Work and play

[avevale_intelligencer]

Thoughts arising from comments to one of telynor’s posts, about the attitude of people whose lives revolve around their day jobs to those who pursue their creative dreams:

Everyone’s heard (or used) the phrase, of anyone who for whatever reason doesn’t have a regular job: “They think the world owes them a living.” This phrase (yes, I know it’s a sentence, and quite a severe one as well, with no time off for good behaviour) bothers the hell out of me. Partly this is because I am by nature idle and hate being made to feel guilty for not loving to work, partly because I have a knee-jerk adverse reaction to the hardline-Heinlein life-is-real-life-is-Algernon work-or-starve gung-ho worldview. Neither of these reactions is significant, both being flaws in my character that I probably won’t succeed in shifting at this late stage.

Partly, though, it bothers me because I dislike the idea of seeing life as a matter of debts and obligations. Clearly, to people who say this, it is a fact that, if the world doesn’t owe me a living, then obviously I must owe it one. I must pay back my life, in daily increments, to strangers who already get the benefit of the lives of many others. There is no element of choice. It’s what you do. Taking time out to be creative, especially unpaid, or even worse simply to play, is wasting something that doesn’t actually belong to me, that was mortgaged when I was born. And there’s no upper limit to the repayments. Even when I get too old to work for a living (however that will be defined by the time it happens) there will be this sense of indebtedness. I should be grateful for whatever microscopic amount of pension I get, because it’s really charity and I should be doing something in return.

This is a rich planet, as John Brunner said many years ago, and I live in one of the richest societies on it, and we are all bowed down by this culture of debt. But life is a gift. It’s not owed; it’s given. Talents are gifts. Strength and wit and even beauty are gifts, with no price tag. And I wonder how it would be if ours were a culture of giving, rather than owing: if we were brought up to believe that we are all immensely rich in ourselves, and that the way to make the best of our riches is to give them to the world, as the world gives to us. Give our time and our energy to help others, as we are given the means to live. Give of our talent to make the world even more beautiful, as others make it more beautiful for us. Give our lives, not because we owe them, but because we have them.

Stupidly idealistic, yes, probably. But do we begrudge our efforts and our time because we feel them being demanded of us, as of right, and that less than the equitable value is being tendered in return? Have we learned to look at the world as a marketplace, where everything has to be haggled over, bought cheap and sold dear, as if there were some scarcity? Can this view be changed, and would the world grind to a shuddering halt if it were?

Comments

[the-gwenzilliad.livejournal.com]

I am completely in alignment with this. May I link to this post in my journal?

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Of course you may, my dear. :)

[bardling.livejournal.com]

Am I glad this lj entry was at the top of my friends list just now when I took 5 minutes for a sanity-/tea-break, because...

But life is a gift. It’s not owed; it’s given. Talents are gifts. Strength and wit and even beauty are gifts, with no price tag. And I wonder how it would be if ours were a culture of giving, rather than owing: if we were brought up to believe that we are all immensely rich in ourselves, and that the way to make the best of our riches is to give them to the world, as the world gives to us. Give our time and our energy to help others, as we are given the means to live. Give of our talent to make the world even more beautiful, as others make it more beautiful for us. Give our lives, not because we owe them, but because we have them.

Yes. Oh, so very yes.
*hugs* & love & thanks for saying this so well-worded & clearly thought out.

[autographedcat.livejournal.com]

I snarfed that exact passage for my quotes file when I first read the post.

[stevieannie.livejournal.com]

The kicker is that people *do* want creativity in the world. Even the greyest, dullest, most-work-bound person in the world wants to watch great films, read interesting books (or magazines) or even watch television. All of these things involve *someone* creating them. Whatever your thoughts on the current state of the film/book/magazine/tv market at the moment (and I'm sure you have views on it!), these markets are churning stuff out which requires creative input.

