Carrol, what you say is true only when thinking proceeds from one horn of a dilemma to other; duality can be transcended even while opposites exist on the dialectical level.
Frankly I am surprised that you define detachment as indifference; you ignore the non-attachment implication of the word. Just as disinterestedness is not uninterest, detachment can provide a locus from which to regard one's attachments. Isn't that what Eliot achieved in the 4 Qts?

> Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:17:42 -0500
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Eliotists
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Laura Close wrote:
> >
> > What do you think of "Thus the love of country begins as an attachment
> > to our own field of action"
> Precisely what does this mean? Does it just assume that "attachment to
> country" is a good thing; or is it in a context in which such attachment
> is a bad thing? It seems quite empty of content to me.
> and "detachement from self and from things
> > and from persons" ?
> 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. And "detachment from self" is merely candy wrapping on
> the arrogance towards the rest of humanity.
> Carrol

More immediate than e-mail? Get instant access with Windows Live Messenger.