quote:

Originally posted by Kismet7 Can you or he give me the exacts words in which you've created this "above addiction" context to what I said? I dont think anyone said the words "I am above addiction."

"We on the outside"

Addiction is addiction. It doesn't matter whether you're addicted to cocaine, booze, cigs, watching too much TV, spending too much time on the internet, jerking off to porn (feel free to eliminate the comma between the previous two), obsessively working out, staying late at the office, beating your wife and kids or fucking farm animals, it's all the same - the only difference is the relative degree of societal acceptance of your habit.

quote:

Originally posted by Kismet7 And no the topic my response was to was primarily about alcohol/drug vice addiction. That is my response to Gabor Mate talk.

If you actually listened to the Mate talk, you would have noticed that he says exactly the same thing. His going out and compulsively blowing $8K on classical music CDs in one day is no different from the heroin addict who stumbles into the derelict apartment building to buy his next fix.

So, to conclude, there is no "we on the outside". Your addictions are every bit as harmful to yourself and to others as the Vancouver heroin addict's are, it's just that yours are somehow justified as being acceptable behaviour because, in lay terms, "everyone does it".

Which begets the question, "If Johnny jumped off a bridge...?"

___________________
4a.m.deepdarksweatypulsingwarehousemusic

WestsideWax Soundcloud

WestsideWax Mixcloud

New! WestsideWax Archives

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Substances themselves can be addictive and create physical dependency. They alter the way the brain functions. Of course it’s a behavioural pattern, but that pattern can be dictated by the physical qualities of a drug, with absolutely no correlation with mummy or daddy issues. It is perfectly possible for any well-adjusted, happy person to become addicted to a substance that has addictive qualities, without the need to reference some hidden, psychological trauma from their childhood. Addiction is a complex area which is why simplistic nonsense like that spewed by whackler should be suspect to any critical thinker.

Indeed...and this addiction would fall under humans being innately masochists. Some less some more than others. This is something that Mr. Gabor Mate, who to me seems like a very intelligent and englightened man does not cover in this talk. I wonder if he covers it elsewhere in his treatment of addicts.

To add to my theory, humans also value memories, and feelings, so they see those moments of "high" from their vice as valuable, because they can go back to it. They also value feeeling something, instead of nothing. Which goes back to the idea of feeling 'alive.' For example, I simply love the feeling of weather. Whether it is a breeze, hot or cold air, wind, rain, etc. Weather itself makes me feel good...amongst other things, reminds me i'm alive. A drug addict might use the drug to make them 'feel alive', as one of its attractions.

___________________
_____________________________________
commercial and underground electronic music (house/techno/trance/other) will surpass today's hip hop/pop/rock/country in worldwide interest...if it has'nt already.

quote:

Originally posted by PivotTechno See, the thing with self-inquiry is that the only evidence that it yields the results that it does comes from personal experience. Mackler has 20 years of self-reflection (I'm guessing via some form of Vipassana or similar meditation) under his belt. He also has a decade's experience as a psychotherapist. Mate I believe, has close to, or over three decades of experience in his field (medical, palliative care, addiction counselling), also professes a life devoted to self-reflection and is brutally honest and publicly forthcoming about his own struggles with unconscious, compulsive behaviour.

A multitude of people have a great deal of experience and many of them come to different, often incompatible conclusions based on that experience. What can we glean from this?

The inevitable conclusion is that many of them must be mistaken, and so it follows that the mere fact that a belief has been reached through years of experience and self-reflection does not reliably indicate its truth.

This outcome is unsurprising. Experiences, including those resulting from self-reflection, can almost always be interpreted in a myriad of ways. And we also know that there are numerous cognitive biases which influence how people interpret their experiences.

An ancillary problem with self-reflection in particular is that even if it were a reliable means of ascertaining the truth--and it isn't--you still cannot generalize your own experience unto the rest of humanity. Maybe you have been in denial about a huge "cesspool of shit." Maybe you still are. But even if that insight were accurate, it doesn't follow that the same is true of myself or anyone else for that matter.

