RoR: Forum

Thank you, MSK, for that detailed and personal account.

Your victory is the result of your strength of character, which, as you note, has several components. Getting them all together at one time is the key. In the case of alcohol, the fact that the substance impairs judgment is the crux of that problem. Tobacco is a lesser problem for that reason. The two often go together. ("She only smokes when she drinks..." goes the country western song.) Your narrative reminded me of Richard Feynman's episode, also from his time in Brazil. He wanted to stop into a bar at noon and realized that he had no rational reason to do so, so at that instant, he quit drinking. He had a tremendous rationality, of course -- as you do, also.

He also had a strong personality. His sense of self was well-integrated and the result of much introspection. I believe that it is that introspection which is the key. You asked rhetorically about feeling so angry that one cannot think straight. That is the nature of all emotions, ultimately. They over-ride reason, as they are intended to. When walking alone at night you hear a sound behind you, the hairs on the back of your head will come up whether you want them to or not. An addiction to anything works on that level and can only be addressed when you are not feeling that emotion.

However, your insight into sleeping under a bridge or not, also points to something else. The emotion served not as a motivator but as a trigger for the opposite. That could only have happened because you had begun the process of programming a different response. That came from your rational faculties.

The problem is complicated. We could dissect habits, compulsions, obsessions, and addictions. We could not "bottle" that discussion into a generalized cure. You want to avoid the fallacy that you got on top of your problem because you are a "better person" than those who do not. Yet, there is something to that. Not to recognize that element is to ignore a perhaps undefinable "something" in who MSK is.

Overall, I found that your story lacked a "wrapper" a single controlling element -- and I think that is close to the truth of the problems and their solutions. No one element, fact, incident or idea defines the subject -- and the subject is MSK, a brilliant and forceful person with a strong ego and positive sense of life.

Post 1

Monday, September 19, 2005 - 6:17am

Thank you for writing that, Michael. I've never seen anyone go so far to try to describe addiction, and I think you give some good ideas. I also believe twelve-step programs to be helpful. The "higher power" part does not really bother me, although I have never seen it as creating a false reality. Possibly because I usually attend GLBT groups, my groups have not been filled with very religious people. At one of my first meetings, someone said that my higher power could easily be the group. Nothing mystical, nothing too sinister - just an acknowledgement that I was not making good decisions concerning addictive substances and that the group could help me make better ones. I've stuck with that and get no weird feelings about it.

Post 2

Monday, September 19, 2005 - 8:38am

Michael thank you for writing this. There is still (Rational Recovery etc notwithstanding) a lack of sufficient treatment options for those who can't/won't work with the twelve step philosophy.

You have written a great first hand account of what it is like on a personal level for an objectivist to recover. Very well done.

John

Post 3

Monday, September 19, 2005 - 9:31am

Michael,

Congratulations on your article. You state your thoughts clearly. I understand you much better than I ever did from your posts. You make an important statement regarding an addict's recovery:

An addict needs to relearn how to choose medium to long-term values and choose and carry out the actions needed to obtain and/or keep them. He also needs to learn how to fit short term value surges into his daily life in a manner that they do not interfere with his medium and long term values.

Right. This is why it is a mistake to call addiction a disease. It's dysfunctional behavior, which only the addict can correct by making the choice to do so.

Andy

P.S. Pointing out this fact does not require the conclusion that the addict is a bad person. All it does it identify the source of the problem, the addict's bad choices.

Post 4

Monday, September 19, 2005 - 12:51pm

MSK-

That might be the best article on addiction I have ever read, and, unfortunately, for many reasons, over the years I found myself reading quite a few.

