Post by Dan on Jun 12, 2017 17:15:28 GMT -5
I personally use the term "attachment" (and "detachment") as I consider my approach to the world, and in my emotional and spiritual life.
I brought the terms up with my therapist, and after a bit of confusion, we realized that therapists have a very different definition for these. PLEASE let me elaborate:
---
In my vernacular (based on some spiritual/religious writings that I identify with): "detachment" is good; it is not being so dedicated to a particular outcome when things are not in your control. At least not so desirous of it that it makes you sad when it doesn't happen. Sure, I ordered the salmon at the banquet, but by the time they get to my table all they have left is the [boring] chicken dish. Oh well, don't make too big a deal of it; go with the flow; roll with the punches; if life gives you lemons, make lemonade.
"Attachment" is the less flexible approach to the world: being unhappy if things don't go just the way you planned them. Think of someone you heard described as a "bridezilla", or an ungrateful teen who didn't get the car he wanted for a graduation present. So materialism is one form or "attachment"... but you can be attached to the idea of fame, high-standing in the community, whatever.
I think it is this sense of "attachment" that the Buddha quote above is referring to. In fact, this comes up in many faith traditions: you may hear from a religious person the exhortation "God's will be done." Many religions value the "detachment" of our own wills, and the ability to accept God's.
---
So I told my therapist "I'm trying to be more detached about my relationship with my wife"; that was me trying to cope, trying to be the bigger person; allowing my wife to have her quirks -- and lower sex drive -- and still love her, support her.
But to my therapist -- in her vernacular -- "detachment" was a disorder. It was a characteristic of people who can't love, can't empathize. Sounds a bit like a narcissist. Or maybe the damage done to a child by neglect. In its extreme form, "detachment" is basically the hallmark of a sociopath!
To her, "attachment" is the term for normal bonding.
---
I don't think one of these definitions is "right" and the other wrong "wrong". I think they are VERY DIFFERENT, and are just used differently in different domains. (This happens ALL THE TIME in the sciences, and in many fields.) I think it is VERY IMPORTANT not to confuse them.
While I still value "detachment" (my first definition), I can't tell you that my pursuit of "detachment" in the face of an an SM was a good/productive thing. I've mentioned in other posts that I think a hallmark of many of us in SMs is that we are VERY giving, VERY tolerant of our spouse, and VERY accommodating for far too long. It is possible that a little LESS detachment and a little LESS selflessness earlier on would have shortened our suffering in the SM... either by correcting the LL spouse's behavior sooner, or calling the question and us getting out of the SM sooner.
I brought the terms up with my therapist, and after a bit of confusion, we realized that therapists have a very different definition for these. PLEASE let me elaborate:
---
In my vernacular (based on some spiritual/religious writings that I identify with): "detachment" is good; it is not being so dedicated to a particular outcome when things are not in your control. At least not so desirous of it that it makes you sad when it doesn't happen. Sure, I ordered the salmon at the banquet, but by the time they get to my table all they have left is the [boring] chicken dish. Oh well, don't make too big a deal of it; go with the flow; roll with the punches; if life gives you lemons, make lemonade.
"Attachment" is the less flexible approach to the world: being unhappy if things don't go just the way you planned them. Think of someone you heard described as a "bridezilla", or an ungrateful teen who didn't get the car he wanted for a graduation present. So materialism is one form or "attachment"... but you can be attached to the idea of fame, high-standing in the community, whatever.
I think it is this sense of "attachment" that the Buddha quote above is referring to. In fact, this comes up in many faith traditions: you may hear from a religious person the exhortation "God's will be done." Many religions value the "detachment" of our own wills, and the ability to accept God's.
---
So I told my therapist "I'm trying to be more detached about my relationship with my wife"; that was me trying to cope, trying to be the bigger person; allowing my wife to have her quirks -- and lower sex drive -- and still love her, support her.
But to my therapist -- in her vernacular -- "detachment" was a disorder. It was a characteristic of people who can't love, can't empathize. Sounds a bit like a narcissist. Or maybe the damage done to a child by neglect. In its extreme form, "detachment" is basically the hallmark of a sociopath!
To her, "attachment" is the term for normal bonding.
---
I don't think one of these definitions is "right" and the other wrong "wrong". I think they are VERY DIFFERENT, and are just used differently in different domains. (This happens ALL THE TIME in the sciences, and in many fields.) I think it is VERY IMPORTANT not to confuse them.
While I still value "detachment" (my first definition), I can't tell you that my pursuit of "detachment" in the face of an an SM was a good/productive thing. I've mentioned in other posts that I think a hallmark of many of us in SMs is that we are VERY giving, VERY tolerant of our spouse, and VERY accommodating for far too long. It is possible that a little LESS detachment and a little LESS selflessness earlier on would have shortened our suffering in the SM... either by correcting the LL spouse's behavior sooner, or calling the question and us getting out of the SM sooner.
