[NoraSpinnor]

In The Young Man and the Sage, the sage offers a piercing insight:

“If someone truly helps out of pure kindness—not for any other purpose than to help that specific person—their deeds remain unknown. … But the moment kindness is advertised or leveraged for personal gain, it loses its meaning. It becomes a currency. That’s what I saw in society before I left—people helping only when they stood to benefit. That’s not morality. That’s just the desire for good favor.”

This challenges much of how our culture currently relates to generosity. We see good deeds posted, shared, and sometimes even branded. We watch acts of kindness go viral. The question arises: if a generous act is seen, is it less pure? If it’s filmed, is it still benevolent, or is it a form of quiet negotiation for reputation, validation, or influence?

In Netism, everything hinges on intentional threads. What matters is not whether others witness your act, but why the act was done and what energy it carries into the field. Some people act silently yet still seek inner reward. Others act publicly but move from alignment.

Sharing kindness can inspire others. But it can also shift the center of gravity from the gift to the giver. That shift changes the thread.

Can a person share a kind act without spoiling its resonance? Or does public sharing turn it into something else entirely? Share your thoughts and experiences.

[CosmicQueen33]

i think about this a lot actually, especially in a world where everything is posted. sometimes i’ll witness someone sharing their kindness online and it feels pure, like a ripple of light moving outward. other times… it feels like a flex wrapped in virtue 🙃
for me personally, i try to keep most of my giving private. not because i’m better, but because it helps me stay clear on my reasons. it keeps the thread clean. and if i do ever share, i check in with myself first:
🌿 am i offering this to inspire?
🌿 or am i craving validation?

[Author]

Posts