best,
rde

Post 5

Monday, September 19, 2005 - 12:54pm

Michael:
Fascinating, brave, insightful, meaningful, real, rational and inspiring.
I wrote in a previous post that people who don't believe addiction is real are out of their minds. Your treatise should lay any contrary arguments to rest.
The best way I've described my own struggle -- nay, battle -- with alcohol is thus. And please, non-addicted folks, know that this is real:
There was a powerful electrical storm in my head that was constantly active, like a brain filled with miniature tesla coils. It was always brewing and firing and buzzing, an ever-present maelstrom that was impossible to quiet save for one magical substance: Alcohol. Alcohol made the storm disappear and disappear quickly. To use another analogy, if the feeling was an itch, alcohol was a Fuller brush. Gone. The relief was immediate and comforting, causing ecstacy, expectation, hope, bravado ... but always demanding more relief. Sometimes when I felt the storm surge, I would envision pouring a glass of wine on my brain for some very brief psychic relief.
Quite nefarious. Alcohol both causes and quiets the storm. And one day you wake up and realize your life -- your entire life, and everything that makes up your waking hours -- IS a storm. Everything else in your life -- work, relationships, play -- becomes a distraction.
There is no "rationalizing" oneself out of this storm. You can't say, "If I only apply my mind, the storm will disappear." That is because the storm itself is a horrible burden on the thought processes, self-reflection and concentration. The storm makes insight and ponderous thought impossible. The only thing that quiets it -- eventually -- is to stop feeding it.
There is usually a single event, one sober thought, one realization that causes the drinker to stop: "I cannot stand to feel like this any longer" -- physically, emotionally and (in the secular sense, of course) spiritually.
I come from a long line of alcoholics, but I make no excuses. Drinking heavily at first is an irrational decision; but once the addition takes hold, it becomes totally RATIONAL -- it is the only thing to do that calms the storm and restores a sense of self. If you had an itch, wouldn't you scratch it? This is the sick and twisted nature of the addiction.
One day years ago, my fiancee was in the hospital having a life-saving surgery after a cyst exploded inside of her. I held her hand as she was wheeled off to surgery.
Once she disappeared, I drove about as fast as I could to a bar. I got drunk. The next day I went to the hospital to pick her up. The storm was brewing already, and it was only morning.
That day I quit drinking. Since then, on at least half a dozen occasions, I've sampled a glass of wine with dinner or had a beer while bowling. In the distance I could hear the thunder claps. I don't dare -- never, ever dare -- to drink any more.
Thank you Michael for your insights. I hope everyone here will read this essay and glean from it, if nothing else, one realization: Addiction is real, and it is biological and psychological and scarier than hell, especially for the souls who suffer from it.

Post 6

Monday, September 19, 2005 - 4:23pm

Michael-

Excepting perhaps Kilbournes definition, I have never had any problems with alcohol. However, this never precluded me from understanding the nature of addiction, and this article articulated all that I thought about it. This is a superbly written piece my friend. As I've seen from you before, you have taken a profoundly personal experience, and rather than wallowing in subjectivism, you've related it to objective reality in a valuable way. Thank you Michael.

Oh yea...Bonk. :)

Post 7

Monday, September 19, 2005 - 5:12pm

Michael, your article has certainly centered the target.
Bravo.

Post 8

Monday, September 19, 2005 - 7:56pm

I am going to be out most of tomorrow and I have very little time, so let me get the ball rolling on my thank you's.

Michael M - Wow. I knew you liked me, but all that? //;-) You made one of those incredibly simple statements that nobody thinks to make, but is so important. It will definitely find its way into my future work on this. Talking about a deep subconscious level (sense of identity), you stated, "An addiction to anything works on that level and can only be addressed when you are not feeling that emotion." Bravo. I am confused about the wrapper idea, though, and it is not really a story. It is the foundation for a future body of work on addiction from and Objectivist slant. I started with my own empirical evidence and observations (kinda like all who start stuff, I guess).

Ashley - Thank you so much for your kind comments. On the higher power being the group itself, I did that one when I went into both AA and NA. But it is still faking reality to some extent. Actually, this comment of yours has prompted a new thought. Let me say the part about handing your will over to it (Step 3). (a) Make a decision to turn your will and your life over to the care of the Higher Power as you understand it. As you understand the higher power to be the group, see how this sounds. (b) Make a decision to turn your will and your life over to the care of the Twelve Step Group. LOLOLOLOL... Doesn't sound right anymore, does it? Just food for thought right now. btw - Is this a 12 step group for GLBT addiction? Why? I am confused.

John N - As usual, you presence is extremely gratifying and your kind comments are more than welcome. As you have your hands in this mess already (you are a therapist, right?), I do hope you will contribute to the body of work I have started here. I am sure it will be a very valuable contribution.

Andy - LOLOLOLOLOLOL... (benevolent, not sarcastic). Missing the whole point again as usual, but thanks. If you want to refute my thesis, though, you will have to do better than take an out-of-context quote of my own words. Use your own words, dude. Mine were awfully hard to come by. //;-) I will give you a hint towards defining terms. Does your alcoholic improve his "dysfunctional behavior" by whim, short term, medium term or long term choice? Also, I defined disease quite well. What is your definition for "dysfunctional behavior" and how does it differ from disease - and even why does it exist - what causes it? Once you start answering some of these questions, you might be able to start having an inkling (not a very big one, mind you - but a start) of what I am talking about. But instead of philosophy, where you need definitions, syllogisms, empirical evidence and so forth, have you considered another field, like prizefighting for instance?

