> ~colin said~
> <<Even when the motive is love of others, it is still a selfish act. The
> worst kind of life and the most painful, is one spent only taking. Without
> giving there
> is no keeping. The only way to have love is to give love. If you doubt the
> truth of
> getting what you give, look around the world and it's troubles and tell me
> where giving
> hatred resulted in receiving love in return. Tell me where giving judgement
> resulted
> in love received. Tell me where taking resulted in love received. Tell me
> where
> condemnation resulted in love receieved. Tell me where arrogance resulted in
> love received.>>
>
> i can see why you like what clark said better. and i'm too tired right now
> to find the right words, but it's his premise(s)--it seems he's using
> circular logic: if you're selfish, you're selfish. if you're altruistic,
> you're really selfish because you're being altruistic for selfish
> reasons--feeling good--not for the purpose of being altruistic.
That is NOT what I said. Or maybe it is. The point being, that it is not possible to be
truly altruistic becuase we get back what we give. Giving thru compassion still
rebounds
on us. That giving in compassion is still because we suffere in the suffering of
others.
To desire to releive that suffering in others is to releive the suffering in
ourselves. We
all know 'selfich'people who would not act in such a way, who care only for themselves.
they too reap what they sow.
bw
colin
>
>
> there's selfishness that actively destroys others. and then there's the
> other kind--the "selfishness" (some call it altruism) that provides good
> things for all parties involved. carl sagan touches the issue in an essay
> called "the rules of the game." he talks about the zero-sum model of
> win-lose propositions, and how we so often view everything in life in
> win-lose terms. and he talks about the realities of lose-lose propositions
> (nuclear war) and win-win propositions (art, music, love, friendship). to
> see all giving or altruism as ultimately selfish is, i think, to view life
> through that narrow, zero-sum (win-lose) window and to miss the richer
> possibilities.
I think your firend did miss the point. As far as I am concerned the model I described
is
a win win one. And hardly narrow. It is about as wide as one can get.
