The only way I can imagine detachment being a form of attachment would be that both attachment and detachment are limited to _partial_ [de|at]tachment. I.e. non-attachment must be some sort of singularity approachable from either direction.
http://www.wuala.com/gepr/public/singularity.svg/?mode=list But if that's the case, then we're guilty of equivocating on the word "attachment". Perhaps replacing "detachment" with "anti-attachment" might prevent the equivocation. Prof David West wrote at 10/01/2012 04:21 PM: > "duty has almost nothing to do with the philosophical lesson of the > story. Arjuna's dilemma is not between kill and not kill, or deciding > between two contradictory laws - but between attached and non-attached > action. Only the latter avoids the accrual of Karma (western spelling). > Non-attachment is definitively not detachment (detachment is an instance > of attachment). Non-attachment is acting with "perfect knowledge" that > the action is the "right" action in that context, with context being the > totality of the world. (A kind of omniscience, the possibility of which > is for another time and place.) -- glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