Rich - Thank you deeply for that "best." We know, bro. We know.

Jamie - I am very pleased that my article touched you so deeply. I am going to earmark the following idea from your post: "Drinking heavily at first is an irrational decision; but once the addition takes hold, it becomes totally RATIONAL -- it is the only thing to do that calms the storm and restores a sense of self." That is a very interesting way to say it, but it is very true (within context). Don't expect everyone to understand or even believe in addiction, however. I am proud of my article and hopefully it will shed some light on this to many of those who are not addicted but seek explanations. Still, there always will be prejudiced people. Even among Objectivists. Racism is out of fashion, so addiction serves quite well in its place for those so inclined.

Jody - Thanks a lot, my friend. Your words mean a lot to me. See you in the threads kicking ass.

Ciro - Muito obrigado, meu amigo. Obrigado mesmo. (I know, I wrote in Portuguese and not Italian, but I happen to speak Portuguese.)

Many, many thank to all. Bonks to all (even Andy). (I know it is wrong to do that, but I can't help myself. Something to do with being a junkie once...)

Michael

Post 9

Monday, September 19, 2005 - 8:13pm

Hi Michael:

Not for GLBT addiction (ha!) - for Gays (Lesbians, Bisexuals, Trannies) that are addicted... they used to be called "Rainbow Groups" but now they just call a spade a spade.

And yes, the decision is to turn your will over to the group... my will *as it pertains to substance use*. I never thought that 12-stepping overflowed into other parts of my life (although certainly substance abuse did). But when I was making decisions about using, I did (and do) admit that I make idiotic decisions, and that "the group" (in reality, a few people) could help me see it more clearly. And that for a while, instead of making my own decisions it was better to just do what I was told. Although it went against everything I felt was right - in terms of being an individual - I had to admit that Ashley the individual was making decisions likely to 1. kill her 2. ruin her life 3. land her in prison. You are right that when you insert the words "the group" into all the AA language it doesn't always sound as neat as "God" but for me it worked and works now most of the time. I don't feel comfortable praying or pretending to believe there is some mysterious power other than god that I don't label or comprehend. For me, my higher power is the rooms.

Post 10

Monday, September 19, 2005 - 8:38pm

Ashley,

I just saw your answer and I want to make one comment. One recovery technique from an Objectivist slant could incorporate this concept quite well - by using the concept "group" as you did. It is brutally honest (more honest than a higher power concept), the group would be specialized (and focused when there are other addicts) and it is short term, i.e. goal directed toward getting rid of a bad premise, which means that when the goal is reached, the person takes the reins of his own will (faculty of volition in my jargon) back again.

I will think seriously about this. Not for EVERYBODY, but definitely for MANY.

Michael

Post 11

Monday, September 19, 2005 - 11:45pm

Great post Michael ("Bonk")! I would suggest that everyone's life's filled with addictive behavior along a continuum of destructiveness to one of value. We live our lives through patterns of repetitive behavior. If we want to change we have to identify what is going on and create new patterns and reinforce those and bypass the old. I'd call most of these "silent" addictions for we usually aren't consciously aware of them.

--Brant

Post 12

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 3:24am

And so everybody then becomes an 'addict' - of one thing or another... how droll...

Post 13

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 8:03am

Michael,

I did not quote you out of context. The context of the quote makes my point. Even as fierce a proponent of the idea that alcoholism is a disease as you are stresses the fact that recovery requires an addict to make a conscious decision to quit the behavior that is destroying him. It doesn't matter that his alcoholism has degraded his body to the point that he is now suffering genuine disease, like cirrhosis of the liver or maybe even mental illness. The alcoholic will not stop drinking until he decides not to do so (or is forcibly restrained as might happen if his abuse has sufficiently damaged his brain to deprive him of his will). There is no cure for the alcoholic's self-abuse other than his own will.

You argue that defining alcoholism as self-destructive behavior rather than a disease poses a mind-body dichotomy - which every good Objectivist knows is a fallacy - therefore, it is invalid to cite behavior as the cause of addiction. Not true. Behavior is not a cleavage of the mind from the body. Behavior, good or ill, requires the same integrity of the mind and the body as disease - even more so, because disease usually does not afflict the mind. If you are correct, then is bad behavior like stealing actually a disease? Of course not.

