|
Carl Jung on Addiction Here's one view on addiction... Every form of addiction is bad, no matter whether the narcotic be alcohol, morphine or idealism. Carl Jung, Psychiatrist Addiction is not a disease, it is an attitude. Addiction, in the end, is a behavior that we choose to indulge. Addiction is something that you act on without thought of consequence. Addiction is something you want so much that nothing at the moment compares. Addiction is all about fulfilling one’s desires. It has absolutely nothing to do with fulfilling one’s needs. Addiction is selfishness, pure and simple. All addiction is bad, regardless of what the point of focus is. Addiction means a loss of thinking ability and a total surrender to desire. This is why all addiction is bad. Anything that closes the mind and allows the individual to act without thinking, lessens one’s humanity. Indeed, this is the way of animals, which lack discretionary thinking. Addiction therefore is the height of inhumanity. Addiction to physically harmful items is clearly destructive. However, addiction to items not so clearly harmful is not always recognized as addiction, even when it still is so. Idealism, religion and even the concept of God, good things in and of themselves, can still become objects of addiction, turning one’s relationship with these things into something harmful and bad. Whenever we fail to think clearly, whenever we refuse to entertain ideas, whenever we close off and just do what we want to do, for no other reason than we want to, this is addiction and this is very bad. Even in areas sacred to me, in the realms that I hold in the highest esteem, I am still open to discussion. Discussion, however does not lead me to doubt what I believe. On the contrary, by forcing me into discussion, I reexamine my beliefs, and often find reinforcements that make my beliefs even stronger. Therefore, the challenge is a good thing. Idealism is an absolute. Absolutes are easy to see because of their simplicity. However, life is not simple. Therefore, absolutes can exist only in the mind of the believer, but absolutes can play almost no role whatsoever in real life. Real life flows and fluctuates, Absolutes stay as still as stone. Water always breaks down stone. Rational thinking and real life breaks down absolutes. Therefore, those who cling to them do so as an addiction, without thought, without regards to consequences. This is foolishness and this is dangerous. Addiction must be recognized for what it is. Addiction is a choice, a choice of a weak mind to perform a weak task. This is a criminal offense against morality. This offends one’s humanity at its very core. The only rational answer to addiction is hard labor. An entire reorientation of mind must be achieved, similar to that which is achieved in military boot camp training. We only contribute to harming the already harmed whenever we are sympathetic to those addicted. We must root out of ourselves such weakness and treat the addicted with a serious dose of harshness. We must learn to impose discipline and severe, painful penalties for selfish weakness. This is the way we actually help one another and the way we can successfully end addictions. We must push people to think and to act properly. No more, “Mr. Nice Guy,” he is too busy indulging himself, taking drugs, getting drunk and feeling sorry for himself, wishing the world was an absolute ideal place of hippie-dippy love. You want to make this world better, then follow the role model of discipline set by a military drill sergeant. Live by it, expect others to as well and have little to no sympathy for those who will disagree. What's your thoughts? Shalom! |
I haven't studied Jung in depth, but what I do know of Jung, I seem to agree with so far, including this Thanks for sharing! |
I'm not sure the AAers are gonna be too thrilled with it. |
hmm... the first sentance of that quote, i could see jung saying. The 2nd to last sentance, however, (the one that references"hippy dippy love") i think thats gota be someone elses commentary.?. Jung died in 1961. i would be willing to bet that only the first sentance was jung quote, and the rest was someones commentary? |
Well, I didn't post it in the AA forum! :wink3: I am interested in other's thoughts, though. Jung has always impressed me. We must keep in mind, though, that he lived many years ago, (1875-1961). The world has changed in fundamental ways since then. Yet, truth remains truth. Only theories change. This section was not put up for debate. It's simply a perspective. And what are our thoughts on it. :e058: Shalom! |
Well, my thread asking if I was destined for relapse if I didn't attend AA wasn't put up for debate either, but it almost started WWIII around here. :c029: |
KosherTorah.com Aa vark is indeed correct, and I *do* apologise! :redface: After you posted, I went back, and re-read the post again. It *is* another's commentary, with Jung's quote only as an opening! Please forgive. I've fixed the original to make it right. :e058: I am still interested in thoughts on the commentary, however. :wink3: Shalom! |
Originally Posted by historyteach
(Post 1776652)
Here's one view on addiction... A harsh form of tough love to be sure. What's your thoughts? Shalom! That was my main thought... |
From the quote, it was clear that Jung was the opening sentence and the rest a commentary. There are things I can take from the commentary, and things I could leave, of course. All of it thought provoking, and I can definitely see the benefits when in need of some "strength". But, from what I *know* of Jung, there are just things about him I tend to agree with, but then again, I like Joseph Campbell, who was a friend of Jung's and quoted him a lot... I should say here tho, that I'm a "gray" person. I tend to stop agreeing when anyonoe goes too far right or left on just about ANY subject. Life is just too full of variables to have an absolute answer for most things - except for who left the toilet seat up? LOL! Makes us think, and that's always a good thing! |
If we delete the first sentence: Addiction is not a disease, it is an attitude. I've dealt with Trevor's addiction since he was 14; he's 28 now. And I've had my own cigarette addiction for more years than I care to admit! I agree, it's harsh. But, is it wrong? Shalom! |
I personally think it is wrong. I think there has to be a predisposition to and some sort of disease mechanism. I don't think anyone would choose to become addicted. But just like any other disease the competent ill person must seek help and accept treatment. I do think there is some sort of neurochemical goings on that cause and reinforce addiction. I think the future of addiction treatment lies in understanding the brain and its complexities. It puts me ever more in awe of the addicts that struggle everyday and stay clean. Battling against one's own chemical and genetic make up is a battle well worth the energy. Hopefully in the future there will be more help to lower the number of relapses, fight cravings, and increase quality of life. |