Mr Fred Dull-n-Grey enjoys that, just so long as it is produced by someone *he doesn't know*. Because then he can pretend that real people aren't creative, he could never have been the ice-dancer that he dreamed of when he was 6, and it's just as well that he's an insurance salesman after all.

However, if his cousin makes her living as a screenwriter or an actress, isn't it possible that the only reason he isn't pursuing *his* dream as well is that he just couldn't be bothered to try?

But life is a gift. It’s not owed; it’s given.

Couldn't have put it better. I *gave birth* to my children. I gave it. Freely and with joy (and a certain amount of pethidine in Jared's case...). They don't owe me, or anyone else, anything. I hope they'll contribute to society in their own ways - as musicians, dancers, or joyful insurance salesmen. If they end up grey and dull and unfulfilled, I think I'll have screwed up somewhere along the line as a parent.

However as an aside, I *do* think there's something wrong when person A expects person B to sacrifice their life and dreams in order for person A to have their dreams. It's up to the individual to make it happen for themselves, not to wait until a person B comes along to give it all to them at huge personal expense. Whatever the ideal is, we live in *this* society and we *have* to function in it.

Which is, as I noted up top, perfectly doable. You just have to run really hard after your dreams.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

There is a significant difference, IMO, between a person who thinks "the world owes her a living" and one who is pursuing creative endeavors. The former expects handouts, and not to be required to provide ANYTHING in exchange. The latter -- artists and artisans -- bring into existence things that did not previously exist, and offer those things to the world, which can then accept and reward the creator by paying for their creations, or not.

I know at least one person who holdds the "world owes me" attitude -- and who is highly creative, in addition, but does not offer her creations to the world. I weep for her on both counts.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

It's that word "required" where we diverge, I think. That's what poisons the whole exchange.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

I don't understand. Are you saying that those who believe the world owes them a living expect handouts and, regardless of their attitude, don't provide any exchange? That's more or less how I feel, save that I see in their attitude that they can (and do) sneer at the idea of returning anything. Hence, not required.

I welcome clarification.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

No, I mean that...that the sense of "requirement" on both sides is the essence of the problem as stated in my above post. Job: "I am required to give you this money so that you can live. I'm not doing it because I want to or because you deserve it, it's just my job. In return, you are required to work for me for a set number of hours every day. You don't get a choice, and it doesn't have to be enjoyable or interesting, it's just your duty because I am sustaining your life." Welfare/benefit: "I am required to give you this very small amount of money so that you can eat. I really don't want to, but it's the law. In return you are required to accept third-class citizenship and the contempt of all decent hard-working folk till you get up off your backside and get a job, or else die and stop draining our resources." Those are the attitudes I have encountered. It may be different for people who have higher-level skills than I. But given those attitudes, I am not at all surprised that they breed an answering sneer on the faces of those who have to face them, or that people are tempted to try and cheat the system and get something for nothing.

You say "handout," I say "gift." It's a difference of approach. If your friend feels that the people around her don't think she should be getting what she's getting, she'll be all the more unwilling to give back.

[otherdeb.livejournal.com]

I know the person redaxe is referring to, and she is a special case, I think, in that for many years she has been able to find others to live off of. She actually resents having to do anything other than write or draw, and resents that it takes work to get the products of her talent to market. She feels that it is her due to be supported by others, and has complained loudly when those others have not had spare money to give her. When redaxe and I were both unemployed and temping, she actually castigated us for not being willing to give her money that we needed to support ourselves and our families.

I would love to not have to work an eight-hour day with a four-hour commute, but my creative endeavors are craft-oriented and require money for materials. I think that it would be incredibly foolish to expect another to support me, when I am capable of earning what I need (at least, mostly doing so at the moment).

Further down these comments, bohemiancoast noted that, "What I do mind is people who could do one of those things, but instead spend their time seeking their inner creative muppet while I pay taxes to support them." Sadly, the woman redaxe and I know is doing exactly that (in fact, she has managed to get herself onto the disability rolls now, so the state is paying for her to sit home).

