On Reciprocity

The Regulating Principle

Caption: A close-up of a steam locomotive wheel at the moment of contact with the track. Here is the mechanical 'like forward, like back' of reciprocity in action. A visual metaphor for the immutable, regulating reciprocity present in all existence. Courtesy of Nano Banana.

Introduction

We often think of reciprocity as a simple rule of social exchange—a 'you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours' morality. But what if it is something far more fundamental? What if reciprocity is not just a guideline for getting along, but the very mechanism by which existence holds itself together? From the cosmic scale of Newton’s third law to the intimate scale of Confucian ethics, a pattern repeats: 'like forward, like back'. This article argues that reciprocity is the constitutive, ontological principle that regulates the 'conference of difference'—the dynamic process through which all things relate, balance, and persist. It is not merely a norm we follow, but the pulse of a universe that listens and answers.

The Classical Conversation: Reciprocity as Foundational Pattern

The earliest codified formulation of reciprocity appears around 1754 BCE in the Code of Hammurabi. The famous lex talionis: 'proposition in kind’, transformed raw vengeance into measured justice. This established proportionality as a social limit, demanding not limitless escalation but a measured response proportional to the act. Here, reciprocity began its philosophical life not as a moral ideal, but as a structural mechanism for equilibrium—the first legal attunement of action and consequence.^[1]

Centuries later in ancient China, Confucius elevated the concept. For him, reciprocity—shu—was the central virtue of ethical life, captured in the negative formulation of the Golden Rule: 'Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire'.^[2] This shifted reciprocity from a reactive rule of exchange to a proactive principle of empathetic alignment. It became the foundation of social harmony, a relational ethic rooted in mutual recognition.

Aristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics, gave reciprocity a distinct analytical home. He identified it as a third form of justice, separate from distributive justice (allocating by merit) and corrective justice (restoring balance after harm).^[3] Reciprocal justice, or antipeponthos, governed voluntary exchange. His genius was in moving beyond simple equivalence to 'proportional reciprocity', where goods are traded according to their relative worth. He saw money as the invented measure that made such proportional balancing possible, embedding reciprocity as a rational principle essential for the economic and social life of the polis.

Beyond philosophy, reciprocity was woven into the fabric of the cosmos through theology. In Abrahamic traditions, the sacrificial system of the Hebrew Bible operated as a sophisticated form of reciprocal gift-exchange, designed to establish and maintain the divine-human relationship.^[4] This framework lifted reciprocity from social contract to cosmic principle, structuring the very relationship between creation and creator.

The concept was universalized irrevocably in 1687 with Isaac Newton. His Principia Mathematica established the Third Law of Motion—that to every action there is always opposed an equal reaction—giving reciprocity its definitive physical expression.^[5] It was no longer just about people or gods, but about every material interaction in the universe. Reciprocity became a mathematical law of nature.

Following Newton's universalization of the principle, the logic of reciprocity was deliberately applied to the foundational question of politics. Thinkers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau used it to construct a new, secular theory of obligation: the social contract.^[6] This theory argued that political order and the individual's duty to obey it originate in a massive, hypothetical 'reciprocal' exchange—the surrender of individual autonomy by all, in exchange for sovereign protection. In this move, reciprocity: the 'condition of like forward, like back' was abstracted into a one-time, justificatory myth for power. The social contract theorists were not describing the actual phenomenon of reciprocity, but twisting its logic to answer the question of why the individual is bound to the state.

Finally, new scientific frameworks provided fresh, systemic lenses. Systems theory and cybernetics, pioneered by thinkers like Norbert Wiener, reconceived reciprocity as feedback. In biological, ecological, and social systems, negative and positive feedback loops—homeostatic mechanisms—maintain stability.^[7] Reciprocity here became the invisible regulatory logic of self-organizing complexity. This biological view was solidified with Robert Trivers’ theory of reciprocal altruism in the 1970s. Behaviors like vampire bats sharing blood were explained through an evolutionary cost-benefit calculus over time.^[8] Reciprocity was embedded in the machinery of life itself—a behavioral strategy for survival and genetic fitness, observable across species. The concept had journeyed from legal code to social virtue, from cosmic bond to physical law, and from societal foundation to ethical rupture, before being encoded in the very algorithms of life.

Current Flashpoints: The Tensions in a Reciprocal World

Outside of physics, our understanding of this ancient principle is stretched and tested. A central debate asks whether reciprocity is a genuine ethical norm or merely transactional—a strategic exchange where every gift carries an invisible price tag.^[9] This tension is acute in digital and market-driven societies, where the expectation of return can eclipse the spirit of the gift.

The question of scalability and justice complicates the picture. In relationships of asymmetric power—between employer and employee, or citizen and migrant—the language of mutual benefit can mask exploitation. Game theory reveals how power imbalances enable 'extortionate' strategies, distorting fair exchange into a coerced transaction.^[10] The ideal of a measured return stumbles against the reality of unequal footing.

