied to theories of human or social reciprocity and religious teachings like karma, albeit not exclusively. More often, it’s intended as general life advice and good character trait rather than adherence to religious credo. As such, many agree with the assertion that what goes around comes around, not least because such has been seen and experienced in some measure several times over. A bully getting hurt, a dedicated worker winning a big prize, a kind person catching a big break, and the like.
We’re so taken with the above sorts of examples, supposed proof of the world “giving back”, largely because (a) we want it to be so and are excited when it is, and (b) it doesn’t happen quite as frequently as we would like.
Because, despite myriad case studies, the truth is that “give to the world and the world gives back” is a lie. And it’s a lie because the assertion is more descriptive than prescriptive. Exactly which aspect of the world decides when this reciprocity goes into effect, and in what measure? Which part adjudicates over the amount and quality of what’s put in and what exactly should come back out? Where’s the coin slot for the vending machine of goodies the world supposedly owes those who pay up? Most of all, why is the world being referred to as a sentient, choice-making, judgement-administering entity?
As with The Lie of Hard Work and Success, the lie of giving to the world so it gives back is more an expression of hope than definite rule for how the universe operates. And any about to protest such argument, please first explain who keeps track of what’s been given, to whom, and what’s thereby owed in return. Please explain why accounts are often left unbalanced. Please explain why some who give and give never seem to receive in commensurate measure. Does blind justice track the beads on the abacus of giving? Have we found yet one more job for demoted Pluto? Or, if the answer is more correctly religious in nature, then the ultimate truth is that we always receive reward for our actions but we don’t always receive reward in this physical world. Ask any of the many whose life didn’t fulfill the promise they honestly and diligently built it to be.
Although the axiom is more sentiment than truth, more lie than guarantee, giving to the world is not to be dismissed. That’s not either to say that what’s put into the world has no effect on the world, nor does it exclude the truth of certain attitudes and behaviors having a notable impact upon their human source and surrounding people. A person’s approach to living through giving will generally influence the conditions within which he lives, not necessarily in terms of material gains, but more along what could loosely be referred to as “ambiance.” The contention here rests not upon the input but expected output as motivation for giving.
Someone living by the motto of giving to the world and the world gives back lives with eternal hope but not definitive reality. Thus he is at risk of succumbing to giving to the world so the world gives back, the return a contingent for his giving rather than a possible benefit. The peril of such thought is that if reciprocity is the underlying motivation for investment, then what persuades someone to keep giving when expense/income don’t balance in areas of kindness and morality? What keeps him giving when not only has the world not returned in kind, but sometimes seems to ignore, even forget about him entirely?
Consider the result if the world appears ignorant of all that someone gives. What recourse, if any, is open to him? Should he keep quiet, stew and fume in resentment, slough it off and force himself not to care? Should he shout to the universe, petition Pluto for redress? Or does he make sure to tell others of what he’s done, ensure his actions are not forgotten before receiving his supposed due? Can such a person ever consider giving with a whole heart without expecting anything in return?
Such incongruities between action and expectation can very easily lead to jadedness and frustration in a world not working according to human hope, though it continues always and ever along Higher plan.
As for there being some measure of truth to the impact of giving to the world, this has more to do with an individual living in the environment he creates, a result more consistent with adherence to values than giving and receiving ratios. In this vein, the path is less about the world giving back and more about the long-term effects of developing a giving nature, attitude, and worldview. It’s about giving to the world to craft, shape, and shade its finest features, the desire to give to the world for wider benefit greater than the desire to receive from it for personal gain.
Someone giving under the influence of receiving is not truly giving, but making a downpayment for desired, self-oriented results. The world, neither judge nor arbiter of human behavior, is certainly not so easily bribed. Besides, aside from situations where an actual cost may be incurred, the act of giving is hardly quantifiable. What price can ever be placed upon timing, necessity, feeling, or enduring impact?
To uncover the ultimate truth, examine the question at the heart of it all. If the world does not give back as expected, does that affect how someone gives? Does it influence if he gives at all? Does it change his approach to giving? Does he grumble about giving despite receiving nothing, or not enough, in return? Who can truly make an honest calculation of what’s been given and what should be received in kind? Only the One Who Knows about everyone and everything in this world at any given moment in time. And once He’s given leave to calculate, can any man truly answer for if he always gave when and how he should? Can he honestly give account for why he should have everything that was ever given to him in this world?
And once along that line of thought, considering that so much is given to man in this life, despite his own efforts, when man gives is he taking from what’s his or is he sharing from what’s been gifted to him? The outlook on ownership, the way a man views all that he has, makes a significant difference when it comes to giving.
In the end, when the ledger of a man’s life is settled, how does he truly want the balance sheet to appear? Would he not prefer for the giving column to significantly outweigh the received not for interest accrued or eternal reward but as indication of a life worthily lived? Even a careful accounting showing two equal give and receive columns pales beside that.
The truth about giving is that we don’t give because we expect anything in return. We give because giving is good and right and above all G-dly. And there’s nothing the world can give to match that.