Grant, I mean it in the same way you do. People make the argument saying "I eat when I'm hungry", and they claim to be unattached but they're very wrong. Making any movement is a sign of deep attachment. If a person asks themselves "why" they're eating when they're hungry, the answers that come up are "so I can survive" or "so I don't feel discomfort"...but what is the point of surviving, and what is the point of avoiding discomfort? The point of surviving may be "I like living" or "I'm afraid of dying" or "people will miss me if I stop eating and die". Why do you like living, as death is part of life, and the 'living' you're talking about is really avoidance of death (which is avoidance of life)? Why are you afraid of dying, when it's inevitable anyway? That isn't really living well, it's making your life shit, so what's the point? People are going to end up missing you the day you die, anyway..and for the most part you can't help when that day will come. Everyone has reasons for every action they take, this is an undeniable attribute of movement. What causes anyone to move is preference, and trying to achieve the better...what you want. You can't tell me that making a choice is entirely without desire. If anyone was actually without desire, they'd have no reason to move, and they wouldn't move.
So what are you talking about, now?