[keristor.livejournal.com]

As far as I'm concerned it's a matter of giving versus taking. For instance, I will happily offer a lift (including via lots of places which are "on my way" only because I've decided that I want to give that gift). But if I am required to take that person I will be a lot more reluctant, because they are forcing their desires on me. If it's a straightforward financial (or barter) transaction, then the ideal is that both sides think that they have gained by it, if that doesn't happen then there is resentment. And a gift is a variation of the same thing -- my gift to you makes you happy, and that is my reward, and I think that I've come off best in that transaction.

If I pass a busker or street artist, I will likely give some money, no matter how bad they are at it. I remember an old man who used to walk one of the London bridges playing a mouth-organ, the same song all the ime, badly. I gave him money, because in his own way he was making a gift of what he could do. Ones who just say "give me money", no (I will, on occasion, if they say they want money for food, offer to take them to a cafe, they usually refuse because they don't actually want food they want the money for booze or drugs).

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

I have a somewhat different take on things.

When I was born, my parents owed me a living. It was, after all, *their* decision to bring another human life into existence; one that would require feeding, nurturing, continual supplies of oxygen, etc.

Fortunately for us all, the oxygen supply issue is (at present) a non-issue. Can't seem to go anywhere without catching a lungful of the stuff. That left them free to concentrate on the food and the nurturing and so on.

They provided food in ample sufficiency (albeit occasionally a bit overcooked) until my 18th year, and in the meantime they provided (by means of Dad's income tax payments and Mum's crossword addiction and various books and a TV set) something really valuable: An education. (Remember the parable about teaching a guy to fish?)

I have to honest and say that on the nurturing front, they seem to have got a bit behind on payments after the first few years. There are complex reasons for that, which I won't go into here.

I figure they had actually discharged their material debt to me by the time I was 16, and by the time I went to Uni, they were well in credit with me... But I was an ungrateful sod, oblivious to these matters of economics, and demanded more. And they *kept on making the payments*.

And the thing about Uni is, you don't just get more education, and some cut-price accomodation (paid for by Mum & Dad's direct contributions and taxes), you also get a whole new bunch of friends, who are around you ever day. That slight deficit on the nurture side? Paid by proxy.

No one owes me a living any more. The fact that I was provided with one, but seem to have used up *two*, is what places me in debt - and is nobody's fault but my own.

But there are folks in the world who *are* still owed a living. People who have never received what their parents - sometimes only one of their parents... or in very rare cases, someone other than parents - became obligated to provide when they did whatever they did that led to the creation of a new life. The difficulty in many of those cases is deciding *who* owes them a living, and/or figuring out what to do about the fact that said person or entity has no means to pay...

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

But it's that whole concept of being "obligated" that I'm taking issue with. With which I'm taking issue. It's the difference between giving a gift of love and paying a debt. Yes, we see parents as being obligated to provide for their children, and the state as obligated to support single parents, and with all this obligation it's hardly surprising if love doesn't enter into the equation. axylides once overheard two girls on a bus discussing how to get a council house: first you have a baby, then you chuck the man out, then when you've got a flat he comes back and you have another baby...

stevieannie's right, we have to live in the world as it is, and Wilkins Micawber Applies. (Believe me, I know.) But if this temple-planet is ever to stop being a den of thieves and money-changers, humanity needs to escape from the habits of thought that tempt us to see everything as a balance sheet, and every gift we possess as a commodity to be hoarded or sold (suitably diluted) for whatever the market will bear, and everything we don't possess as something to be coveted and bought cheap or stolen if possible. We need to change the way we look at life.

I think it's doable.

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

I think what you're looking for is the Kingdom of Heaven, which does indeed run on the very principle of "forget what's owed, and just give whatever you can give, in confidence that you will never be left to run short (and in fact will be blessed many-fold).". It's an application of the general principle of "never mind fulfilling the needs of the law and then breathing a sigh of relief that you've achieved what's necessary; just set your heart on doing all the good you can do", which in turn is the corollary of "don't worry about the occasions where you 'screw up' and fail to meet the minimum requirement of the law, because under this new deal, all such instances are forgiven".

