[Lesson 5] Wary of attachement
Please Log in to join the conversation.
Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Here is a thought, if everything is connected doesn't that make "attachement" an illusion? We tell ourselves to be wary of something that is already something we can't avoid and is actually necessary. This concept makes it impossible to have unhealthy or healthy attachment. Instead we just have connectedness.
Oooh I LOVE this Kyrin! It totally feeds into something I've been reading on Heidigger! I need to do some more thinking, but Thank you! I'm really enjoying all these different perspectives!
Please Log in to join the conversation.
- steamboat28
-
- Offline
- User
- Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
Such that anchors serve as functional attachments, defined by their performance to some frame of reference, and the things I consider as attachments are a higher order classification of anchors and restraints. So, attachments don't really serve me from this point of view, and instead prefer to remove restraints by either removing them, or engaging them in some specifc construct frame of reference so I can relate in practical terms, and therefore they become anchors instead.
:S :side:
Please Log in to join the conversation.
Adder wrote: I gotta remind myself that the most common use of attachment is not meant as the process of attaching, but rather the state of being attached!! So I like to instead contrast attachments to anchors, for this context.... and I'm not sure why really. I guess it seems more a temporary state perhaps, anchor over attachment, and doesn't conflict with the other definition of the process of attaching..... I mean, there 'is' some existential ground to say all perception is creation of illusion, and therefore being attached is actually re-attaching haha - but that sort of approach I find a bit retrograde in working with it as a concept. So I go with anchors for things I allow.
Such that anchors serve as functional attachments, defined by their performance to some frame of reference, and the things I consider as attachments are a higher order classification of anchors and restraints. So, attachments don't really serve me from this point of view, and instead prefer to remove restraints by either removing them, or engaging them in some specifc construct frame of reference so I can relate in practical terms, and therefore they become anchors instead.
:S :side:
I am not sure i understand what you are saying here but it would seem to me that anchors would hold someone even back more than attachments , but then again , anchors are great for keeping one in 1 place to contemplate before moving forward to the next sand bank :laugh:
Please Log in to join the conversation.
Serenity wrote: I am not sure i understand what you are saying here but it would seem to me that anchors would hold someone even back more than attachments , but then again , anchors are great for keeping one in 1 place to contemplate before moving forward to the next sand bank :laugh:
Well if thinking of a busy ship, an anchor spends most of its time out of water! So I reckon by their identification to function, they are more distinct and therefore can serve better at anchoring when anchoring (which is why its a strong association to strong attachment IMO), and sunbaking on deck when not anchored - they are efficient and capable by design. Especially since my base understanding of these for me seems prudent to be about my capacity to anchor, to better understand if I should continue based on its impact to my capacity to operate as effectively as I can. But yea, to me attachment seems too high an affinity between objects to retain the dynamism required for equals to best relate and grow. It''s opt in, rather then stuck on, sorta thing.
Please Log in to join the conversation.