Comments on: Thoughts of the Day http://www.parham.org/2006/09/01/thoughts-of-the-day Practicing random acts of cognition. Sun, 22 Feb 2009 02:32:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Amy http://www.parham.org/2006/09/01/thoughts-of-the-day/comment-page-1#comment-27 Amy Mon, 11 Sep 2006 01:02:49 +0000 http://www.parham.org/2006/09/01/thoughts-of-the-day/#comment-27 Is it also kind of like: "I can't help anyone unless I help myself"? Or put another way: "I'm rather useless to others unless I'm good to myself"? I remember thinking these things at 23 when my mother was diagnosed with stage 3C ovarian cancer.... Still thinking.... Is it also kind of like: “I can’t help anyone unless I help myself”? Or put another way: “I’m rather useless to others unless I’m good to myself”?

I remember thinking these things at 23 when my mother was diagnosed with stage 3C ovarian cancer….

Still thinking….

]]> By: stephanie http://www.parham.org/2006/09/01/thoughts-of-the-day/comment-page-1#comment-25 stephanie Sun, 10 Sep 2006 18:53:28 +0000 http://www.parham.org/2006/09/01/thoughts-of-the-day/#comment-25 Yikes. I don't have an answer for Sean, but I'm still thinking about his response to Amy's question. You can also see things as a continuum, - if I want the strength to love others actively (which is the only way that counts), I first must love myself actively - kind of the meta of putting on your own oxygen mask and then your child's, in the event of an emergency, etc. It's a rare bird indeed that can find fulfillment in working for others to the point of exhaustion, destitution, self-abnegation. (We can all probably name some of those people, who find strength from Lord knows where to do their work in miserable conditions and are sometimes, to their own distaste, lionized.) I know this argument has been misused to justify self-absorption, but taken straight, it still holds up. Meet your own needs not instead of, but in the interest of, addressing the needs of others. Every parent knows this on some level (e.g., I need sleep so that I can be receptive and alert for my child). Yikes. I don’t have an answer for Sean, but I’m still thinking about his response to Amy’s question. You can also see things as a continuum, – if I want the strength to love others actively (which is the only way that counts), I first must love myself actively – kind of the meta of putting on your own oxygen mask and then your child’s, in the event of an emergency, etc. It’s a rare bird indeed that can find fulfillment in working for others to the point of exhaustion, destitution, self-abnegation. (We can all probably name some of those people, who find strength from Lord knows where to do their work in miserable conditions and are sometimes, to their own distaste, lionized.) I know this argument has been misused to justify self-absorption, but taken straight, it still holds up. Meet your own needs not instead of, but in the interest of, addressing the needs of others. Every parent knows this on some level (e.g., I need sleep so that I can be receptive and alert for my child).

]]> By: Sean http://www.parham.org/2006/09/01/thoughts-of-the-day/comment-page-1#comment-23 Sean Sat, 02 Sep 2006 21:41:49 +0000 http://www.parham.org/2006/09/01/thoughts-of-the-day/#comment-23 Wow -- an incredibly powerful post. You have, as usual, done an amazing job of framing the issue. And it completely resonates with the way I feel. Regarding your question, I can interpret it in one of two ways. The first asks the question, "Is advocacy for others just another way of achieving personal fulfillment?" Or put another way, "Is there a selflessness to advocacy for others, or is it just another way of helping ourselves?" To this I would respond that advocacy for others is both selfless as well as personally fulfilling. The second asks, "Is it possible seek for the self while also trying to advocate, or help others." For example, is it hypocritical to spend money on yourself for comfort or self fulfillment, while claiming to advocate for the elimination of poverty? One argument would say that you're not truly dedicated to ending the suffering of others if you keep resources for yourself instead of putting them to the cause. How Christ/Budda-like do we need to be in order to serve good? Do we have to give it all away, including our lives? Does anything less make us corrupt? This is certainly the stuff of religion, but my own take is that the answer lies in balance. I don't think it's bad or evil for someone to take care of themselves and their family for comfort or self-serving needs, as long as that is kept in balance in their lives and the lives of those around them. We all know someone who is consumed with the material world, and cares little for real good action toward helping others. This is corrupting, poisonous, and evil. Greed is certainly the base of most evil. Now, if you buy this argument, then the question becomes one of how much is enough? How much is too much? When does taking care of yourself turn into greed? This brings me to one of MY questions: <strong>If we took the wealth of the entire world including everything held or produced by individuals, families, governments, corporations, and religions, and we divided it evenly across everyone on the planet, how much would a single individual have?</strong> Wow — an incredibly powerful post. You have, as usual, done an amazing job of framing the issue. And it completely resonates with the way I feel.

Regarding your question, I can interpret it in one of two ways.

The first asks the question, “Is advocacy for others just another way of achieving personal fulfillment?” Or put another way, “Is there a selflessness to advocacy for others, or is it just another way of helping ourselves?” To this I would respond that advocacy for others is both selfless as well as personally fulfilling.

The second asks, “Is it possible seek for the self while also trying to advocate, or help others.” For example, is it hypocritical to spend money on yourself for comfort or self fulfillment, while claiming to advocate for the elimination of poverty? One argument would say that you’re not truly dedicated to ending the suffering of others if you keep resources for yourself instead of putting them to the cause. How Christ/Budda-like do we need to be in order to serve good? Do we have to give it all away, including our lives? Does anything less make us corrupt? This is certainly the stuff of religion, but my own take is that the answer lies in balance. I don’t think it’s bad or evil for someone to take care of themselves and their family for comfort or self-serving needs, as long as that is kept in balance in their lives and the lives of those around them. We all know someone who is consumed with the material world, and cares little for real good action toward helping others. This is corrupting, poisonous, and evil. Greed is certainly the base of most evil.

Now, if you buy this argument, then the question becomes one of how much is enough? How much is too much? When does taking care of yourself turn into greed? This brings me to one of MY questions:

If we took the wealth of the entire world including everything held or produced by individuals, families, governments, corporations, and religions, and we divided it evenly across everyone on the planet, how much would a single individual have?

]]>