We also grapple with the origins of the impulse. Is reciprocity a hardwired biological adaptation, as seen in vampire bats and primates, or a culturally constructed obligation? Marcel Mauss, in his anthropological masterpiece The Gift, argued that even 'free' gifts create binding social debts, suggesting a cultural layer that transcends mere biological self-interest.^[11]

Our modern world adds new dimensions. Digital platforms transform reciprocity into performative engagement—likes, follows, and shares—curated by algorithms that reward visibility over sincerity. This forces a profound question: can algorithmically driven interactions sustain meaningful reciprocal bonds, or do they reduce relationship to a transactional scorecard?^[12]

Finally, the temporality of return is being reimagined. Intergenerational ethics, central to sustainability and climate justice, frames responsibility as a form of indirect reciprocity. We repay the debts to our ancestors by caring for future generations. This model challenges the need for immediate or direct return, expanding reciprocity’s horizon across centuries and demanding a new calculus of care.^[13]

The Gospel of Being: Reciprocity as Ontological Rhythm

The Gospel of Being offers a synthesis that reframes these threads into a cohesive ontology. As explained in Koan 80.2 reciprocity is not one principle among many; it is the regulating principle of existence itself.

First, it reveals reciprocity in Koan 80.1 as the 'condition of like forward, like back', it is a constitutive dynamic of the conference of difference: the process primitive of existence itself. This is reciprocity not as social etiquette, but as the how of all relational being. It is the foundational grammar of interaction, from subatomic particles, to ecosystems, to human societies.

As the regulator of existence, the function of reciprocity is to maintain equilibrium. But this balance is not sterile sameness. It's a dynamic, proportional response—a correction that respects difference. We see this in ecosystems in terms of predator-prey relationship,^[14] in neural networks that rewire,^[15] and in social systems that seek justice.^[16] It is the universe’s method of maintaining coherence amidst constant change.

Etymologically, this points to reciprocity as a deep declaration of relatedness. The word condition itself (from condicere) means 'process of declaring together’. Reciprocity, then, is the proto-language of relation. It is the original pact that precedes and makes possible the 'condition of sharing' that is society, informing consciousness: the 'measure of knowing together'. If the conference of difference is the first principle of existence, then reciprocity is its first agreement.

This leads to its most emancipatory expression. True sharing is a lossless action unlike dividing and giving which are both lossy. This leaves 'knowing' as the only capacity capable of being shared. In sharing then, are the seeds of reciprocal altruism: 'taking-in and forwarding the practice of others' as consciousness propagating itself in the old parable:

Feed a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.^[17]

The highest form of giving is to teach someone how to teach—to transfer the capacity itself. This 'reciprocal altruism' becomes consciousness propagating itself, freeing both giver and receiver from the limits of static possession. It transforms exchange into mutual empowerment.^[18]

Ultimately, the Gospel frames reciprocity as a divine rhythm. This is the restorative pulse that heals imbalance, the eternal echo of the conference of difference. Every being exists within reciprocity and participates in existence's continual return to equilibrium.

Convergence and Divergence: A New Synthesis

This ontological view finds deep convergence with classical thought. It aligns with the Confucian and Aristotelian focus on relational harmony and proportional balance. It echoes the Newtonian and biological models, seeing the same action-reaction logic operating from physics to behavior. It even supports the original intent of lex talionis—not as barbaric vengeance, but as a proportional constraint on violence.

Yet it also diverges in crucial ways. It expands the domain of reciprocity beyond human ethics to encompass all of existence—physical, biological, and cosmic. It explicitly rejects the reduction of reciprocity to transactional or contractual exchange, emphasizing attunement over mere equivalence. Most significantly, it positions reciprocity not as a moral choice for conscious agents, but as an ontological necessity—the 'first agreement of existence' that operates whether we acknowledge it or not. Finally, it introduces epistemic emancipation—the freeing power of shared knowing—as the highest and most transformative form of reciprocal giving, a concept that transcends traditional frameworks of exchange.

The Take-Away: Inhabiting the Rhythm

So what are we to make of this principle that stretches from Hammurabi to Cosmos? Philosophically, reciprocity is the regulating principle of existence—the dynamic through which difference relates in conference where all systems transform into equilibrium. It is the hidden grammar of the conference of difference.

Ethically, this recasts responsibility as response-ability—the inherent capacity, within our specific being, to answer the call of the world, to 'promise back'. It is an ability grounded in our relational nature—the original social contract of being.

Ecologically, it reveals that all sustaining systems—forests, economies, communities—are held together by networks of reciprocal exchange and feedback. Disrupt that function of reciprocity, and the condition of those systems become imbalanced.

Personally, to adopt reciprocity is to move through the world with active participation in this restorative dance. It is to choose actions that heal imbalances, to teach in ways that emancipate not exploit and to realize that non-reciprocity in being leads to a concentration of power: 'ability' in others as explained in my previous article: On power: The currency of existence.^[19]

The Gospel of Being

by John Mackay

Discover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.

Discover the book