The Paradox of Addiction

Perhaps there is a paradox to addiction. And this paradox may arise from the split within us we know so well as addicts.

On the one hand we see the addict, who is ourself, doing what another self does not want him to do [notice the potential for denial or delusion here... 'that is not my self doing that... it is 'the addiction']. Lets call these selves the 'higher self' and the 'lower self'. The higher self is the rational self, his language is usually that of detachment, objectivity, an individual, who yet in virtue of his rationality identifies with all others in virtue of theirs, we could also call him the ego. The desire of ego is one of control. The lower self is our nature, our natural desire, the fully empirical self, from which the ego is distinct as say.... the equestrian is from the horse. The ego of the addict is frustrated insofar as he has lost control of his horse [also perhaps the external reality of his life]. It gallops away from him with hardly a prod, and he clings on for dear life until it has tired itself out [what we feel as an ongoing base-line in our life, may play itself out in an addiction to the nth degree]. Notice that figurative language needs to be employed to make any sense of this - a two storied house, and a rider on a horse etc.

Back to the paradox: an ego looks to overcome the addiction [an out of control and unrestrained passion]; whilst the term 'addiction' for the rational ego means compulsion/ lack of freedom... where, by very definition, there is no possibility of overcoming.

But we begin to see a resolution, or way out, of this paradox when we also see it reflects a split in both ourselves [or sense of self] and the use of language. On the one hand, we have the figurative use of language which originally gave us the horse and rider analogy [a synthesis and unity between the two]; on the other we have the literal/ objective use of language which turns a distinction into divisive things/ objects - you now have the 'ego' and you have 'our nature'. The resolution is to bring these things back into unity [by questioning the objective/ ideological/ literal language].

I'd suggest that this existence of a perceived paradox, or contradiction, effectively serves to perpetuate the addiction. It works like this - there is the assumption of a two-storied self [the rational self/ego and our natural self... and the potential telling of two stories]. The sensible ego of course wants to get rid of the addiction and will do everything in its power to do so.... but there is always this nagging notion that the natural self is addicted... is compelled to do what it wants to do... it is like a subconscious 'get out of jail free' card - no matter how hard you consciously claim you want to be rid of it, there is the sneaky back-door sub-conscious thought, that it is what it is, and you will always have access to that pleasure dome/ basement. Given the recognition of the 'reality', there is a subtle, or not so subtle, justification to the rational self of the addiction.

If the existence of the perceived paradox serves to perpetuate the addiction, then the dissolution of the paradox will serve to overcome it.

A recovering addict should first of all reject the perceived dichotomy between the rational self and the natural addicted self [in reality, they are distinct but not divorced]. It helps to frame what is rejected as ideology, for it uses language in a certain way. As opposed to the detachment of rational and passive language, the addict now looks to engage with figurative language [like the rider/ horse analogy]. Following on from a new sense of self-understanding, a re-invigorated 'subjectivity', his reason and feeling come into a renewed combination. This is significant as a split between these may have contributed to addiction in the first place. In contrast to a divisive analysis, he starts to see connections - connections within his self, between his self and others, between the present and the past... the list could go on. A new energy course through him, a self-determined one, and he starts to truly believe he can overcome the 'addiction' because he sees, or rather feels, his natural self in a process of change. The balance of power changes in his psyche, and he comes to envisage a point where he as the rider will once again be in control of the animal, of his animating force.

Ad-dict-ion - to words. Perhaps the primary addiction after all is addiction to words [ideology... where words are stuck, and we on them]. If we can not free ourselves from that addiction, how can we begin to free ourselves from the others?

 

And perhaps what appears to the mind as a paradox is in reality a contradiction within our own nature.

When we start to think about it in these terms, recovery would require a resolution of the inner contradiction. And that unless this contradiction is worked out in ones own personal existence then the possibility remains that one will forever be an addict.

