--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > That's been my experience as well, but here's a serious > > > question I've wrestled with and haven't resolved yet: > > > Is it really *selfless* service if you do it because it > > > makes you happier? > > > > > > Not that service *shouldn't* make one happier--but if > > > that's *why* one is doing the service, I think perhaps > > > one shouldn't ennoble it with the adjective "selfless." > > > > > > Does the recipient care if the act makes you happy? At first glance, > > or course not -- the service is enjoyed by them, independent of your > > state. > > > > At second glance, if you were homebound and a meals-on-wheels > volunteer > > came to your house with a cooked meal, would you prefer them to be > > full of sacrifice, resentment (at having to do this seva shit), > > self-righteous, and frustrated? Or would you prefer someone who > > really got a kick out of doing this gig, was enthusiastic, bubbling > > over with good cheer -- and even a bit of warm silliness? > > > > Why does "selflessness" ennoble service? If anything, it seems to > take > > the heart out of it. Skewers it through the heart. > > > > If there is an anthropomorphic god, do you think she/he is going -- > > "ah good one my son/daughter -- you were totally miserable while > doing > > that service. You are a true reflection of my image -- an angry > > frustrated bastard / bitch -- you really get my teaching!" > > I'm not sure I made my point clear, given your > response. What exactly did you think I was > advocating with regard to doing service? >
First, I like your response above. You politely, perhaps even humbly put the onus on your self for not being clear. And you didn't criticize my response, or me, you simply pointed out there was a disconnect somewhere, non fault non-communication. A good model for responding, IMO. In response to your polite inquiry, I did not see you strongly advocating -- rather suggesting that one shouldn't ennoble "joyful service" [my term], or mix it up with, with "selfless" service. However implied in your post seemed to me to be certain assumptions, and its those I was questioning. For my self. It was not a criticism of any assumption whether yours or societies. And I was questioning similar assumptions in posts earlier this morning. So my response was a continuation of a prior train of thought, a further clarification for me, and less a direct response to your specific question. [a practice that may seem impolite to some. Not to me. I mean no disrespect by not directly responding to a persons point. And I feel fine, contributing something from perhaps a different angle. YMMV. But I should be clearer that I am on a tangent.] The assumptions or implication that I was questioning -- and I sse them as social assumptions, part of a meme -- if thats a proper use of the term -- is that service should be selfless. Clearly you distinguished that service can make one happy -- so I was not confused that you might be saying otherwise. However, a possible reflection of a social meme i found in your post was the perhaps implict assumption that selfless service is more noble than happy service. Its that social meme I was questioning. But, I see where my post could have been clearer in what I was addressing. I know that when people go off on their own tangents when addressing my posts I sometimes go "huh?!" Sorry if my non-selfless, but joyful pondering inadvertently invoked that response in you. Its a lesson in better writing that I will try to remember.
