Guest guest Posted June 12, 2001 Report Share Posted June 12, 2001 Progressives and Radicals are far from perfect. They have made real mistakes. And there are always some snakes in the grass. But most of the radicals and progressives I have known have fought the good fight. No, the have fought against freedom and the liberation that capitalism brings to *everyone. Or at least that is my view, and the view of a great many. Eugene Debs is an interesting historical footnote who means little to my life. By contrast, I was able to raise children -- and limit my family size -- while earning an advanced degree because of entities such as: Whirlpool, General Electric, Ford, and Kline Beecham Pharmaceuticals. Ready-to-wear clothing and permanent press shirts; canned food; boxed cereals; frozen orange juice -- these freed me from drudgery. Capitalism ROCKS. Radical theorists, on the other hand, have done me almost no good at all. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2001 Report Share Posted June 12, 2001 Re: ragge Our differences are not specific enough to be 'ideological'. They arebasic, and driven by one, single value: You insist 'addiction' results from a flaw inside the individual. I insist that bad habits (NOT 'addictions'!) result from flawed, thoughunderstandable, attempts to adjust to social stress and social pain. That is the entire debate. Whooaaaah. Hold your horses. Not so fast there. I insist it is neither. People become chemically dependent due to habituated pleasure seeking. Pure and simple. Both you guys are dead wrong. DT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2001 Report Share Posted June 12, 2001 Right. Meanwhile, those companies backed and encouraged a government that murdered and killed in Vietnam, Central America, and now in Colombia. But what did you care. You had your upper-middle-class lifestyle. .. Re: Re: ragge Progressives and Radicals are far from perfect. They have made real mistakes. And there are always some snakes in the grass. But most of the radicals and progressives I have known have fought the good fight. No, the have fought against freedom and the liberation that capitalism brings to *everyone. Or at least that is my view, and the view of a great many. Eugene Debs is an interesting historical footnote who means little to my life. By contrast, I was able to raise children -- and limit my family size -- while earning an advanced degree because of entities such as: Whirlpool, General Electric, Ford, and Kline Beecham Pharmaceuticals. Ready-to-wear clothing and permanent press shirts; canned food; boxed cereals; frozen orange juice -- these freed me from drudgery. Capitalism ROCKS. Radical theorists, on the other hand, have done me almost no good at all. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2001 Report Share Posted June 12, 2001 No, Dave. 1) Define 'pleasure'. Hard to do, and however you do it, ain't no empirical data to link 'addictions' to 'pleasure' that is convincing. 2) It may seem that giving morphine to a person suffering cancer pain is 'pleasurable', in some sense? More closely viewed, it is pain relief. 3) The idea that addicts seek pleasure is widespread; it blamed on their 'faulty brains'. So you fall into Ken's camp: blame the victims. 4) Take a look at Nazi 'biological' descriptions of Jews. they were defined as being 'pleasure seekers', and this was seen as a 'biological deformity'. Nonsense, of course. Re: ragge Our differences are not specific enough to be 'ideological'. They arebasic, and driven by one, single value: You insist 'addiction' results from a flaw inside the individual. I insist that bad habits (NOT 'addictions'!) result from flawed, thoughunderstandable, attempts to adjust to social stress and social pain. That is the entire debate. Whooaaaah. Hold your horses. Not so fast there. I insist it is neither. People become chemically dependent due to habituated pleasure seeking. Pure and simple. Both you guys are dead wrong. DT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2001 Report Share Posted June 12, 2001 Re: Re: ragge Progressives and Radicals are far from perfect. They have made real mistakes. And there are always some snakes in the grass. But most of the radicals and progressives I have known have fought the good fight. No, the have fought against freedom and the liberation that capitalism brings to *everyone. Or at least that is my view, and the view of a great many. Eugene Debs is an interesting historical footnote who means little to my life. By contrast, I was able to raise children -- and limit my family size -- while earning an advanced degree because of entities such as: Whirlpool, General Electric, Ford, and Kline Beecham Pharmaceuticals. Ready-to-wear clothing and permanent press shirts; canned food; boxed cereals; frozen orange juice -- these freed me from drudgery. Capitalism ROCKS. Radical theorists, on the other hand, have done me almost no good at all. --Mona-- Of course, various other systems also rock provided that you happen to be near the pointy part of the pyramid. Roman Imperialism, feudalism, our own ol'-South slavery... The aristocrats and slave-owners were freed from drudgery and undoubtedly thought their system the best of all possible social arrangements. Somebody always has to pay. In the case of our current binge of maniacal materialism it's the folks