Therefore, citing behavior as the cause of addiction is not invalid as a mind-body dichotomy. What you call a disease of consciousness is dyfunctional behavior. It is an irrational mind at work - a mind that is inescapably a product of the brain. That brain is physiologically healthy when an addict begins his descent into hell. There is no disease present. But the addict probably will damage his brain over time because of the abuse he chose to indulge in. The damage may get so severe that his mind no longer functions properly, and the addict loses his will to stop the behavior that is killing him. Thus, he may reach a point at which he has induced disease in himself. But that disease is the effect not the cause of his self-destructive behavior.

If we are to be compassionate to an addict, then how do we serve his interest by persuading him that the effect of his self-destructive behavior is allegedly the cause of it? If he comes to believe that it is a disease that makes his self-destructive rather than his own will, how does he prevent this disease that does not exist? He is powerless in the face of unsolvable mystery. Helpless, he surrenders again to his self-destructive impulses, maybe through another addiction. He suffers again because we have substituted a fairy tale for the hard truth. By attributing addiction to a disease, we are engaging in mysticism. It is the flip side of the coin that identifies a disease as God's punishment for bad behavior.

Andy

(Edited by Andy Postema on 9/20, 8:05am)

Post 14

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 8:23am

If correct principles and their applications are identified based on biological reality and rational epistemology and egocentric ethics, very sick people can be prompted to rise to health on their own two feet from the ashes of a broken life and strive to become heroes.

Michael is truly amazing and has a unique ability to break down and explain complex issues from within an Objectivist perspective. This was indeed a wonderful article about something that is terribly misunderstood, especially in Objectivist circles. It is much needed groundbreaking article and really helped give me a clearer understanding. Chemical dependency is a horrible and serious disease, and although I am not an alcoholic myself, I have played with fire and have also been extremely close to some who were addicted. At one point I even lived with three alcoholics. I was pregnant at the time and felt trapped. I eventually left.

Addiction is extremely dangerous and very serious. It is a disease. Other diseases are caused by lifestyle choices like cancers, heart disease, AIDS and diabetes. It doesn't make them any less of a disease than those not "self-induced." Please, people lose the stigma. Addiction kills people and destroys families. I saw it nearly destroy my own family. My father-in-law and my best friend both died because of alcoholism. I watched in sheer horror as the best friend I ever had became an alcoholic after her divorce. I tried but could not help. I wasn�t going to be pulled in again and I walked away from her. I had to. She hit bottom and didn't come back. She died from taking sleeping pills while drunk. An accidental overdose, she simply did not wake up in the morning. This was soon after I cut our friendship. It still hurts.

For many years I tried in vain to understand addiction. I attended group therapy, Al-anon and mixed meetings of AA. It literally took me years to understand that there wasn't a damned thing I could do. Until the addict gets out of denial and decides to help himself by drawing upon that one shred of volition left, getting support and really focusing on the goal of getting better, there is nothing anyone around them can do to help.... but certainly many ways to make things a lot worse.

Unfortunately, it usually takes hitting bottom (or pretty darn close) to actually admit that it has spun out of control. Michael nearly hit bottom when he was clearly faced with homelessness. The maestro would not sleep under a bridge. I now feel like all those meetings and groups were time and money wasted after just hearing Michael talk about addiction. Michael truly understands it and has successfully recovered. I admit that the possibility of relapse is scary, but I know he is stronger than his addictions. He is the man I love and plan to marry. I always be there for him and will never walk away � not from him. Michael and I joke around about a lot of things, but not addiction, because we know it is not a joke.

Addiction is a hell of a lot more than just another bad habit or acting stupid�.. or being droll.

Kat

(Edited by katdaddy on 9/20, 8:32am)

Post 15

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 7:48am

(In response to post 12:)

Not really; it is appropriate to distinguish between patterns of behavior that (1) are and are not destructive and (2) those patterns that depend on something existential like a drug and those that don't. I just wanted to make my point by overstating it somewhat.

--Brant

(Edited by Brant Gaede on 9/20, 11:08am)

Post 16

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 10:55am

Andy,

Your logic is completely inverted. Like so many, you make an absurd claim, like your claim that saying addiction is a disease is the same as mysticism, then do not back it up with sound arguments. I will not go into this here. My attention is geared towards finding cures now, and your is towards some kind of discussion competition.

What to you is a matter of gaining points, to me has been a matter of life and death for years. Different perspectives like that generate different approaches. I seek the truth, not victory over another, in this matter.

