The Gift
Websters defines "gift" as: | ||
1. "Something that is bestowed voluntarily, without compensation." | ||
2. "A talent, endowment, aptitude, or inclination." | ||
My question is: | ||
"Is a gift truly a gift if it comes with conditions, and expectations? | ||
Too often, we give gifts to others with the expectation that they will appreciate the gift ...and the gesture. And once they accept the gift, there are social obligations attached.
Jerry and Elaine introduced me to the concept of re-gifting. When I receive an inappropriate gift, I always keep it. I never use it, but I do keep it, just out of consideration for the giver. But what if there is someone who would really appreciate something that you were given and really don't want? Is it okay to re-gift?
Ha! Ha! -- The phrasing of those last few sentences makes me feel like Carry Bradshaw. Now I could really tell you about sex in "this" city. But I digress....
Then, there are those gifts that come with moral obligation. What comes to mind (and the motivation for this post) is a friend ...we'll call him John. John is a musical genius. He can play anything having heard it just once. His manual dexterity is phenomenal. He's had this ability since he was a young child. Problem is, John really doesn't like to play [the piano] unless it's when he wants to play ...for his own enjoyment. He doesn't want to make a career out of it, and hates when he's called upon to display his talent. He's suffered through years of musical training, and since he really is quite good, everyone is constantly urging him to develop his talent as much as possible. "You've been given a tremendous gift and you owe it to the world to develop and share it." But John didn't ask for this gift. And if he could, he'd gladly give it back for the opportunity to live (what he calls) an ordinary life. Does he have the [moral] right to deny such a "gift"?
It's one thing to "encourage" a gifted child, helping him reach his full potential. It's another thing entirely to force a child (or anyone, for that matter) into a life he doesn't want ...for some "greater good".
We talk about freedom, but is that a true condition. Are we really free to do what we want? Not really. Even free will is only an illusion when you consider the influential pressures at play. Sure the exception individual can rise above all the ordinary influences, but even the most well read and well versed among us has been affected by someone before him ...someone telling him what to think and what it means ...especially since meaning is transitory and subjective.
We are given "the gift of life", but in life, our individual roles seem to be, not pre-defined or pre-destined, but determined by the context in which that life unfolds. You can go with the flow, or [try to] swim upstream, but in the end, it's all about the river.
[chorus breaks into song]Jerry and Elaine introduced me to the concept of re-gifting. When I receive an inappropriate gift, I always keep it. I never use it, but I do keep it, just out of consideration for the giver. But what if there is someone who would really appreciate something that you were given and really don't want? Is it okay to re-gift?
Ha! Ha! -- The phrasing of those last few sentences makes me feel like Carry Bradshaw. Now I could really tell you about sex in "this" city. But I digress....
Then, there are those gifts that come with moral obligation. What comes to mind (and the motivation for this post) is a friend ...we'll call him John. John is a musical genius. He can play anything having heard it just once. His manual dexterity is phenomenal. He's had this ability since he was a young child. Problem is, John really doesn't like to play [the piano] unless it's when he wants to play ...for his own enjoyment. He doesn't want to make a career out of it, and hates when he's called upon to display his talent. He's suffered through years of musical training, and since he really is quite good, everyone is constantly urging him to develop his talent as much as possible. "You've been given a tremendous gift and you owe it to the world to develop and share it." But John didn't ask for this gift. And if he could, he'd gladly give it back for the opportunity to live (what he calls) an ordinary life. Does he have the [moral] right to deny such a "gift"?
It's one thing to "encourage" a gifted child, helping him reach his full potential. It's another thing entirely to force a child (or anyone, for that matter) into a life he doesn't want ...for some "greater good".
We talk about freedom, but is that a true condition. Are we really free to do what we want? Not really. Even free will is only an illusion when you consider the influential pressures at play. Sure the exception individual can rise above all the ordinary influences, but even the most well read and well versed among us has been affected by someone before him ...someone telling him what to think and what it means ...especially since meaning is transitory and subjective.
We are given "the gift of life", but in life, our individual roles seem to be, not pre-defined or pre-destined, but determined by the context in which that life unfolds. You can go with the flow, or [try to] swim upstream, but in the end, it's all about the river.
 | |  |
Quote of the Week:"Take gifts with a sigh; most men give to be paid."
posted by gieau_sf (9:12:00 AM)
-- All non-relevant comments will be (have been) deleted!
4 Comment(s):
Your friend John was gifted with an extraordinary talent which apparently was encouraged and developed by music lessons (I gather, piano lessons). His parents, or whoever put him in lessons, probably felt they had the moral obligation to develop such a talent. He, however, does not have a moral obligation to share that talent.
He apparently was not "gifted" with the performance gene or a desire to perform. Ideally, for the benefit of others, it would be great if he were, but since he's not folks should leave him alone. Unfortunately, there seem to be quite a few people who have this desire to perform without the talent to go along with it.
It is amusing how for some, fame is the goal and talent (or the lack of it) is incidental.
Even I fantasize about sitting down at a Steinway grand and cranking out some master work (say, Chopin's Prelude #24, one of my faves). But the thought of actually learning how to play the piano has never appealed to me.
When I happen to be in the room when "John" (not his real name) is inspired, it is truly a magical experience. I listen enraptured, with awe, and a bit of envy.
Then each time you witness "John" play when he truly feels like it, it's like a precious gift.
It amuses me (in a perverse sort of way) that 'gift' is the German word for 'poison'. There can be some irony in that.
Post a Comment
<< Home