Reply to musing of mine

(reply to foregoing letter, dated 13 July. Edited for content) 
 
First, I just want to say that I was of the same opinion as you till I thought about the subject after sophomore year. I'm not so sure that it is the wrong way of thinking in principle, and if it is wrong, I (which I believe it to be now)it is  an error in defintion.The reason I say that is because we are composed of a body & soul, the animal & the supernatural, and that is what makes us human. If we separate the two, weare no longer human. Hence the resurrection after the last judgment. Yeah,we're perfectly happy in heaven w/o a body, but we aren't human, strictly speaking. Then there's the problem of ruling. The higher power should always rule the base. Therefore the animal passions of man, good by its nature (God has that peculiar problem - he can't seem to create anything deficient) should not rule man, who has a higher power. Original sin destroyed the natural order, and we are left struggling. But to say the two should be separated seems to me to bethrowing the baby out with the bathwater; besides, we are no more able to accomplish this violence against our nature than to make a man out of dust, if you take my meaning: God made nature; thus we can only pervert the order of nature, not change it.
------------------------------------------------
I suspect there is no simple answer. What you were calling detatchment I called mastery in my last email, denying that really could be detatchment properly speaking. I still hold to that position. And since mastery is only gained by the denial of one's self, hence what has been called detatchment. (so called detatchment [strictly speaking] appears to be gained by a perverse attatchment. Perhaps that is right, perhaps wrong. It's something to meditate on. It could be, looking back on what I'm saying, that I just take the word detatchment a different way than you, and hence we can be both right. I'm not in a position to argue things straight. However, what I said should at least be food for thought. But an answer to the question every child begs his mom: whenwill I get older? I think common opinion (always a good place to start) has it that you are grownup when you can show yourself responsible. Lack of responsibility is what proves a man to be a child, and responsibility proves a child to be a man. That is why mere children could be entrusted to take care of their mothers when their fathers died, and could fight in the Civil War. That is how boys become soldiers in our military. I can only speculate what responsibility is. Does it come fromthe virtues? which ones? Or does one need merely a certain percentage of virtues to be considered a man.