Non-Attachment

[Volderbeek]

How does everyone here feel about the Taoist/Buddhist concept of non-attachment? Here's a definition of attachment from a Buddhist site:


ATTACHMENT
Definition: Exaggerated not wanting to be separated from someone or something. (Exact opposite of Aversion) Because the label of "pleasant" is very relative and based upon limited information, Attachment includes an aspect of exaggeration or "projection".
Near "enemy" (or not to be confused with): Real appreciation, love and compassion.
Opposite: Wanting to be separated from someone or something: aversion.
Main quality: exaggeration of positive qualities, which can only lead to disappointment. Falling in love will usually fit very well in this category.
The way I see it, attachment can only lead to problems, especially for revolutionaries.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This belongs in religion.

[al8]

To answer; I think it depends on the context. But if we take the act of falling in love, it sertainly is irrational to an extent. Your jugement is schewd, but it makes perfect sense since it helps with making a succsessful mating-process. Sex, love, lust and the attachment involved is a normal part of being human.

I find it unneccisary to elevate the word attachment to a religious concept and de-attachment as a special goal. Revolutionaries don't need to be monks. Nor does the movement ahve to be a life-deying cult.

[Raisa]

To answer; I think it depends on the context. But if we take the act of falling in love, it sertainly is irrational to an extent. Your jugement is schewd, but it makes perfect sense since it helps with making a succsessful mating-process.""

That attatchement shit is for stalkers and murderers. And we need to realize that.
You should care about your wives and husbands and put their lives as your first peroggatives in your own life, however....this parasitic attachement issue is why after seven years go by people cheat on each other because they have stopped being the radiant people that their spouses fell in love with and attached themselves to another person and made their whole existance a flat picture.
And part of this I think is very economic.
Its the result of a capitalist society. THis attachement is really saying ' i am nothing on my own, i love you for making me real' or ' i love you for what you do for me reguardless.....' and we should be able to love and be loved based on just love for the sake of appreciating another person for who they are. Theres a whole world in others that cannot be discovered in obsession and insecurity.

And on the religious topic, if two people believe in god, then the only thing they should both focus attanching themselves and their relationship to is god. things are better for them that way. No " what can you do for me *****!" instead its :what can we do for HIM.

[Volderbeek]

"If love does not know how to give and take without restrictions, it is not love, but a transaction that never fails to lay stress on a plus and a minus." - Emma Goldman

[Volderbeek]

To answer; I think it depends on the context. But if we take the act of falling in love, it sertainly is irrational to an extent. Your jugement is schewd, but it makes perfect sense since it helps with making a succsessful mating-process. Sex, love, lust and the attachment involved is a normal part of being human.

Well, yes, we know it has a biological role, but we no longer have the need for such reactions. Sex, love, and lust are indeed part of being human, but attachment to these things is the perversion of humanity (the will to power).


I find it unneccisary to elevate the word attachment to a religious concept and de-attachment as a special goal. Revolutionaries don't need to be monks. Nor does the movement ahve to be a life-deying cult.
Well, I originally posted this in Philosophy, but we all know how Rosa believes in "guilt by association". I don't think we need to be religious about it (or anything for that matter). The irony, I think, is that religion is a form of attachment. The "life-defying cult" would be a form of attachment identical with mindless consumerism; two sides of the same coin.