And we are encouraged to learn those heavenly attitudes and principles, by exercising them right here on earth. I think the point that most people miss is that we need to practice them here in the world as it is today *understanding that they very often won't work as intended here*, because the world is poisoned. But by trying out the "new deal", and seeing how it works on the odd occasion where it really *does* work, we gain confidence (akak faith) that such a world really is possible, and really is heavenly, if (and only if) *everyone* there subscribes to those principles. And we eventually (hopefully) gain enough confidence to apply the same principles in our relationship with the biggest, scariest debt-collector (if we choose to view him as such) of them all, who is also the biggest, most wonderfully loving gift-giver of them all (if we allow him to be); the one guy who we *certainly* have to be able to get along with if we want to be part of the Kingdom of Heaven, because, well, he's the king, y'see.

And that's why not everyone goes to Heaven: Because some people simply refuse to allow Heaven's *essential* operating principles into their lives.

Because, y'see, the other way of looking at things? The frantically tracking who owes who for what and how much and "is it OK to stop and take a break yet *pleeeeeeeease*...."? That's called Hell.

[stevieannie.livejournal.com]

I understand that you'd probably want to run very hard in the other direction, but your turn of phrase and ability to put over complex theological issues so succintly makes me think you'd be great at either missionary work or working with young adults in a church situation.

Beautiful words. :-)

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

Eep! [DUCKS BEHIND ANNIE TO HIDE FROM ALL THE SCARY "YOOF"S]

[bohemiancoast.livejournal.com]

I think I'm with the wicked anti-creative grumps here. First, I know loads of people who are doing brilliant creative things while also working in day jobs. One of the very nicest things about having a proper day job is that I can do exactly what I want creatively without having to meet the requirements of a patron or customer.

Second, I know lots of people whose day jobs satisfy, at least to some extent, their creative urges; this includes lots of jobs that don't automatically appear to include creative elements.

You don't "owe the world a living". But you do owe yourself a living; to use your skills and abilities to feed and house and clothe yourself, and do whatever else you want. You can do that by getting a job, or by making marvellous creative things and selling them to people, or by going and finding some common ground in a warm place, and a couple of goats, and start knitting the wool into ponchos. I don't much mind.

What I do mind is people who could do one of those things, but instead spend their time seeking their inner creative muppet while I pay taxes to support them. Though even so, I don't much mind people doing a little of this for a while; lives are long and things balance out. Where I lose faith is with people who see no reason to spend time toiling for the common good. Life *is* hard; we do have scarcity and poverty even in this rich country of ours, and however much you may wish to believe that a few rich people are hoarding enough wealth to allow us all to live luxuriously without working, it isn't true.

Having said all that, fandom is a potlatch economy in many ways. As an example, I was on a panel at Interaction where some of the panellists were expressing astonishment that people would wander around wikipedia correcting minor errors in a sort of litter-picking way without thought of personal gain; but most of the audience did this or other similar online tasks in a way that we described as 'digital citizenship'. There are lots of things that I do because I get a feeling of satisfaction having done them; that's the primary benefit rather than external egoboo.

[otherdeb.livejournal.com]

Thank you. You said this so much better than I ever could.

I am a creative: I write, I knit, I make jewelry, I draw. Since none of the above will feed me and pay my bills at this point, I work.

What I think is that it should not be so difficult to support oneself that one does not have any time to create. But I do think that if I am going to take up space on this earth it is my responsiblity to maintain myself, and not that of my friends or my country's government.

[bedlamhouse]

So, with tongue only slightly in cheek, can I sum this up by saying that it is Bad to require the creative person to give something back in exchange for some kind of sustenance but it is Good to require that other people support the person who is creative?