working in the factories that produce our permanent press shirts as well as our grandchildren, who may inherit a resource-depleted, overpopulated poisoned planet. Side note: interesting how all this freedom from drudgery means everybody works more hours than they did 40 years ago... --wally Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2001 Report Share Posted June 13, 2001 paul diener wrote: > You have a VERY strange idea of the 'left'. (Urban renewal was an elite > idea, not a progressive one. Progressives fought it tooth and nail). > > I have NEVER seen a post of yours which tied 'addiction' to social > deterioration. You always blame individuals, or their parents. > > > Why not learn what you talk about? , Well, when I'm arguing that someone who insists that everything in life is economic, it seems rather pointless to repeat the obvious, that social-economic status is an influence on addiction rates. > > > Dennett, Eugene V. 1990 Agitprop: The Life of an American > Working-Class Radical. SUNY > > D. Healey and M. Isserman 1990 Dorothy Healey Remembers: A Life in > the American Communist Party Oxford U Press > > E. Johanningsmeier 1994 Forging American Communism: The Life of > Z. Princeton U. Press > > J. 1997 Che: A Revolutionary Life Grove Press > > Progressives and Radicals are far from perfect. They have made real > mistakes. And there are always some snakes in the grass. But most of the > radicals and progressives I have known have fought the good fight. I don't know what kind of progressive you are. I listened to a progressive station in New York and they sounded reasonable. Chaz Bufe also describes himself as progressive and while there are things we disagree on, he does not strike me as a narrowly focussed ideologue. > > > I have to laugh that you keep deriding me for being an ideologue. Most > of my leftist friends berate me for being too flexible, and not ideological > enough. Are they rocks? Maybe limestone or sandstone? > > > Our differences are not specific enough to be 'ideological'. They are > basic, and driven by one, single value: > > You insist 'addiction' results from a flaw inside the individual. > No, I insist that there are many influences involved with addiction. I also insist that it is not only stupid but selfish to insist that one must follow one's own political agenda when they are looking for motivation to stop self-destructive drinking/drugging. To do so is no different than what AA does. " Addiction " (or bad habits, if you will) is very often very much like the orphans in the " Monster Study. " What would be more helpful to them, to have found out decades ago that there is nothing wrong with them, that there stuttering is a normal, natural response to an abnormal situation, to relieve the low regard they hold themselves in as flawed or personal attacks on them for not living within your world view? > > I insist that bad habits (NOT 'addictions'!) result from flawed, though > understandable, attempts to adjust to social stress and social pain. > > That is the entire debate. No, that is not the entire debate. You see people in some sort of abstract intellectual form where the people themselves don't really exist except as a means to your ends. You refuse to see anything that does not originate with economic ideology. Ken Ragge > > > ---- Original Message ----- > > To: <12-step-free > > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 7:05 PM > Subject: Re: Re: ragge on 'left' > > > > > > > paul diener wrote: > > > > > Bill says the left caused moral decay amongst the poor. > Milton > > > Friedman says the left caused moral decay amongst the poor. Pat > on > > > says the left caused moral decay amongst the poor. Dobson says > the > > > left caused moral decay amongst the poor. Rush Limbaugh says the left > > > caused moral decay amongst the poor. Marvin Olansky says the left > caused > > > moral decay amongst the poor. And Ken Ragge says the left caused moral > > > decay amongst the poor. > > > > > > > , > > > > And where did I say that? Most certainly, I've criticized the left in > this > > country for destroying minority neighborhoods and moving the people who > lived > > there into Soviet-style housing blocks rather than supporting people _in_ > their > > neighborhoods. However, that is a far cry from being of one opinion, > > especially with what I see as the (im-)moral majority. > > > > > > > > Ragge is just one more reactionary petite bourgeois ideologue, who > > > dresses up his politics in psychobabble. > > > > As I said before, coming from an ideology, someone who is above being one > of > > the " common people, " and indeed is far above them and knows what is best > for > > them, that hardly bothers me. > > > > > > > > > > > Corporate liberalism is flawed. The answer is to put more power in > the > > > hands of common working people - both in the United States, and > worldwide. > > > The answer to corporate liberalism is real democracy - not hating your > > > parents. > > > > I've seen no indication that you want to put more power into the hands of > > " common working people " but rather want the power for yourself to tell > them > > what to do. > > > > Ken Ragge > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2001 Report Share Posted June 13, 2001 Trippel wrote: > > > Re: ragge > > Our differences are not specific enough to