There's a big difference between sharing and separating what we have to give. Either we give it or we don't. When all we're considering is this big difference, we neglect how much to share, what kinds of sharing get valued and what comes about from all that sharing. We're poised to "unload the dump truck" rather than deal with more complex choices. Every facet of this possibility space seems already fixed like a bunch of persistent objects.
There's a more subtle difference between unbridled sharing and sharing done by divvying up all we have to share and appropriating select amounts to separate constituencies. When we're being selective about our sharing, we're being insightful about those on the receiving end. We're anticipating how our sharing will benefit others in particular. We're discerning how the total of what we have to share varies in how it benefits and obligates others; as well as costs us and earns us dividends to share it. We've opened up the space to wonder about more facets and explore more possibilities.
When we've complicated our sharing to include both costs and benefits for both sides, we'll enter into the paradoxical realm where it sometimes costs to receive and pays to give. Then we're in a position to separate what we share freely and share with strings attached. We can also sort between what we accept freely and receive with subsequent obligations. We may then appropriate what we share with more nuanced appreciation of contexts and consequences for particular sharing gestures. Sharing and separating go hand in hand or they exist as two sides of one coin. Sharing has been restored to be a mystery that defies any explanation that would confine it to something reified and misperceived.