I would like to draw the attention to those who are reading this to the film, "The French Connection." Popeye Doyle, the detective, was captured and physically injected with heroin over time until he was addicted. In the case of heroin addiction, the craving is violent. Then he was returned to his people. They made him quit cold-turkey. He sure did not want to quit. Neither becoming addicted not quitting were choice. Both were imposed. Thus it is possible. Also note the other two areas of disease I mentioned, which were hinted at strongly in the film. The merge of sense of identity with the drug and the atrophy of short term and long term thinking.

This is not just fiction. It can happen in reality just like that.

This is a long subject and I would urge those who are really interested in working on this or learning about it to ignore those who make up theories in arm chairs. They have no idea of what they are talking about and insist on teaching others their ignorance.

I dropped a big hint to them at the beginning of my article. I clearly stated:

Whom I do not address are those with preconceptions or axes to grind. If you already have all the answers, then this work is not for you.

What these people think they are doing, I have no idea. I only know that I have reported this phenomenon to the best of my ability from my own experience and have grounded my observations in sound logic going all the way down to root premises. If anyone wishes to challenge those premises, I will listen - but not to mere opinions coming from those who want to win an argument at all costs.

There is a great deal of work to do to find cures now. Solo is not the place for this work - although it is a proper place for the philosophical foundation of such work. That has started to be laid.

Note that the illness of heroin addiction is greatly different from alcoholism. All the various forms need their own study and experiments. Unfortunately, people like Andy will keep popping up over time and trying to stand in the way of this work. I don't think they want to be in the way, but they simply have no idea of what they are doing and they need attention.

For addiction, though, I have decided to stop letting them be an obstacle.

Michael

Post 17

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 11:15am

Kat,

Your post regarding addictions has two major flaws. First is your muddling of cause and effect ...

Addiction is extremely dangerous and very serious. It is a disease. Other diseases are caused by lifestyle choices like cancers, heart disease, AIDS and diabetes. It doesn't make them any less of a disease than those not "self-induced."

You say addiction is a disease like diabetes. Not hardly.

I'm a diabetic. Although a good athlete in my prime, afterwards I slowed down physically, got deeply involved in my work, and my poor eating habits caught up with me. The worst habit was skipping breakfast and lunch and making it up with a big supper. That alone probably kept pumping excessive insulin into me until I finally wore out my body's sensitivity to it. I am now a Type II diabetic. I've corrected my eating habits so that I don't wear out my pancreas and become a Type I diabetic.

My diabetes did not cause my poor eating habits. It was the other way around - obviously. That's why I can control by choosing to do so my eating so that the disease does not worsen. In fact, by eating right no one who didn't sneak a peek into my medicine cabinet would know I even have diabetes. My poor eating habits were precisely the same as an addict's abuse of alcohol or drugs. It is behavior that can and can only be changed by a choice to do so. An addict's addiction is no more a disease than a poor diet is. Any disease that results from these bad behaviors is an effect, not a cause, of them.

The second flaw is the weary special pleading that seems to be ingrained in the therapeutic culture. It goes something like this: I have a sad story so what I think on the subject has a special truth that is above reproach. However, reality doesn't work that way. Whatever problems you have had in your life, you are still wrong about addiction being a disease. It is self-destructive behavior that an addict chooses to maintain until: [1] He chooses not to, [2] he damages his brain to the point he loses his will, or [3] he dies. The fact that the addict may have induced diseases in himself that he would not have otherwise had is what makes his addictive behavior self-destructive. All the medical help in the world for those diseases will not cure him unless he chooses to stop the addictive behavior that is causing them.

If you are going to equate diabetes to addiction, then you can no longer tell me I don't know how this works.

Andy

(Edited by Andy Postema on 9/20, 11:51am)

Post 18

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 11:15am

Brant - Thank you. I believe you asked me to define the disease. I hope that hat I have been trying to say is clearer now. I also agree with you that many other behaviors have common symptoms with addiction. (btw - Don't pay any attention to the "droll" crap - that was just another know-it-all sounding off.) They all can be analyzed according to contamination of sense of identity and atrophy of the faculty of volition, though. In the case of addiction - or addiction-like behavior - without a substance, the sense of identity becomes contaminated with a volitionally placed premise (like video game), not an automatic one like the thirst/substance craving confusion I mentioned, which is more automatic. I did not cover many other aspects like propensity and innate strengths and/or weaknesses of the faculties of the mind I analyzed.

Post 19

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 11:49am