Picasso was addicted to painting. Shakespeare was addicted to writing. Thomas Edison was addicted to inventing. Some people are addicted to exercising. I disagree wholeheartedly that "all addictions are bad", and by the way, Jung was a fruitcake. |
Fellow Jungian here. I got a minor in religious studies (focus: Jungian analysis.) I'm also working on getting certified for dream interpretation through the Jungian institute here. I'm all about Jung, as you can already tell. If you look at his archetype concept, you have the Self (Freud's "ego", ration, logic, your waking persona.) This is the person who knows 2+2=4, that you pay your bills on time, that you listen to your head, not your heart. Then you have the shadow: The unconscious, the emotional, the feeling and sensing, the animal urges, the animal instincts, the desires, the lust. Individuation is the key. You have to be whole. Your Self and Shadow have to be in balance (yin/yang.) You repress the shadow too much and it becomes sick, unhealthy, often inflated. The best way I can describe this is to use the Catholic priests who molest as an example. I truly believe that because they are forced to take a vow of celibacy, that masturbation is a sin, that homosexuality is a sin, their "shadow" selves can become so repressed that they seek unhealthy and deviant ways to manifest (molestation.) Or, you can emerge yourself too much into Shadow, embrace it too much, too quickly, lose sight of the light, of reason. This is where I believe most addicts exist. They've written off the logical world. They realize it's there, but they are ignoring it and feeding the shadow (which becomes bigger and bigger and more distorted, hungrier, needing to be fed more and more.) The militant suggestion could be Jung stating that people who are prone to addictions need more Self in their lives, more ration, more discipline, more logic. But, I am only guessing. I do think Jung is a little harder on addicts than we are today, and I think "choice" is definitely a piece of it (though not the whole.) I also think Freud's addiction to cocaine probably influenced Jung's writings a bit, especially after the falling out the two had. His autobiography is a fascinating read. It definitely gives some insight into the world of archetypes and his success in treating schizophrenics and psychotics using his own method. I could go on, but I won't nerd out too hardcore on you guys. =) I plan to teach a class on "How to write the Hero," using Jung's archetypes as well as Campbell's Monomyth. The two are closely intertwined. I'm currently reading a book about alchemy that has a lot of Jung influence. Very fascinating stuff! ZW |
Originally Posted by historyteach
(Post 1776710)
But, is it wrong? Shalom! anyone's opinion is wrong, may be different than mine, or may be the same, does not make it right or wrong to me. Just info. to process... :atv That's my .85 cents.... |
I don't know that much about Jung, but it seems to me that the basic idea behind handing the consequences of their actions back to our addicts is very similar. Rescuing them certainly doesn't help anything. I do understand and agree with the disease model of addiction, but it certainly does involve individual choice. It isn't like the addict is helpless to change. Mostly they just don't want to. Same goes for codependents. Change is uncomfortable. I don't think anyone changes until they step up and accept total responsiblity for their choices and the consequences of those choices. But I don't think that harsh love should be used as a weapon against an addict in an effort to force them to change. That goes against the principles of our recovery, and would keep us bound up in trying to control them instead of learning to focus on ourselves and our own junk. JMHO |
i don't believe addiction is a disease. With every action there is an opposite and equal reaction... why is it when someone is an addict they have a chemical imbalance that causes them to be an addict... but it does not take a chemical imbalance to stop... to stop doing drugs, you stop.... and there is no chemical imbalance that causes someone to stop doing drugs.... so why is it that it takes a chemical imbalance to start.... i did drugs... and i stopped.... never stole, never cheated, the only one i hurt was myself, and to stop that hurt... i stop using... no help from a detox, nothing (plus no insurance helps) do i have a chemical imbalance? ... no, i just needed to grow up and take responsability for my actions.... do i need to go to meetings? i choose not to... you know what i do to stay clean?.... I DONT DO DRUGS!!! now the codependancey problem i have... that is something i need to jsut STOP AND GROW UP. |
Hi Teach, Interesting quote and post-comment. These ideas make us think. I think that diseases are what a person has, attitudes are how a person processes what they have, and behaviors are how a person chooses to act out what they have. A person may not have a say-so about having a disease; however, that same person does have a choice about how to respond and behave to having the disease. Some variables to consider which might influence/change a person's attitude and behaviors include education on the disease, access to education, emotional barriers, and will (or 'access to courage'). Just a few thoughts to add to the mix...thanks for the topic for discussion. |
What a load! It starts out making sense but the tough love part is a load. For one thing it's a one-size-fits-all therapy (tough love I mean). A good number of alcoholics are or were abused, so that means abuse them some more? Tough love is nothing more than abuse.:shine8pl: |
I know this is a very old post :) We had a rehab in my country that pretty much followed the commentary. Addicts went there for 6 months to a year and had to work extremely hard physically. There were real consequences to overstepping boundaries etc. The government probed them a couple of times and eventually closed them down. They had the highest success rate of all rehabs here. There may be something to the rewiring of the brain part. |
I agree with Carl Jung. I have an addictive personality and I can easily become addicted to anything that brings me pleasure. Science supports him these days, in that it doesn't have to be a substance. Addiction is not a disease, it is an attitude. |
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:35 PM. |