[francstoic]

I came across one of Steve's posts in which he suggests that being free from the attachment to outcomes is a healther/more positive way. He doesn't quite elaborate on that, so I'd like to have his (and anybody else's) opinion on that.

More generally, I want to ask whether it is "fair" to be attached to circumstances when they provide joy/happiness, but as soon as they produce suffering/sorrow, one abandons the attachment. I mean, I have known some Eastern philosophies talk about abandoning attachment to the world completely. Why would anyone want to do that?

Steve's Subjective Reality outlook is really very similar to some Eastern philosophies, and this is especially why I'm raising this question here. Steve hasn't, so far at least, talked about losing attachment to the world completely, at least not explicitly.

Is not giving up attachment to the world a giving up of both happiness and sorrow? I think it is. But if it is so, it renders the purpose of life incomplete on one of the aspects of Steve's Great Triangle (i.e., it lessens the importance of the joy that alignment with Love can bring). Is the pursuit of happiness wrong or at least less-than-ultimate? If not, then why should we give up attachment to outcomes? (Giving up attachment to outcomes means that you don't emotionally think of what the outcome will be, i.e. you don't expect it to give you happiness or sorrow, you're just neutral in passion and intellectual/logical when you look at events).

I'd be happy to know what you think.