More seriously, societal structures really do exist separate from economic distribution theories. Each member of a society should contribute something to that society in exchange for society providing some form of support/benefit to the individual. How these contributions are requested/required/coerced/taken is really the only difference between economic systems - the basic fact remains that a community only survives based on the contributions of its members. A community may choose to support certain members whose contributions are more intangible (for instance, support of the disabled may either lead to the disabled making societal contributions where none were possible before OR (where such contributions really are not possible) it may only lead to a society being able to think of itself as enlightened or compassionate), but reality limits the amount of this support that is viable. Again, the difference in economic systems often is where the line will be drawn, but the line exists at some point whatever economic system you prefer.

The attitude that I classify as "s/he thinks the world owes her/him a living" is not a state of being unemployed, it is a state of mind where the individual wants all the benefits of solitarianism ("I decide for Myself what is valuable and what is not and no one can tell Me otherwise") as well as the benefits of societal membership ("The community must ensure My needs are met") without the responsibilities of solitarianism ("I take care of all of My own needs") or the responsibilities of societal membership ("I contribute to society what society agrees is needed").

I know many people who have determined that what society requires isn't right. They have created alternative forms of living as individuals or as small groups who agree on similar values, and have varying degrees of success depending on how well their priorities match the needs of human life in the real world (in other words, it makes little sense to set up an independent and isolated artist commune where everyone paints and no one raises food, because all the artists will be dead outside a month).

Basically, if one believes society's values are screwed up, one must be prepared to eschew any benefits of such society as well as those responsibilities one feels are improper. Otherwise, it is difficult to believe that a charge of cynically manipulating society for one's own ends ("the world owes Me a living") is an invalid perspective.

And, just for the record, I don't release from responsibility that percentage of people who are at the high end of the Western economic system ladder and refuse to give back in proportion to what they have - I'd probably phrase it "S/he doesn't think s/he owes the world anything" in just as disparaging a manner.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Sigh. No, you can't sum it up that way, because in no place in my original post did I use the word "require". It's that whole transactional mindset that I--

Never mind. I guess the people who get it get it and the people who don't don't. Which is no more than I should have expected. Give it another century or so...

[bedlamhouse]

Maybe I don't get it because I have the funny feeling I'd be one of the ones whose only gift would be to dig the ditches, weed the gardens, and wash the dishes.

[callibr8]

But without the ditches, the gardens, and the clean dishes, we'd be starving in squalor. Perhaps those aren't intrinsically-nifty abilities, but they are very valuable.

I'll be over here, sorting and folding.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Maybe. I get the feeling that you don't get it because either I failed to get my point across (I am notorious for that), or just possibly you're reading what you expect to read on this subject rather than what I was trying to say. You've misread me twice now as saying that creative people (i.e. me) should be allowed to laze around while everyone else (i.e. you) does the work, which is not what I was saying. At least I don't think telynor and bardling would have agreed with me if I had been saying that. For one thing, you're a damn sight more creatively useful than I am, and I know it and you know I know it, so why would you think I was saying that you should dig ditches?

Well, hell with it. I've got the thing off my chest. Let's bury it and move on.

[bedlamhouse]

You know, while I may be stupid and thick and American (same thing, nowadays, I guess), I'm neither that stupid nor that thick (but being American may hamper our communication somewhat).

I read this as being your feeling that no one should feel obligated to participate in some sort of exchange relationship, that they should give of their talents as gifts as opposed to choosing to declare it some sort of cost for value received transaction (with the attendant feelings of being cheated or deprived thereof).

My original response was to try to explain that by being a part of society I believe one actually does incur an obligation to society, which obligation means sharing the work to which talent may not necessarily apply. I tried to make the point that this obligation would take place in any economic system, not just the evil capitalist ones.

At no point was I saying anything about you personally - in fact, I thought I made it very clear that only certain attitudes rather than some artificial status would engender such an opinion from me.

Having in my life been in a situation where there have been people (and this can't be you as I've never lived with you) who were perfectly happy to give and give and give - only what they gave wasn't what the community needed, so someone else had to provide that - has perhaps colored my opinion somewhat. It remains just that, an opinion, and I'm very sorry that you choose to take it as some personal attack.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

You and ladyat were quite ready to take it as a personal attack when I was saying nasty things about Bush and his administration. Neither of which, as far as I know, you are. I have the virtual scars to prove it.