be > 'ideological'. They are > basic, and driven by one, single value: > > You insist 'addiction' results from a flaw inside the > individual. > > I insist that bad habits (NOT 'addictions'!) result from > flawed, though > understandable, attempts to adjust to social stress and > social pain. > > That is the entire debate. > > Whooaaaah. Hold your horses. Not so fast there. I insist it is > neither. People become chemically dependent due to habituated > pleasure seeking. Pure and simple. Both you guys are dead wrong. DT , Do you think it is always " habituated pleasure seeking. " Did you read Mona's post of the series of unbearable tragedies that struck her that led her to excessive drinking? It is not at all unusual, for example, for someone whose spouse dies to begin and continue self-destructive drinking. Do you think it is a correct characterize them as " pleasure seeking " ? The truth of the matter is that they are trying to escape terrible pain. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2001 Report Share Posted June 13, 2001 It is not at all unusual, for example, for someone whose spouse dies to begin and continue self-destructive drinking. Do you think it is a correct characterize them as "pleasure seeking"? The truth of the matter is that they are trying to escape terrible pain. That's it exactly, Ken. While I was always uncomfortable with the extent to which I wished to drink, and was never indifferent to alcohol, it also was never an issue that ran my life or caused the sorts of problems that let AA convince people they are "powerless." IOW, I did not have a "progessive" or "diseased" condition. If anything, by my late 30s I was drinking less than I had a decade before, in large part because it was fattening and I had become very health conscious. Then my life went insane, and so did my drinking. Contrary to having a disease, I responded in a rational manner to feelings that were overwhelming and unbearable. Moreover, if there were not adverse consequences to that response, I would have continued, albeit moderating as I put more distance between me and the people who harmed me. But because heavy consumption of alcohol does, in fact, carry significant adverse consequences for many, and certainly did and does for me, I have concluded that abstinence is the best course, and have found alternative methods of handling psychic pain. Evil Capitalist Plots had zero, absolutely zero to do with my descent into destructive drinking. And neither do I suffer from a "disease." --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2001 Report Share Posted June 13, 2001 Somebody always has to pay. In the case of our current binge of maniacal materialism it's the folks working in the factories that produce our permanent press shirts as well as our grandchildren, who may inherit a resource-depleted, overpopulated poisoned planet. Most of the men on my ex's side of the family work in a factory, and do quite well. They also enjoy appliances, automobiles, and the myriad other benefits capitalism have brought the West. Further, resource depletion may or not be a serious issue. Myself, I am strongly persuaded that with the collapse of Marxism as a viable ideology, the pinks have gone green. That is to say, they generate unwarranted hysteria about the purported extent of capitalist harm to the environment as an alternative route to impugning it. Side note: interesting how all this freedom from drudgery means everybody works more hours than they did 40 years ago... Not everybody. Moreover, some of us opted for professions where we knew, going in, that 60-65 hours was the norm. I did. And then opted out. It is called individual choice. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2001 Report Share Posted June 13, 2001 Meanwhile, those companies backed and encouraged a government that murdered and killed in Vietnam, Central America, and now in Colombia. No more so than everyone else. It is called representative democracy. Sometimes the majority's policies are moral, and sometimes not. But capitalism still benefits everyone, independent of the sins committed in foreign policy. But what did you care. You had your upper-middle-class lifestyle. No, lower middle class. Several years we were eligible for the Earned Income Credit. And we were far better off than our analogs in almost any other place and time. But it wouldn't have mattered if I had been rich as Croesius. Capitalism still rocks. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2001 Report Share Posted June 13, 2001 In AA speaker meetings, people telling their stories often stated such facts in their lives such as Mona's experiences, but then to correct any possible "misinterpretation" say things such as "of course, this did NOT in any way cause my alcoholism, it was just a 'good excuse' for me to drink more." An AA said exactly that to me not long ago, in an online forum in which I would not concede that 4th and 5th steps are crucial to the recovery of every "alcoholic." He knew my history, and had the gall to state that I had used my son's death as an "excuse" to drink. What can one even say in the face of such inhuman sentiment? --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2001 Report Share Posted June 13, 2001 At 01:58 AM 6/13/01 -0700, Ken wrote: >, > >Do you think it is always " habituated pleasure seeking. " Did