Thanks, Heather. Of the various terms I use to describe the work here, I get the most pushback on "voluntary impoverishment." Perhaps I'll finally get into it in a way that invites others to see its trembling beauty. "Voluntary de-monetization" might make a substitute, or "voluntary relinquishment of coercive, non-relational power." "Swapping coercion for courtship"---maybe that's it. We'll see what I can come up with.
I love ‘Much obliged’. I know it here in the UK from my Olden Days, back sometime in the later 20th century, and only in a commercial context. Old-school traders would say it at the completion of a transaction. As I reflect, I’d say it was an expression of gratitude for the opportunity to be in the transaction, and it had the implication of a glimmer of relationship. And yet there was also perhaps the flavour of gratitude for patronage, which speaks of an imbalance in the implied relationship.
Going back to Hyde's work, he makes clear that you've only entered the terrain of gift when the gift allows the receive to then be a giver. The gift must empower its receiver to previously-unimaginable acts of generosity. Otherwise it's just more charity. True gifts are class-abolishing, not class-maintaining. Thanks for these thoughts, Kathryn.
The word income doesn't specify money, it turns out! The stranger at the door is incoming as well! There's a lot being opened up here, and it will take a whole to see it through. There are pieces of the book that are coming into view through this money focus, and I'm glad for it.
Ah Adam, so good. I know a few other people with two noses!
I'll be glad to be introduced!
I love this little bit of a cliff hanger this week...can't wait to hear the rest of the story!!
Thanks, Heather. Of the various terms I use to describe the work here, I get the most pushback on "voluntary impoverishment." Perhaps I'll finally get into it in a way that invites others to see its trembling beauty. "Voluntary de-monetization" might make a substitute, or "voluntary relinquishment of coercive, non-relational power." "Swapping coercion for courtship"---maybe that's it. We'll see what I can come up with.
I love ‘Much obliged’. I know it here in the UK from my Olden Days, back sometime in the later 20th century, and only in a commercial context. Old-school traders would say it at the completion of a transaction. As I reflect, I’d say it was an expression of gratitude for the opportunity to be in the transaction, and it had the implication of a glimmer of relationship. And yet there was also perhaps the flavour of gratitude for patronage, which speaks of an imbalance in the implied relationship.
So interesting.
Going back to Hyde's work, he makes clear that you've only entered the terrain of gift when the gift allows the receive to then be a giver. The gift must empower its receiver to previously-unimaginable acts of generosity. Otherwise it's just more charity. True gifts are class-abolishing, not class-maintaining. Thanks for these thoughts, Kathryn.
Thank you. And yes, much obliged.
Blessings to you, Elmdea.
So Much Going On!
Thank you, dear one, for taking the time to share your news and impressions about these fascinating and enlivening themes.
Lovin your enquiry about dream incomes! Panting for the next instalment of your important grappling with these ideas.
Kx
The word income doesn't specify money, it turns out! The stranger at the door is incoming as well! There's a lot being opened up here, and it will take a whole to see it through. There are pieces of the book that are coming into view through this money focus, and I'm glad for it.