You see, that's why we insist on things like falsifiable hypotheses, objective evidence, and peer review: because claims which can survive that level of scrutiny are far more reliable than those which cannot. If I had a nickle for every quack who really believed based on his many years of experience that his alternative treatments worked, but who was wrong as a factual matter, then I would be flying around in my own private jet.

So when someone offering no evidence but their own say-so makes the rather audacious claim that all of "life's basic conflicts" can be traced back to a single unitary source, it would quite simply be irrational for me to believe them. And when they also prattle on about spirits, gods, and how they know things are true in their heart it doesn't exactly make them appear more credible.

Accordingly, I am not inclined to accept any proposition based solely on the experience and introspection of you, Mackler, Mate, or anyone else--including myself.

However, because Mate's claims are narrower, and therefore more plausible as an initial matter, and because he seems to be actually interested in trying to support his thesis with something more reliable than a mere subjective interpretation of an individual's personal experience, I think that his ideas are worthy of further exploration. As for Mackler, there is nothing more to explore: all of the evidence that he has provided is unreliable. Given the low quality of available evidence and the extraordinary nature of the claim, there is no rational basis for believing him and further inquiry in that area does not appear likely to be fruitful.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN It is perfectly possible for any well-adjusted, happy person to become addicted to a substance that has addictive qualities

Proof, please.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Addiction is a complex area which is why simplistic nonsense like that spewed by whackler should be suspect to any critical thinker.

Actually, what Mackler advocates is quite simple. And you can discuss and dissect any and all of it 'til the cows come home, but absolutely nothing that is discussed and dissected matters until you begin to apply what he proposes to yourself. Until that point, your counter-theories are like farts in the wind.

It's your mind that complicates simple matters as a rather twisted protection mechanism (no really, I'm quite happy being miserable!), which is why at this point in your life, no matter how hard you try, you simply will not "get" this.

___________________
4a.m.deepdarksweatypulsingwarehousemusic

WestsideWax Soundcloud

WestsideWax Mixcloud

New! WestsideWax Archives

quote:

Originally posted by Kismet7 Indeed...and this addiction would fall under humans being innately masochists. Some less some more than others. This is something that Mr. Gabor Mate, who to me seems like a very intelligent and englightened man does not cover in this talk. I wonder if he covers it elsewhere in his treatment of addicts. To add to my theory, humans also value memories, and feelings, so they see those moments of "high" from their vice as valuable, because they can go back to it. They also value feeeling something, instead of nothing. Which goes back to the idea of feeling 'alive.' For example, I simply love the feeling of weather. Whether it is a breeze, hot or cold air, wind, rain, etc. Weather itself makes me feel good...amongst other things, reminds me i'm alive. A drug addict might use the drug to make them 'feel alive', as one of its attractions.

And then you have the case of newborn babies who are addicted to drugs. A baby isn’t conscious enough to be a masochist, nor do they have any immediate trauma (asides from bursting free from the womb!) that they need to escape from through self abuse. Yet they exhibit many of the hallmarks of their much older brethren, such as painful withdrawal.

quote:

Originally posted by PivotTechno Proof, please.

as above.

quote:

Originally posted by PivotTechno "We on the outside" Addiction is addiction. It doesn't matter whether you're addicted to cocaine, booze, cigs, watching too much TV, spending too much time on the internet, jerking off to porn (feel free to eliminate the comma between the previous two), obsessively working out, staying late at the office, beating your wife and kids or fucking farm animals, it's all the same - the only difference is the relative degree of societal acceptance of your habit. If you actually listened to the Mate talk, you would have noticed that he says exactly the same thing. His going out and compulsively blowing $8K on classical music CDs in one day is no different from the heroin addict who stumbles into the derelict apartment building to buy his next fix. So, to conclude, there is no "we on the outside". Your addictions are every bit as harmful to yourself and to others as the Vancouver heroin addict's are, it's just that yours are somehow justified as being acceptable behaviour because, in lay terms, "everyone does it". Which begets the question, "If Johnny jumped off a bridge...?"

Now i'm on the outside...looking at a delusional person force a meaning into something said, that meant something else. Learn to comprehend what you read, or acquire understanding as to what it might mean, instead of what you try to force it to mean.

