I was listening to This NPR report this morning:
We should recognize by now that addiction does not merely affect a few bad people. We should understand that addiction is not only a systemic issue, but a social and cultural issue. Now days, only the most obtuse and ignorant people will be able to ignore the issue of addiction.
I am not going to make any sweeping statement here as to what the solution might be, but I am going to address a particular issue that arises often in the initial observations and talk about addiction. It is this kind of issue I think is embedded in the problem of addiction itself, but also coincidentally larger philosophical issues as well.
I enjoy NPR; I am not critiquing NPR but using this story as a site to address the problem that most do not understand, nor probably care to understand.
What does this mean?
Anyone who has dealt with an alcoholic or and addict (never mind that they refer to the same disease, the same issue) knows that most often despite the addict’s best intension and expression of that intension, most times the addict will not be able to stay stopped. They invariably will use after they have ‘stopped’, again, and again, regardless of the various proclamations of defeat and heart felt desperation and regret.
We learn that they have a life long terminal disease, and that their continued using is part of that disease. We are also implicitly taught that due to this chronic disease, the addict will never stop being an addict and that at any moment, for the rest of their life, is in danger of using again.
The lesson that informs this kind of talk is well founded, but ironically also may contribute the the perpetuation of the problem. The people involved in the addict’s life, of course, are merely being proactive in their defense; we should not necessarily fault them, but we might allow them the opportunity to develop a larger conceptual space and to understand their own consternation in a different context.
The issue I address here is this foundational notion of recovery.
In the NPR story, the reporter automatically refers to usual tropes of addiction that is not coming from the addict himself. She is assuming and reporting through that assumption. She is placing the addict in a typified scheme of meaning that, often enough, while describing a kind of addict, namely the one who had not actually stopped, cannot be properly used to describe what addiction is, and what addicts are. In the course of social defense addiction has become a script to thereby define and limit the addict into a particular identity. Ironically, that identity’s main function, the identity of the addict, is arguably the defiance of identity. We might note that the collapse of this contradiction coincides with the epidemic that is our current situation.
The reporter says “in recovery”. What this means everywhere, the meaning that is ubiquitous to people in recovery (see, there I go) as it is to people who have to deal with it is that they never recover from addiction . My question is what they are in recovery from? What exactly is this addiction that people are for the rest of their lives in recovery from?
What exactly are they recovering from? And if they are recovering, then do they ever recover?
The script would say no; the addict never recovers.
I am merely pointing out the difference in meanings that actually have credence, and how one meaning takes predominance, which thereby effects the situation in a negative manner.
There is the ‘in recovery’ that refers to the process of becoming healthy after an ailment, of dealing with the immediate, called acute, as well as the short period after, called post-acute, effects of the empirical, physical and mental, damage that has occurred due to the period of using addictive substances. This is the ‘essential” meaning that most everyone assumes is meant when a person says “Im in recovery”: That they are forever and always hanging on the edge of using again, struggling to simply not use despite of the periodic but often overwhelming cravings and ‘triggers’ to use. The essence of the person’s Being is understood automatically to be referring to a defective physical-mental-spiritual condition that never goes away, and indeed is always there waiting and pulling the person back into your health and disfunction.
Indeed; many, but not all, recovering addicts stay in this state. But instead of just accepting their compromised state, maybe we should ask why they stay there?
Then there is the ‘in recovery’ that refers to the the arena in which such talk may occur. This ‘in recovery’ is like saying “Im in advertising”, or “I am in I.T.”. It says nothing of the person’s essential state of Being, but talks about the arena in which the person does certain types of activity.
This is not simply a nice idea to ponder; it is the actual situation of people in recovery. Some people never recovery, many people do but are afraid to admit it, and a few actually do recover and have no qualms about telling people.
Similar to the rhetoric and discussion of race relations, perhaps we could begin by having a certain reflection upon what meaning occurs for a person when they hear this term “in recovery”. What automatic prejudices arise in a person’s thoughts, an addict’s but also those who are involved with them, when they hear of someone “in recovery”? How am I enforcing a person’s problem by understanding the term in an old, narrow and judgmental manner? Could it be that the terms I am using to inscribe myself into reality do not actually reflect the truth of the situation?
Are you taking any pain medications Soley because your doctor offered them to you?
I don’t know the exact statistics but and astonishingly large amount of people that find themselves addicted to opiates, and many nowadays who find themselves strung out on heroin , were originally prescribed legal pain medication from their doctor for a legitimate medical situation.
Do you really need that Vicodin or Percacet or could an 800 mg ibuprofen have done the trick?
Don’t be naive. Please.
Oh Lord don’t you keep me down,
Don’t you push me down to the ground.
Let me ride upon the waves of life,
Let me glide over the mountains of the earth.
Bring me up to the sky.
