posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 09:37 PM
Originally posted by Ian McLean
When does such passion undermine it's own justification, by its resulting actions, I wonder? We could perhaps say "when it begins to harm others",
but is that a moral or a pragmatic line that's drawn there?
I am not familiar enough with Adams to comment on that aspect of what you said, but the above I think I can.
I will go back to my first example. Dispassion as it is displayed in genius is not really a lack of passion. It is a passion for truth that
supercedes passion for self interest. It is a passion for seeing things the way they are, rather than a passion for viewing things through the lens
of self interest. And upon seeing things for what they really are, one then continues by not forcing upon the things-that-are ones own view.
Instead, one observes and experiments within the bounds of "what is." NOT forcing ones opinion upon the subject, but operating withing objective
reality as much as this is possible.
If one is capable of this sort of "dispassion" that also means that one can see that people and creatures do not like to suffer. It is obvious,
everyone can see this. What people DO in practice is justify imposing their will or opinion upon the suffering thing. That is not "dispassion."
That is the same egoic "passion for your own egoic self" that is most common among humans.
If you are truly dispassionate towards your own personal bias, your own desire for, or wish to, or opinion, what could possibly make you feel your own
"desire to know" should infringe upon the right of another beings, "desire not to suffer?" It isnt a moral choice at all. It is a logical one.
If one is not holding oneself to a separate standard, an elevated one, what could possible cause one to think that "I" have more of a right than
It is only selfish passion that makes us feel OUR ideas, OUR beliefs, and OUR wishes, should somehow take precedence over the simple facts of the
matter. A passion for truth itself requires that you set your own preferences aside and consider what actually IS in the moment. Not what you wish
was, or what you think should be.
So a truly dispassionate person would not create a justification for placing their own desires over that of another. They would not make a special
case for their own interests. I would not say that was a morally based choice at all, simply a dispassionate one. (Where the term actually refers to
a lack of selfish passion, not a lack of passion altogether.)