you read >Mona's post of the series of unbearable tragedies that struck her that >led her to excessive drinking? I've written this sort of thing before, but I suppose it bears repeating: In AA speaker meetings, people telling their stories often stated such facts in their lives such as Mona's experiences, but then to correct any possible " misinterpretation " say things such as " of course, this did NOT in any way cause my alcoholism, it was just a 'good excuse' for me to drink more. " ---------- http://listen.to/benbradley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2001 Report Share Posted June 13, 2001 Re: Re: ragge Progressives and Radicals are far from perfect. They have made real mistakes. And there are always some snakes in the grass. But most of the radicals and progressives I have known have fought the good fight. No, the have fought against freedom and the liberation that capitalism brings to *everyone. Or at least that is my view, and the view of a great many. Eugene Debs is an interesting historical footnote who means little to my life. By contrast, I was able to raise children -- and limit my family size -- while earning an advanced degree because of entities such as: Whirlpool, General Electric, Ford, and Kline Beecham Pharmaceuticals. Ready-to-wear clothing and permanent press shirts; canned food; boxed cereals; frozen orange juice -- these freed me from drudgery. Capitalism ROCKS. Radical theorists, on the other hand, have done me almost no good at all. --Mona-- Of course, various other systems also rock provided that you happen to be near the pointy part of the pyramid. Roman Imperialism, feudalism, our own ol'-South slavery... The aristocrats and slave-owners were freed from drudgery and undoubtedly thought their system the best of all possible social arrangements. Somebody always has to pay. In the case of our current binge of maniacal materialism it's the folks working in the factories that produce our permanent press shirts as well as our grandchildren, who may inherit a resource-depleted, overpopulated poisoned planet. Side note: interesting how all this freedom from drudgery means everybody works more hours than they did 40 years ago... --wally Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2001 Report Share Posted June 13, 2001 Do you think perhaps that it's a combination of the two? A person doesn't escape into a vacuum. You leave pain behind, but what replaces it? Pleasure perhaps? I do think that pain, in the form of grief at least, is healthy and many try to avoid it with something else. Ron --- Ken wrote: > > > Trippel wrote: > > > > > > > Re: ragge > > > > Our differences are not specific enough to > be > > 'ideological'. They are > > basic, and driven by one, single value: > > > > You insist 'addiction' results from a > flaw inside the > > individual. > > > > I insist that bad habits (NOT > 'addictions'!) result from > > flawed, though > > understandable, attempts to adjust to social > stress and > > social pain. > > > > That is the entire debate. > > > > Whooaaaah. Hold your horses. Not so fast there. > I insist it is > > neither. People become chemically dependent due > to habituated > > pleasure seeking. Pure and simple. Both you guys > are dead wrong. DT > > , > > Do you think it is always " habituated pleasure > seeking. " Did you read > Mona's post of the series of unbearable tragedies > that struck her that > led her to excessive drinking? > > It is not at all unusual, for example, for someone > whose spouse dies to > begin and continue self-destructive drinking. Do > you think it is a > correct characterize them as " pleasure seeking " ? > The truth of the > matter is that they are trying to escape terrible > pain. > > Ken > > > > __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2001 Report Share Posted June 13, 2001 Mona, Your observations on why you did your period of destructive drinking are right on point. I did the same thing for several years, joined AA for 6, and now have an occassional glass of wine with no desire to resume the insanity of heavy binge drinking. In think the brainwashing of AA is so much BS; we are each responsible for our own destiny, and the disease concept is a self-fullfilling prophecy. Bruce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2001 Report Share Posted June 13, 2001 Your observations on why you did your period of destructive drinking are right on point. I did the same thing for several years, joined AA for 6, and now have an occassional glass of wine with no desire to resume the insanity of heavy binge drinking. In think the brainwashing of AA is so much BS; we are each responsible for our own destiny, and the disease concept is a self-fullfilling prophecy. Hi Bruce. Well, I don't believe I would rush back to an insane level ofdrinking like that which messed me up after multiple tragedies beset me, but that said, I'm in no hurry to try to drink again. I was always far too fond of alcohol, even tho it did not cause me particular trouble until those extreme events in my early 40s. Further, I did look to it to feel better when under a lot of stress. AA aside, I believe it is in my best interest to entirely abstain. My point is that I didn't develop a dependency on alcohol simply because we workers have not yet lost our chains. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2001 Report Share Posted June 13, 2001 Re: Re: ragge Somebody always has to pay. In the case of our current binge of maniacal materialism it's the folks working in the factories that produce our permanent press shirts as well as our grandchildren, who may inherit a resource-depleted, overpopulated poisoned planet. Most of the men on my ex's side of the family work in a factory, and do quite well. They also enjoy appliances, automobiles, and the myriad other benefits capitalism have brought the West. ***Nonetheless, real hourly wages and median household income have declined in the past 25 years. And statistics don't reflect a number of ways in which quality of life and overall convenience and simplicity have declined since the 50's. In those days doctors made house calls, grocery stores delivered, decent public transportation systems made automobiles optional for a large part of the population, a solid free public education system was taken for granted (ok, not necessarily if you were black, in some areas.) Also we actually had kitchen appliances way back in that pre-Reagan era. Btw, I hope the men in your ex's side of the family are buying stock and saving for the rainy day. Globalization means that their factory days are numbered. *** Further, resource depletion may or not be a serious issue. Myself, I am strongly persuaded that with the collapse of Marxism as a viable ideology, the pinks have gone green. That is to say, they generate unwarranted hysteria about the purported extent of capitalist harm to the environment as an alternative route to impugning it. ***Well, if you're the sort of Republican who would consider Teddy Roosevelt (that notorious trust-busting conservationist) a Marxist then our discussion probably won't go far ;-) However, I don't think a real Marxist could bear to sit at the same table with a Greenie. If anything, it is today's "conservatives" who have taken over Marxism's core tenets. One of these, of course, is materialism. "Man's activities are determined by his needs," said Marx, meaning basic material and economic needs. Ideology is superstructure. The true worth of a society is measured by how many kitchen appliances it produces. Thus, when Tricky Dick and Nasty Nikita had their kitchen debate, their choice of venue reflected their shared values. It's all about toasters; the question was who could make more and better toasters. The Commies had their "dialectical materialism," which supposedly guaranteed the triumph of their system through some sort of inevitable historic process, in which individuals and their ideas don't matter. The equivalent for today's prophets of pure robber-baron capitalism is the hegemony of the Market. Resistance to corporate growth and development is futile, and can only make things worse (but temporarily, because the Will of the Market -- which one must be careful to distinguish from the Will of the People -- must triumph ultimately.) I will grant you that disgruntlement with the culture of corporate consumerism can be manifested as Green or Red allegiance, just as it can be manifested by the adoption of New Age or AA beliefs, or by joining a mainstream church, or by getting drunk a lot or taking anti-depressants unnecessarily, or by borrowing your uncle's semi-automatic rifle and shooting your schoolmates, or by mailing letter-bombs to executives. That doesn't mean that all those things are somehow equivalent. --wally *** [snip] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2001 Report Share Posted June 13, 2001 Nonetheless, real hourly wages and median household income have declined in the past 25 years. Yes, I have read and believe that. Nevertheless, the vast majority are infinitely better off than at any other place and time in history. Twenty-five years ago electricity was still a luxury in some outposts, not to mention telephones, microwaves, computers and washing machines. And statistics don't reflect a number of ways in which quality of life and overall convenience and simplicity have declined since the 50's. In those days doctors made house calls, grocery stores delivered, decent public transportation systems made automobiles optional for a large part of the population, a solid free public education system was taken for granted (ok, not necessarily if you were black, in some areas.) Also we actually had kitchen appliances way back in that pre-Reagan era. Not the appliances we have now, and not even remotely as cheaply. Microwaves were a luxury confined to the very rich and to restaurants. Further, I miss Manhattan precisely because people there still deliver EVERYTHING. OTOH, now I can just order online, and even bypass the prescription requirement for many drugs. Technology picks up the slack again. >>Btw, I hope the men in your ex's side of the family are buying stock and saving for the rainy day. Globalization means that their factory days are numbered. << I tell you, I've been preaching that to them since the early 80s, and idjits that they are they dismiss me as an overly educated bitch who worries about nonsense. My one (ex) brother-in-law in particular, whom I really like (his wife, too) I even sent info on tech school and prodded him to get some skills training. They can't say they were not warned. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2001 Report Share Posted June 13, 2001 Re: ragge>> Our differences are not specific enough to be> 'ideological'. They are> basic, and driven by one, single value:>> You insist 'addiction' results from a flaw inside the> individual.>> I insist that bad habits (NOT 'addictions'!) result from> flawed, though> understandable, attempts to adjust to social stress and> social pain.>> That is the entire debate.>> Whooaaaah. Hold your horses. Not so fast there. I insist it is> neither. People become chemically dependent due to habituated> pleasure seeking. Pure and simple. Both you guys are dead wrong. DT,Do you think it is always "habituated pleasure seeking." Did you readMona's post of the series of unbearable tragedies that struck her thatled her to excessive drinking?It is not at all unusual, for example, for someone whose spouse dies tobegin and continue self-destructive drinking. Do you think it is acorrect characterize them as "pleasure seeking"? The truth of thematter is that they are trying to escape terrible pain.Ken Ken Yes, I do think it is always habituated pleasure seeking. The excuse system has exquisite variety and is the consumate opportunist. But by the time that first sip slides down the esophagus whatever painful excuse had been there is essentially gone. I know this may sound presumptive to many, but I've discussed this with hundreds of people who acknowledge that this is the case. Only a very few reported their "pain" still had import at the time of the first swallow, and even those, a much dimished import compared to the "pain" that led them to decide to drink earlier. It's quite logical to me why people drink. For the specific effects caused by the drinking. In those who do it repeatedly and sacrifice so much, it must be a profound pleasure, and all my empirical observation has born this out. The excuse systems are what many buy into on the intrapersonal level (psychological) and the interpersonal level (sociological). Excuses for getting drunk are made to minimize the losses in other areas of life. DT PS. For nondependent drinkers, the reason is essentially the same - pleasure seeking without habituation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2001 Report Share Posted June 13, 2001 Re: ragge Our differences are not specific enough to be 'ideological'. They arebasic, and driven by one, single value: You insist 'addiction' results from a flaw inside the individual. I insist that bad habits (NOT 'addictions'!) result from flawed, thoughunderstandable, attempts to adjust to social stress and social pain. That is the entire debate. Whooaaaah. Hold your horses. Not so fast there. I insist it is neither. People become chemically dependent due to habituated pleasure seeking. Pure and simple. Both you guys are dead wrong. DT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 --- Trippel wrote: > > 2) It may seem that giving morphine to a person > suffering cancer pain is 'pleasurable', in some > sense? More closely viewed, it is pain relief. > > [ No, even more closely viewed it is pleasure. > When I was laid up on morphine after a car accident > - I can say it was one of the most pleasurable > sensations I've ever had. ] > Dave: When you knew that you were going to get morphine, did your pain decrease prior to receiving it? I experienced this 14 years ago after a major (and painful) surgical procedure on my right inner ear. I was promised a demerol injection, which I received once before a few years earlier after a related procedure. I remember quite clearly that, prior to the needle even hitting my arm, my pain eased significantly. After the shot, I went on a magic carpet ride that no prior nor subsequent high ever came close to matching (C-ticket Disney rides at best!) This reminds me of a " zero effect " experience a client related to me not long ago. He sliced off the tip of his pinky during an industrial accident. He was an indeterminate abstainer who, on his way to the hospital decided, " Fuck the pain I'm gonna drink. " He tells me he anticipated a buzz from his whiskey so much that he momentarily forgot about the finger tip on ice in the ER. Of course, seeing it again jolted him back to the moment! Get this, the guy got a high dose of local anesthesia that numbed his digits completely for a few hours. No more pain right? So what was the first thing he did on his way home? Yep, a stop at his favorite perveyor of liquor for a fifth of Jack s. A victim of a flawed society? Of internal demons? I think not. Ron __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 That's something isn't it? Did the sight of the button relieve some of your pain as well as the anxiety? I'm hearing (and reading) a fair number of accounts involving drinkers/druggies who have anxiety, anger, depression, etc. When they decide to imbibe, swallow, and/or shoot-up... voila! they often feel better, sometimes euphoric even before their blood carries the substance of choice. This happened to me many times prior to the Gran Marnier coating my lips. How can I then conclude that we were escaping pain, anxiety, etc? This doesn't seem to fit, does it? Ron --- ahicks@... wrote: > > > Hi Ron, > > I'm not Dave, duh, but wanted to put in my 2 cents > on this one: > > > When I was giving birth to my daughter, it was a > scheduled c-section. > I went to the hospital and they were prepping me > for surgery when the > anesthesiologist (sp?) came in. He had on a white > lab coat with a > *big* button on it with the word PAIN crossed out. > My anxiety > plummeted. > > He was as good as his word. Otherwise, I wouldn't > have survived. And > I was awake the whole time. > > > > __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 That's why it's useful to call it DEEPleasure. DT Re: ragge> > > That's something isn't it? Did the sight of the button> > relieve some of your pain as well as the anxiety?