I did so much for you.
You did so much for me.
Can’t you see me
Digging in the trash of the corporate fortunates
Eating the hors d’oeuvres from their party?
What’s the matter Lord, don’t you need me?
Feed me, Lord, like you did the Five-thousand,
and prove yourself astounding to me.
How easy you are to the TV Evangelists.
How easy you are to the Popes and Presidents.
How easy you are to suburbia.
How easy you are to powerful America.
How easy you are
but not to me.
I see you on the cross when the church is gone.
I hear you in the malls, even the Pentagon;
I read about you on the walls and in books;
I can’t understand, I did what it took.
I see you in your great big golden chair
And hear you in the mouths of people everywhere.
Does your existence depend on the clothes they wear?
I think you’re not there.
C. 1988 Lance A Kair.
I think like many people, we were hopeful for America that Trump would become something that we didn’t see in the pre-election. sadly enough Trump is staying true to the Trump that we know. The truly great and wonderful thing about our times is there’s no Way to get at trump. there’s nothing we can really say that has any basis that will move anyone. he is like the seminal post modern president. The examplLary figure of our times. this is because there is no substance to the man. part of having an opinion on anything is that you get some sort of response, some sort of substantial reaction, in the sense of physics. but Trump is just like a nothing figure. he is utterly systemic. you can’t call him a racist really (I mean you can totally call him a racist if you want) because he stays just at the margin of everything. in my opinion he’s de facto racist because he has no opinion on anything that’s particularly racist. he is orderly business numbers. his morality is defined by what he is able to use to his advantage. and for regular human beings this pretty much comes off as an enigma: A completely nonethical but there for unethical figure.
I think the reason why we are going to be living a sad state of three years, it’s because he’s using the system to his advantage and everyone, all of us in the United States, are subject to that system. so no one will have the balls to impeach him. we will just have a block three remaining years of nothingness and discontentment and complaint. in short he is an idiot that we can never identify and that’s never do anything to harm or move him in anyway. he is the example of the empty subject because he plane does not care and his expressions of care are in comprehensible to anyone who has any sort of human morality at all regardless of what it’s based in.
we need an American leader. no it doesn’t really matter if I say it or what anyone else says, because the statements just fall in the nothingness: Trump is not a leader. he has just fallen into the space that we left.
hopefully this depressed time will yield a certain attitudinal awakening to American principles that do not rely upon internal exclusion, that is, the principle that says that if you are violent and only want to kill people because you think you’re better than them, Will not be tolerated within America. whether or not will tolerate that outside of our borders is another issue.
The rest get left behind.
“If I cannot rely on the world to be consistent (I do not mean willful consistency) I will not be able to function meaningfully in it.”
This quote from This blog is a perfect statement of what I mean as ‘faith’ that functions for consciousness as a suture that holds the consistency of reality together.
Faith functions as a counter to the truth of things; it holds reality together.
From “Christo-Fiction”, by Francois Laruelle:
On the next page he then goes on to say
“one might perhaps speak of a subject … as one would speak of it not in terms of consciousness but rather in terms of a lived of a man, understood philosophically and religiously since it is the material or the object that determines the relevance of our project.”
For a description of this case, and the examples of the problem already resolved, see my book “Nonphilosophy and Aphilosophy“.
And ask yourself: how is it possible that I have said just as much in my blog as well as my books before I had even barely read anything about non-philosophy. Indeed both of my books are described to be concerned with one’s orientation upon objects.
Then, If you are not already content with the answer you give yourself, then go back to the beginning of my blog and begin to read.
And ask yourself the question again.
Evidence and verification.
The beginning of this blog began with my question upon L of why he’s using jargon to convey a simple idea; in short why is he in bad faith.
It is not difficult for one to notice when they read my early essays of this blog that I had very little practical knowledge of Lorelle or his books, and yet indeed I knew exactly what he was talking about from the very first couple sentences I ever read of him. As I have said earlier in my blog, once a person understands the point of contention the rest follows automatically. One needs only gain an understanding of what vector and author is moving along, because there are only so many things to be said about the situation at hand. One of course can take one of these limited avenues and use it to say many other things, what I call issues of subsequence, and then the further question arises of whether these authors understand that their issues are indeed of subsequence and if they acknowledge the common factors of the issue at hand.
This is what I will be referring to when I speak about the significant event and the pocket veto. Through these vehicle terms we will be able to understand how various authors are able to come to their respective arguments. We thereby will be giving a description of how arguments arrive in their placement and meaning; this will not be so much another argument but rather will be a description, like a forensics of philosophical method. Because, as L notes, Philosophy (what I call conventional philosophy or conventional method) is indeed theology, and in so much as philosophy may be involved in discerning a proper ontology, it is rather more involved in developing a dogmatic religious cosmology.