On Saturday 19 April 2008 23:17:42 Carrol Cox wrote:
> Translated into terms of human action, this seems to be a perfect excuse
> to ignore massacres & other horors -- after all they are merely things
> and/or persons.

If detachment is:
	"disconnecting, separation, standing apart or aloof from objects or 			
then it is surely a positive trait in the field of human action. After all, 
the "massacres" of the world have occurred while good men remained aloof, 
which is the point I believe you made, yet that is the passive condition for 
said massacre. The active condition is something much more disturbing, a very 
self-assured, emotional and prejudicial attachment to the events and people 
concerned. It cannot be said that the perpetrators of genocide had true 
objectivity towards their victims, therefore they were not "standing apart" 
from circumstances, but rather being consumed by them.

At worst, then, detachment can only be as bad as attachment in a general 
sense, and each has its problems and advantages in specific circumstances.

On Sunday 20 April 2008 00:51:14 Kate Troy wrote:
> Attachment,  I believe, Carrol, is
> a good thing in general, in that it often brings feelings  of warmth and
> friendship.

In the field of human emotion, attachment is of course a marvellous thing. I 
would try to draw a distinction between emotion and action. While it is true 
that the two are intrinsically linked, I should like to think that we might 
aspire to be connected emotionally to people and objects, and aspire to be 
apart from circumstances and without prejudice in our actions. I recognise it 
is not a goal that may be fully achieved, but that does not denigrate the