But there, I expect the cases are quite different.

[jahura.livejournal.com]

Okay, time out a minute.

I may be wrong but I am reading both sides here as starting out what bedlamhouse referred to as 'tongue slightly in cheek'. I had to read this part of the thread a couple of times in order hopefully have an idea of what the heck I am talking about.

I don't think either of you want or are in favor of a hedonistic society that supports idleness. I perceive the points that are trying to be made here are:

smallship1: that we should all think less in terms of begrudging and more in terms of giving of our time and talents and wouldn't it be nice if the whole world thought that way -

bedlamhouse: even in such a society there will be those who will contribute more and those who contribute less and that measure will never go away as long as society exists.

First, I think there may be a misunderstanding in the concept of talent. Such a phrase immediately brings up the image of actors and artists posturing to the crowd to announce and advertise the latest contributions to their craft. In any other area, we tend to use the term competent instead of talented to describe those who show a high aptitude in the task that they are asked to perform, (whether it's design a building, balance the books, or scrub the bathroom) because they have a genuine affinity for that particular task and take a certain pleasure out of it, not just harbor a can-do attitude. bedlamhouse, if your talent is digging ditches, weeding gardens, or washing dishes, then no one has the right to look down on you for that. I have the feeling, however, that what you intended was a one-liner and that your talents lie elsewhere. And yes, I thought it was funny - but I am also stupid and thick and think sarcasm is a hoot.

That said, I don't believe that is what smallship1 is intending to convey. A truly ideal society involves everyone doing what they love, and in doing so contributes in their own way to society as a whole. I think wires got crossed here when the implication was "doing what you love" got misinterpreted as strumming a guitar or reciting poetry and did not encompass the concept of guitar strumming as exercising a visual and tonal acuity, or reciting of poetry as a means of creating structure and pattern out of chaos, that can be applied to other things that are more mundane but still contributory, Each would have a feeling of accomplishment each day even when these talents are applied in a different venue. The poet would make a lousy ditch-digger or bank teller but might make one first-rate detective. The guitarist I don't think would be either happy or fulfilled in an office or political arena (same thing most of the time) but may make an excellent mediator - and if it's one thing this world needs, it's someone to hear them. :)
I don't think bedlamhouse read that and I don't think smallship1 wrote that, so any tomatoes for that concept can be thrown in my direction. I just think the point you are both trying to achieve in your own way from opposite ends is to establish that survival of the society does not need to depend on doing what you have to but doing what makes you happy and if it contributes to that society, all the better.

Of course, I could be wrong. I usually am.

[(Anonymous)]

"|I don't think either of you want or are in favor of a hedonistic society that supports idleness."

Can I just say: I am!

Michael Cule
Idle Hedonist

[jahura.livejournal.com]

*chuckle* And the truth shall set you free...

[mdlbear]

"Basically, if one believes society's values are screwed up, one must be prepared to eschew any benefits of such society as well as those responsibilities one feels are improper. Otherwise, it is difficult to believe that a charge of cynically manipulating society for one's own ends ("the world owes Me a living") is an invalid perspective."

It's possible to play the game while hating it, to submit to society's values only under protest, and to work -- perhaps very vocally -- for change at the same time. I don't like the current copyright laws, so I game them with Creative Commons and GPL licensing. I speak out at the drop of a hat against software patents, but I have more of them than I'm comfortable admitting to. I vote, and feel with some justification that this gives me a perfect right to complain loudly about the scoundrels who got in anyway.

Yes, it's an extremely cynical position. I'm a cynic. In this society it seems one must be either a sheep, a madman, or a cynic.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

I see, I think.

