Monday, July 25, 2005

Charity Whore

Charity -- giving without restraint, giving of anything, and probably everything, without expecting anything in return. Charity, considered to be a virtue arising out of love. Love for all people. Love for all humankind. Loving all humans like loving God. And like how God loves us all, so are we asked to follow in His example and love everyone else. This idea of virtue has to be the most adulterated idea of virtue and morality! It makes you more promiscuous than a whore on the streetcorner. Atleast a whore chooses to indiscriminately share his/her body with any loaf on the street and expects something material in return - like money, or food, or whatever else. Thus, this transaction is atleast like that of between equals -- one has something to offer that the other values or wants, and there is an equal exchange of values. None is made to be a parasite, none is made to be a victim -- provided all the parties involved are consenting and voluntary. Whores do not squander their bodies to the service of any undeserving animal with no value to offer. They give of their body only according to the value they earn in return. These values are clearly recognized and agreed to by all parties concerned. A person who voluntarily sells their body as a commodity and a person who voluntarily gives away their possessions to others have these things in common: both of them are indiscriminate as far as who is the receiver of their values. They do not care which Tom, Dick, or Harry is the beneficiary of their actions. There is no deliberate focus of directing their efforts at anyone specific, except that the receiver is accepting, willing, and in need of those services. The prostitute does not care who they engage in sex with as long as that person is in need of someone to have sex with, and is willing to engage in sex with a prostitute. A charitable person does not care which troll becomes the receiver of their love, time, money, or whatever else, as long as that beggar is in need of those things and is wholly accepting of any morsel thrown at them. Both, the prostitute and the charitable person, does not have any specific focus of value directed at the individual. For them both, the receiver is simply an interchangeable unit of faceless masses – they could be any one Tom, or Dick, or Harry, and it would make no difference to either. Thus, they ascribe NO VALUE to the object of their actions – the beggar or the person looking for sex. The difference between the prostitute and the charitable person is this: the prostitute demands an equal payment of value to the value they offered. Thus, while the object of their services is of NO value to the prostitute, the commodity (which is their own body or the pleasure of sex) is of VALUE to the whores because they demand an equal compensation of value for the value that they are offering! In other words, the whore is a self-generative producer of value in regards to sex, and values the nature of their commodity enough to not squander it freely and indiscriminately on any mooch that cannot meet the demands of their service. The charitable person, on the other hand, does not even value the services they have to offer. They give out love, time, money, etc. freely and indiscriminately without demanding ANY thing of value in return. Thus, giving off of those things without any hope or expectation of either getting those same values back in return, or receiving some other value in return reveals their own assessment of what they hold as valuable. Their love is not only available to any Tom, Dick or Harry, but is also available at NO cost, at NO price, and at ANY amount whatever. But the “amount” can only mean something significant if there is some value to that amount. In other words, “less love” can only mean something in relation to “more love” IF LOVE ITSELF IS VALUED – like $4 is valued less than $10 if MONEY itself is of value. Thus, giving away of $4 or $10 or $100 or whatever amount of money or time or love without any understanding of the value of each of those units can only mean that the commodity or service is NOT of value to this person. Thus, a charitable person will easily admit to the fact that for them the “MONEY” or “TIME” or “LOVE” is not the higher value, but the act of GIVING AWAY of those things to random beggars is of value. The very notion of “Charity” puts the ACT of giving at a higher pedastal than the things that are being given away. Thus, for the charitable person, the receiver is not of any value to them (any beggar as long as they are begging for something) and the commodity or service is not of value to them (willing to give away anything and everything, indiscriminately). The ACT of giving, therefore, becomes an ACT SO MUCH MORE PROMISCUOUS than the acts committed by a whore! While the whore does NOT value the ACT nor the object, but their own physical self and their generative power to engage in sexual pleasure, they deem themselves WORTHY enough to demand an equal payment for that generative power. The act of sex is not promiscuously available to any begging Tom, Dick or Harry. If one were to substite “love” for “sex” and examine the behavior of the whore versus the charitable person, one can see how promiscuously indiscriminate “love” is given away by the charitable person, and thereby rendering the value of “love” to meaningless insignificance. A whore will exchange love ONLY in return to equal compensation (presumably, in this example, love in return). Thus, value is maintained and held in this case. A charitable person will give away “love” to whomsoever needs it or demands it. They give away “love” indiscriminately to any faceless beggar without requiring any value in return. For them, if they loved their own mother or if they loved the beggar on the street, it would seem no different. Since they have no discrimination of the object of their love, they could love any Tom, any Dick, any Harry, any Husband, any Mother in all the same way and not know the difference. There is NO FOCUS of deliberate directed value towards any of the objects, and there is NO demand that their husband love them back, or that their mother love them back, or that Tom love them back. For them, love can possibly have NO value because value can only come with a clear discrimination of NON-VALUE. You can only LOVE someONE if you DO NOT love someone else. Loving everyone and anyone is really NOT LOVING AT ALL! The virtue in the act of loving and the value of love itself can only be generated from a deliberate, self-motivated CHOICE of engaging in an act you consider virtuous, using an attribute that you consider valuable, directed towards particular individuals you consider WORTHY of receiving that which you value. Thus, motivation outside of yourself, i.e. “love” motivated by the need of the faceless, unnameable beggar, or the masses of beggars not only renders your “love” worthless but also your act unvirtuous. In this way, one must understand the true meaning and VALUE of love when one says to another, “I love you”. That admission of love implies identity, motivation, and discrimination. It recognizes the OBJECT of that love as this particular individual. It recognizes the ORIGINATOR and MOTIVATION of that love as one’s OWN self, “I”, and it recognizes the fact that this “love” is focused only at “you” and not “anyone” or “everyone”. Thus it is discriminatory. It is not “I love anyone”, nor is it “I love everyone”. So, when you say, “Mom, I love you”… you don’t say, “Mom, I love you and I love Tom, and Dick, and Harry, and Susy…” nor do you say, “Because I love you Mom and Tom and Dick and Harry and Susy… I’ll do whatever and give whatever because I love giving, I love charity.” Such a kind of love, or “charity” is truly meaningless and worthless. It insults the concept of “true love” that should rightfully be sparing, focused, deliberate, and given in an exchange of value for value.

4 Comments:

Blogger innommable said...

hey, so does that mean that a whore on a streetcorner, etc, is a moral being?

7/25/2005 08:44:00 PM  
Blogger Tyrel said...

I wish your commments were dated.

7/26/2005 01:51:00 PM  
Blogger Ergo Sum said...

Whose comments? Mine? You mean you wish my posts were dated? Aren't they already? Hmm.. and why does it matter?

7/26/2005 02:30:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Everyone's comments...

7/26/2005 03:44:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home