The kind of language you hear that refers to one managing the addiction, or keeping it at a distance, only serves to reinforce the reality of the addiction. It sets up a dichotomy within the self. Now if it is the language we use, and the way in which that leads to a certain self-understanding of ourselves as an addict... to an identity, then that language itself may be at fault [and creating fault lines within us].

We tend to think of language as inhabiting some pure and rarified air, some separate sphere to the gritty realities of our life. But what if the language we use, we think with, we identify with, is utterly compromised with us... that is, in determining the way in which we think about ourselves, it also 'constitutes' us to a certain extent [specifically, the self-conscious ego].

Granting this, recovery may require the rejection of a discourse that only serves to reinforce the separation in our self [the higher rational part from the lower addictive part], and the idea of addiction, for there will always be the subconscious desire and the justification to lapse when the dichotomous discourse is dominant. Recovery will not be in some 'method' but in a psycho-spiritual/ existential development, where the ego [and its false rational representations] becomes better acquainted with its 'alter ego'. The language of reason, of the ego, will take a back seat, or rather, will once again allow the alter ego its rightful life, its driving force and passion, though as directed by a more magnanimous ego... or a lesser one.

If one is hesitant to go on such a risky adventure with their inner self, which is perhaps the mystery of life, then the awful possibility is that they will ever be stuck in a holding pattern, a halfway house of sorts, which this site represents. Year after year, they will see more of the cyclical same - the pure rational ego bemoaning its fate, tied at the hip to an addiction, and using the very language that perpetuates this.

If you have read this far, know that the writings above are experimental and just a rough sketch. Like the Daily Show, my opinions have not been fully thought out, and that I take this as an advantage.

 

My basic idea is that there is an 'addictive mindset'. In seeking to 'manage' the addiction, it effectively reinforces and perpetuates it... something like as you have above, where it is always 'there' and threatening to come back at anytime.

This is obviously what someone who is addicted experiences, but someone who has recovered, or well into the process of recovery, should have a different state of mind. I think this is an important point as the discourse of addiction [once an addict, always an addict] leaves a person open to using again. It's like a subconscious justification nagging away at you. This 'leaving of the way open' is also perhaps a subconscious desire to indulge every now and then [you are still split in your psyche!]. Which leads on to the second point.

Yes, it is all about Unity. The unification of the psyche. But the question is what kind of unity, and at what cost. As it stands, most are split against themselves [a divided house can not stand]. The division creates a tension and anxiety. The urge comes crashing in upon us... which is a unity of sorts, where the rational self is effectively drowned, and swept along for the ride. The other kind of unity is where the rational self at last manages to 'swallow the ocean' of his passion. It has now become smooth and manageable, he can now navigate it with some control. This is a unity where the rational self has won out. It is Recovery. It's all about the recovery of unity, and yet the discourse of addiction perpetuates the split.

I would add that unity of the psyche might involve altering/ dissolving the ego as it now stands. Herein lies another motivation for the discourse of addiction, which the ego would defend.

 

Maybe and maybe not. It depends on your situation. Only you can judge what your current situation is.

If the urge is strong [comes like a bang] then you have to do everything you can to reduce it.

If the urge is weak [like a whimper], on the other hand, then this is a different story. The addiction is potentially in its death throes. To polish it off once and for all may entail going beyond the addictive/ addiction discourse [the addict in us subconsciously wants to cling to it... as a 'get out of jail' card]. Not to mention that clinging to the discourse creates anxiety within us.... which can build up and 'break out' in a session of PMO.

But wherever you lie on the spectrum, the normative idea of recovery/ normalcy is important - it is the light at the end of the tunnel toward which you are aiming. It is also the unifying factor that modifies both the ego and the libido. Recovery is a teleology, which reduces the inflated libido and takes the existing ego beyond itself [this is no surprise when you consider the 'force' of the irrational libido is integrated/ subsumed into the rational self]. It is also growth. Perhaps there lies within the ego a pride that is resistant to this...