|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 4, 2018 15:07:38 GMT
That's not necessarily a given. Indeed, it's the way it appears to go for most, but that doesn't mean an immediate turnaround is not possible. My understanding is that addiction involves neurological and chemical changes, but that there's a wide range of human biology. Some people aren't as easily hooked on some or all addictions and and the degree to which those changes have happened is going to depend on the depth and length of the addiction.
It's a layman's understanding of a complex topic that's quite technical in the details, but there is a much simpler analogy that we can use to illustrate the point here. Let's say someone breaks a bone. Isn't the pain of a broken bone an inevitable fact? Isn't the process of getting back to the same functioning as before the break, without pain, going to take time? My understanding of chemical addiction is that it does damage similar to breaking a bone.
You are looking at it all from within experience....from within the story. The transcendent view illuminates all possibilities. No-thing is inevitable because nothing arising within the story actually is a cause/catalyst to something else appearing within the story. Cause is itself just a very compelling appearance. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969 
|
Post by Enigma on Oct 4, 2018 15:21:39 GMT
Yeah the whole "collective belief" dealio isn't one I'm on board with.  How about then just "belief"? Do you agree or disagree that strong expectation might make the difference between symptoms vs. no symptoms? I say there's an important relationship there. I have to begin from the realization that nothing in this physical world is causing something else to happen. Then I have to ask, why does Acetaminophen seem to numb pain? I can look to the placebo effect to see how 'expectation' influences the outcome, but I'm left with explaining why I can spike your drink with a pill and cause an effect when there is no expectation on your part or knowledge as to what I've done. And yet there IS an expectation on MY part, and by extension, the belief regarding those pain relief effects is present in others (assuming there ARE others. Let's not go there.) These concepts held personally and collectively are the fodder for creation itself. I know that Aspirin does not cause pain relief, (Consciousness does) but I also know that taking Aspirin will result in pain relief regardless.  This is where I go New Age and start talking about collective consciousness and co-creation. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Oct 4, 2018 15:24:27 GMT
The way I understand it, the fact of the withdrawal pain is independent of the addicts state of mind. I'd agree that pain and suffering create one another in a feedback loop, and if the acceptance is deep enough, there can be little to no suffering, and so a relatively minimal level of pain given the addicts state at the time of stopping. But I don't believe in miracles. So So does that mean you disagree with the assertion that in terms of experience, anything is possible? I want to go on record as saying I DO believe in miracles, if, by miracles, we mean wacky things happening that rational peeps have no explanation for. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Oct 4, 2018 15:26:13 GMT
My understanding is that addiction involves neurological and chemical changes, but that there's a wide range of human biology. Some people aren't as easily hooked on some or all addictions and and the degree to which those changes have happened is going to depend on the depth and length of the addiction.
It's a layman's understanding of a complex topic that's quite technical in the details, but there is a much simpler analogy that we can use to illustrate the point here. Let's say someone breaks a bone. Isn't the pain of a broken bone an inevitable fact? Isn't the process of getting back to the same functioning as before the break, without pain, going to take time? My understanding of chemical addiction is that it does damage similar to breaking a bone.
You are looking at it all from within experience....from within the story. The transcendent view illuminates all possibilities. No-thing is inevitable because nothing arising within the story actually is a cause/catalyst to something else appearing within the story. Cause is itself just a very compelling appearance. Zacklee |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 4, 2018 17:24:54 GMT
How about then just "belief"? Do you agree or disagree that strong expectation might make the difference between symptoms vs. no symptoms? I say there's an important relationship there. I have to begin from the realization that nothing in this physical world is causing something else to happen. Then I have to ask, why does Acetaminophen seem to numb pain? I can look to the placebo effect to see how 'expectation' influences the outcome, but I'm left with explaining why I can spike your drink with a pill and cause an effect when there is no expectation on your part or knowledge as to what I've done. And yet there IS an expectation on MY part, and by extension, the belief regarding those pain relief effects is present in others (assuming there ARE others. Let's not go there.) These concepts held personally and collectively are the fodder for creation itself. I know that Aspirin does not cause pain relief, (Consciousness does) but I also know that taking Aspirin will result in pain relief regardless. This is where I go New Age and start talking about collective consciousness and co-creation. Excellent explanation. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 4, 2018 17:25:43 GMT
So So does that mean you disagree with the assertion that in terms of experience, anything is possible? I want to go on record as saying I DO believe in miracles, if, by miracles, we mean wacky things happening that rational peeps have no explanation for. Me too, and as I suspect you have too, I've experienced just such things. |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Oct 4, 2018 19:52:41 GMT
Yeah the whole "collective belief" dealio isn't one I'm on board with. It just means there are recurring patterns in the content of Consciousness. You don't see anything like that? Yes, of course I do.  I just don't think of them as due to collective beliefs. |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Oct 4, 2018 20:04:37 GMT
The way I understand it, the fact of the withdrawal pain is independent of the addicts state of mind. I'd agree that pain and suffering create one another in a feedback loop, and if the acceptance is deep enough, there can be little to no suffering, and so a relatively minimal level of pain given the addicts state at the time of stopping. But I don't believe in miracles. Yeah, the collective belief is that mind and body are separate. What is it about a substance that makes it addictive? After all, nobody ever suffers withdrawal from an asparagus addiction. I say the severity of the withdrawal is exactly proportional to the intensity of the craving. Popular wisdom would say the body is the source of the craving, (however counter intuitive that may be) which is why I originally opted for the term 'desire'. That's beyond my casual layman's knowledge of the topic. My impression of the scientific consensus is that using the substance causes changes in various chemical processes and nerve structures that lead to pleasure during the addiction process and pain during the withdrawal process.
Like I said at the outset, regardless of how you think of the causality, there's an underlying practical, experiential definition. You can set the causality question aside and think of it as: substances that can be associated with these two different processes of pleasure/addiction-withdrawl/pain are considered potentially addictive (depending on person and situation), while substances that can't be, aren't.  |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Oct 4, 2018 20:09:40 GMT
The human adult takes responsibility for their own interests, but still lives in a world that's ultimately full of influences, forces and events that have nothing to do with those interests. They'd explain their behavior accordingly. Well, they do have something to do with those interests. There may be interest in conforming in order to be accepted, or do whatever is required in order to make a living, and so on. The interests may be different than they would be in an ideal world. The objective factors are related to those interests, but the human adult isn't responsible for the objective factors, only their subjective reaction to those factors. |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Oct 4, 2018 20:14:50 GMT
Yeah the whole "collective belief" dealio isn't one I'm on board with. How about then just "belief"? Do you agree or disagree that strong expectation might make the difference between symptoms vs. no symptoms? I say there's an important relationship there. Yes, that's the pain/suffering feedback effect, so the absence of expectation can lead to minimal or no suffering, and so minimal pain. But I still maintain that some people are in such a state that a painful process is inevitable, regardless of expectation. Also, I take E' to mean that nicotine or opiod withdrawl symptoms happen because of a sort of consensus that they should. I've dialoged with him enough over the years that I think I understand there's a deeper nuance to his meaning other than "everyone believes in gravity so you don't float (heh heh)", but I'm still not on board with it. |
|
This is where I go New Age and start talking about collective consciousness and co-creation. 
I just don't think of them as due to collective beliefs.