Posted by
Carl Tollander on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/DEBATE-about-Religion-and-Atheism-tp7580664p7580819.html
It's sort of like being cool.
If you act like you're cool, and go around telling yourself how cool you
are, you're not cool.
If you care about whether or not you're cool, you're not cool.
So if you get invested in how much you're not caring about whether or
not you're cool, you're still not cool, you just think you are. And so on...
So it is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition of coolness to not
care about how cool you are.
Same goes for hot.
Carl
On 10/1/12 6:40 PM, glen wrote:
> 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.)
>
============================================================
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