> >> > I'm hearing (and reading) a fair number of accounts> > involving drinkers/druggies who have anxiety, anger,> > depression, etc. When they decide to imbibe, swallow,> > and/or shoot-up... voila! they often feel better,> > sometimes euphoric even before their blood carries the> > substance of choice.>> Yep, saw something on TV with a drug rehab program that made junkies> go through the whole process involved, leading upto IV injection -> Each time getting nearer and nearer. The object was to let people> experience this "pre-high"(?), yet know that they didn't *HAVE* to> administer the drug itself. It has previously been noted that the> quality of many street drugs are so low that there is almost no> active constituent is present - People still get high though :-)>> As an ex-drunk, I noticed this relief at giving myself permission to> go to the liquor store. In early sobriety I did continued to buy my> cigarettes at the liquor store, just to learn to cope with that> feeling. Eventually "living dangerously"(?) lost it's attraction and> I gave up smoking anyway ;-) But, I think though, the process of> living in the problem <g> is important - the element of surprise is> lost. I always felt that a lot of AA's put themselves in danger from> relapse, first by avoidance, then by increasing the "power" of> alcohol, only to find themselves suddenly with the opportunity.>> Towards the end of my AA experience, meetings were about the *only*> time and place where I felt a significant "anticipatory pleasure" in> hearing all the drunkalogs and an increasing(!) desire to drink. For> me it was certainly among the good reasons for leaving.>> Mack>>>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 Ron s wrote: > Do you think perhaps that it's a combination of the > two? A person doesn't escape into a vacuum. You leave > pain behind, but what replaces it? Pleasure perhaps? > I do think that pain, in the form of grief at least, > is healthy and many try to avoid it with something > else. > > Ron Ron, I agree with you on the need for greiving loses. However, I'm not sure that the " pleasure " someone who is avoiding greiving is getting might better be described as moving closer to a " normal " state. How do we know how someone else feels inside? Moreover, how does anyone know how we feel inside in comparison with other people? Ken Ragge > > --- Ken wrote: > > > > > > Trippel wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Re: ragge > > > > > > Our differences are not specific enough to > > be > > > 'ideological'. They are > > > basic, and driven by one, single value: > > > > > > You insist 'addiction' results from a > > flaw inside the > > > individual. > > > > > > I insist that bad habits (NOT > > 'addictions'!) result from > > > flawed, though > > > understandable, attempts to adjust to social > > stress and > > > social pain. > > > > > > That is the entire debate. > > > > > > Whooaaaah. Hold your horses. Not so fast there. > > I insist it is > > > neither. People become chemically dependent due > > to habituated > > > pleasure seeking. Pure and simple. Both you guys > > are dead wrong. DT > > > > , > > > > Do you think it is always " habituated pleasure > > seeking. " Did you read > > Mona's post of the series of unbearable tragedies > > that struck her that > > led her to excessive drinking? > > > > It is not at all unusual, for example, for someone > > whose spouse dies to > > begin and continue self-destructive drinking. Do > > you think it is a > > correct characterize them as " pleasure seeking " ? > > The truth of the > > matter is that they are trying to escape terrible > > pain. > > > > Ken > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 Defining 'pleasure' is difficult. The concept is one of the most complex in the popular culture. It has a whole range of connotations. You suggest that this complex cultural and linguistic idea can be explained in an exceedingly simplistic, mechanical way, by reducing it to some sort of 'brain state'. But you have no evidence. (I don't accept anecdotal testimonies, from you, from AAs, or from Southern Baptists.) There is absolutely NO real evidence that this complex cultural category of 'pleasure' can be reduced to simple brain states. There is a lot of junk science in this area, but none of it is even in Re: ragge Our differences are not specific enough to be 'ideological'. They arebasic, and driven by one, single value: You insist 'addiction' results from a flaw inside the individual. I insist that bad habits (NOT 'addictions'!) result from flawed, thoughunderstandable, attempts to adjust to social stress and social pain. That is the entire debate. Whooaaaah. Hold your horses. Not so fast there. I insist it is neither. People become chemically dependent due to habituated pleasure seeking. Pure and simple. Both you guys are dead wrong. DT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.