We differ at one (IMO) critical point. Most paid work is the result of a voluntary contract; I agree to perform x, y, and z tasks. In exchange for these tasks, the employer agrees to provide a, b, and c (including but not limited to the usual -- money, paid vacation, and health or other benefits). I don't see this as an obligation; nobody forced me into the job I'm in, and I know perfectly well the consequences of leaving or failing to perform.

I have no problem with people taking time to create. What I do have a problem with is people who wish to create expecting people or organizations not of their family or friends or artistic patrons or other willing sources (government/welfare not included, mostly; it has legitimate reason to exist, regardless of the frequent fraud perpetrated on the system) to provide them the necessities of life. Largely, this is because I am aware of what it takes to create those necessities; housing and food and clean water are NOT the result of gifts by builders or farmers or those who process or transport the goods.

If they were, I'd be right in line to accept, smiling and saying "thank you" most sincerely.

On the gripping hand, I love seeing people in situations where their creativity isn't forced or twisted by economic factors. That's as win-win as it gets.

A note on my friend: she's the sort who really does believe that she can and should have what she wishes just by expressing a wish for it. Lovely idea, but (cynic as I am), I fear it's not realistic past about third grade. That she did this to her friends (who among us were a large fraction of her fiscal support for many years, not wishing to see her living on the streets) saw me, at least, move from an initial feeling of glad giving, to feeling coerced and resentful. (And I'd do it again, to keep a friend off the streets or out of shelters.)

If you're objecting to capitalism as primary economy, you're right: it has lots of flaws. On the other hand, I'm cynical enough about human nature that while I'd love to see a gift economy, I think it would be suborned to the greedy and powerful as soon as it was created. (Just like capitalism, for that matter.)

[mdlbear]

Amazingly enough, the gift economy is alive and flourishing in science, open source software, the blogosphere, and the folk/filk community (and probably many other musical sub-genres). It's probably not a coincidence that I spend a lot of my time there.

In previous centuries, in civilized countries, scientists, musicians, and artists would be patrons of local nobles and rich folk who wanted to build a reputation as "patrons of the arts." Alas, there are few, if any, civilized countries left. I certainly don't live in one.

I am strongly reminded of what Gandhi said when asked what he thought of Western civilization: "I think it would be a good idea."

[eintx.livejournal.com]

It's a beautiful way of thinking!
Did you plan to discuss if it's _possible_ (practically) to change the world?
Or did you just want to suggest that we could try to _think_ a bit more like that? It would make the world change indeed, slowly. But beautifully!

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I'm no good at practicalities, and I don't think any other approach than trying to think a bit more in that way would work anyway.

I hate my own job, and begrudge every second of time I spend at it when I could be doing five hundred and seventy-four other things, some necessary, some creative, some just pleasant. I'd like to try to recover the frame of mind I used to have, when I saw myself as giving my time and my energy to help people, and being given in return the means to live--when I wasn't counting the seconds and the pennies and trying to make them balance and feeling bad because to me they don't.

Does that answer your question?

[eintx.livejournal.com]

Yes, thanks!
I'm sorry if I ask things erveryone else already knows (I'm new!), but why is your frame of mind not like it used to be?
Did you change your life? Your job? Or is it just because of growing older and getting an overdose of "reality"?

Well, whatever: Let's _give_!

[lothie.livejournal.com]

telynor sent me over. Hi.

You've put your finger on what makes the world go round. Thank you.

[folkmew.livejournal.com]

Stupidly idealistic, yes, probably.

(mew reaches up, and very tenderly places a kiss on Zander's cheek.)

[delennara.livejournal.com]

How about what you owe the next generation?
As a society or as parents?
Or owe humanity?
Of course, if good sense would make people give willingly and with joy, it woudl be so much better. But Mankind seens to be rather lazy and short-sighted, occasionally.
What I try to say, is that probably that sense of "owing" is the only thing that keeps things running.
And for my taste, some people (and I am talking about employed, wealthy people) seem to forget that they aren't the only ones who live on this earth. I think THEY would need to remeber that wealth is an obligation to support others...