To help you understand, on the outside, means someone observing a drug addict, and the perceptions they might create about the addict through that observation. This is very far from "i am above all", that your and Halycon's anyone else's delusions or inability to comprehend language led to.

And I already stated addiction is a human trait a few posts down. For example your posting and wasting time on a forum is an addiction, primarily if you are getting nothing out of it but potentially empty relationships with people you hardly see. So you and anyone can freely apply my theory on addiction to your forum use, and perhaps find a cure through it. Since i'm furthur down the enlightenment path, at the end of the day, you could say i'm a helpful person, with an unconventional rhetoric and way of helping.

___________________
_____________________________________
commercial and underground electronic music (house/techno/trance/other) will surpass today's hip hop/pop/rock/country in worldwide interest...if it has'nt already.

quote:

Originally posted by PivotTechno Actually, what Mackler advocates is quite simple. And you can discuss and dissect any and all of it 'til the cows come home, but absolutely nothing that is discussed and dissected matters until you begin to apply what he proposes to yourself. Until that point, your counter-theories are like farts in the wind. It's your mind that complicates simple matters as a rather twisted protection mechanism (no really, I'm quite happy being miserable!), which is why at this point in your life, no matter how hard you try, you simply will not "get" this.

And this is the kind of arrogant bollocks I come to expect from those who cannot provide substantive evidence with which to support their claims. “I’m not wrong, you simply don’t ‘get’ it”. what a crock. And its laughable seeing you say “your counter-theories are like farts in the wind”, as if whackler’s ideas are any different or any better supported.

At least I have a considerable amount of medical opinion that supports my assertion. Substances are addictive. That much is as close to medical fact as we’re ever likely to get. They’re not “addictive if your mummy didn’t love you”, they’re addictive per se.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN And then you have the case of newborn babies who are addicted to drugs. A baby isn’t conscious enough to be a masochist, nor do they have any immediate trauma (asides from bursting free from the womb!) that they need to escape from through self abuse. Yet they exhibit many of the hallmarks of their much older brethren, such as painful withdrawal. as above.

There is no one single universal answer to drug addiction.
Babies addicted to drugs would fall under the human interest to enjoy time and space, and to feel something. They would not be masochistic anyway, because at that age they dont have the concscience or knowledge that what they are doing is bad for them or is hurting them, they are simply enjoying their time and space and feeling. And you cant exactly call them addicts, since they have no real control over the use, the control is coming from someone else.

___________________
_____________________________________
commercial and underground electronic music (house/techno/trance/other) will surpass today's hip hop/pop/rock/country in worldwide interest...if it has'nt already.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter So when someone offering no evidence but their own say-so makes the rather audacious claim that all of "life's basic conflicts" can be traced back to a single unitary source, it would quite simply be irrational for me to believe them.

No one's asking you to.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Accordingly, I am not inclined to accept any proposition based solely on the experience and introspection of you, Mackler, Mate, or anyone else--including myself.

But you won't ever (well, never say never) apply any of what he proposes (which has also been proposed by many before him, over a rather large span of modern human existence) to yourself, so whether you're inclined to accept it or not is a rather moot point.

___________________
4a.m.deepdarksweatypulsingwarehousemusic

WestsideWax Soundcloud

WestsideWax Mixcloud

New! WestsideWax Archives

quote:

Originally posted by PivotTechno No one's asking you to. But you won't ever (well, never say never) apply any of what he proposes (which has also been proposed by many before him, over a rather large span of modern human existence) to yourself, so whether you're inclined to accept it or not is a rather moot point.

lol, why did you bother quoting him at all if you’re not going to address a single issue he raised?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, why did you bother quoting him at all if you’re not going to address a single issue he raised?

Addictive behavior rooted in childhood trauma, no doubt.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, why did you bother quoting him at all if you’re not going to address a single issue he raised?

Because my attempting to further address any issues he's raised would be akin to trying to convince a brick that it's a butterfly.

So, I concede. You win.

___________________
4a.m.deepdarksweatypulsingwarehousemusic

WestsideWax Soundcloud

WestsideWax Mixcloud

New! WestsideWax Archives