Intuitive Recovery

Intuitive Recovery

Day 1:
The group were made up of a wide variety of people. A guy who had a big cocaine habit that complement his drinking. Once at twenty cans a day he is now down to six a day. He has found himself in jail recently and hospital such was the severity from his seizures from alcohol withdrawal. A woman drinking a bottle of wine a day. A heroin and amphetamines user. A recently relapsed smack head, just embarking on the subutex. Another serious alcoholic who also used cocaine. A guy addicted to ecstasy, amphetamines. Myself and a couple of other abstinent ex users.
The programme has many good points. Ambivalence is seen as the characteristic of addiction. The angel on one shoulder, devil on the other. The carrying of opposing impulses. The uncontrollable desire to find the drug of choice aligned with periods of total commitment to never touching it again. This swing from one thought to the other, this ambivalence characterises addiction. Someone who happily abandons themselves to drug use without regret can be physically dependent but not addicted just as the none user. It's the swing from desire to use to desire to abstain that is addiction.
Basic brain science supports this theory. The animal brain linked to the amygdala controls involuntary processes such as heart beat, sweating, breathing etc. the amygdala records pleasant feelings such as finding warmth when cold, food when hungry delivering a positive drive. This animal brain records the pleasure of drugs in the amygdala. The animal brain steers us to impulses to recreate these pleasure able experiences. The neo cortex deals with conscious thought. It is the I. I decide the painful consequences of drug use must be stopped. This battles with the animal instinct to use.
Exploring childhood trauma, abuse etc is deemed irrelevant to the issue of drug use. Concepts of genetic predisposition are viewed as potential excuses. Categorising oneself as an addict, someone who has no free will in the matter is seen as freeing the person up. To shirk responsibility.
Much of it seems very good so far. I have thought similar things though articulated them differently. I do believe it is a choice. A decision. I also believe drug users really enjoy it. When the guilt and pain out weigh the good parts they are able to take the decision.
So many theories of addiction abound today. What is good is that this one seems purely practical.
There were contradictions. The presenter was adamant that there was no gene associated with addiction. This reminded me of Peter Hitchens assertion that doctors can not find any biological evidence that addiction exists. I pointed out that they also can find no biological evidence or neural correlate to falling in love. Nevertheless few of us have never fallen in love and few would argue that because science is as yet too primitive to detect the biology of love indicates it's none existence. Falling in love and addiction clearly exist. I see the point that an assumption of a condition often referred to as an addictive personality provides an escape route. A freeing of responsibility. But still it seems many use drugs recreationally without developing a psychological dependence and a minority do. Just because neuroscience has yet to find evidence it doesn't mean it won't. It seems to me in all likelihood it will. The course leader herself mentioned some find themselves victim of this ambivalence. She described minor ambivalence using ice cream and her health and weight concerns as a minor example, drugs being a major example. To me it seemed she was saying both but denying one as it didn't help. Now, I can accept this. Defining oneself an addict and attending meetings indefinitely exploring grief at shared lost love of substance use with others is not moving on. But I accept it in the same way that 'choosing' to believe in God despite contradictory evidence is a great survival strategy. Self delusion, denial etc can help one to recover just as it can enable one to continue.
Despite my instinctual bullshit detection. Despite my habitual analysis for philosophical and rational flaws in the arguments I find myself in broad agreement. Understanding reason is pointless when engineering a strategy of avoiding relapse. If it takes a little blinkering to gaps in the approach then so what? Result is all.
Before I went I was despondent. I still believe it comes down to whether you really want to stop. If you do, you can. If secretly you are still enjoying using drugs, no system can help.
The overview, that addiction is the conflict between desire to use and an equally powerful desire to stop. This ambivalence. If nothing else it has provided the simplest definition of addiction. One I agree with. It leaves responsibility in your hands. What is it that you want most?
I began the day with the open declaration that I love exploring different states of consciousness. The lie that the individuals who end up on such courses are victims of a virus that entered against their will is bullshit. We are there because we love intoxication. Admission must be of paramount importance. If the people there didn't like the drugs they have taken they wouldn't have continued to the point where their lives are falling apart. We are not innocent victims. It is our responsibility.


Sent from my iPad