Originally Posted by
dybehfar 
... my inability to grasp the concept of never.
Do You Believe Everything Happens For A Reason,
Your Beast is petrified you reported that to us because it's so obviously wrong. (It surely must have made a big effort to convince you it was true)
Of course you know the concept of never. All of us do, and so do all of our Beasts.
Your quote is equivalent to saying "... my inability to stay stopped."
I am trying to live in the now, but can see how that is allowing me to have an addiction ambivalence.
The first move in AVRT is to acknowledge the ambivalence (BI-Valence) and divide the two ideas into YOU and IT. YOU have quit. IT wants more. With this division, the ambivalence becomes neutralized because IT is a quadriplegic, even though IT will always be there lying on the floor (ground, car seat) next to you, wherever you go, talking to you, reminding you of the old pleasure, the old routines, etc. But that's now all harmless, because IT is not you, and you do can refuse to let IT back in to try and gain control of your arms and legs.
AVRT is all about keeping that desire to drink separate from you.
I've copied the following quote from an earlier post of mine because I think it's concise.
Originally Posted by GerandTwine
As I became familiar with RR meanings of terms, I saw how logical and sensible the definitions were. I soon realized I had passed through the following conditions regarding drinking (and smoking pot):
A - Born as - Abstinent (Me = no) no internal conflicts
B - Tried out - Non-dependent drinking (Me = yes, The Beast doesn't exist) no internal conflicts
C - Evolved to - Dependent drinking (Me = yes, It = yes) The Beast is born, no AVRT, no internal conflicts, some external problem solving
D - Transitioned to - Addicted drinking (Me = no, It = yes) Strong internal and external conflicts
E - Made Big Plan - Abstinent (Me = Never, It is a quadriplegic) E is just like A, with the exception that AVRT makes what was an internal "conflict" simply an internal Recognition
As I thought about these conditions, I realized since I had done much experimentation, that I could not backtrack from C to B, and would not backtrack from D to C.
The ambivalence starts with condition D(Addiction). That's when we transition into believing we would be better off quitting for good and that more drinking is simply wrong for us. In condition D(Addiction) more drinking is a moral problem, not just a tactical gamble as it was in condition C(Dependence).
Ambivalence creates the unstable nature of condition D. Ambivalence is also the natural state of someone "in recovery" who has not made a commitment to never drink again. There is an ongoing debate of whether or not to drink some more that is often supported by learned powerlessness and disease beliefs.
GerandTwine