Why do addicts continue to hurt people?
Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Dallas TX
Posts: 2,282
Originally Posted by Katiekate 
I'm so glad I have this space with you all.
Beautiful shiny lights in my little part of the world.
Thank you, all. xo
Beautiful shiny lights in my little part of the world.
Thank you, all. xo
.....Thank YOU, Kk.......you are one of those shiny lights,too!
Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 180
Hi EnglishGarden - your posts and advice to me have always helped me tremendously. I wish I could offer the same type of wise and eloquent response you've given to me. Not sure I can but to only say I agree with you. I can't at this point trust any addict, even when they're not using. The only close experience I've had with an addict is my XABF and even when he wasn't using after rehab he was a complete jerk, an emotional roller coaster and angry. From my experience, his personality was there before the drugs and all he did was mask part of it while on them. He couldn't be trusted while on drugs or off because he also has mental health issues.
Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: NC
Posts: 1,737
EG, Have you read M. Scott Peck's People of the Lie? It seems to nail the type person you are describing. Here is a synopsis from Wikipedia ( M. Scott Peck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ):
Peck discusses evil in his book People of the Lie: The Hope For Healing Human Evil[7] and also in a chapter of The Road Less Traveled.[6] Peck characterizes evil as a malignant type of self-righteousness in which there is an active rather than passive refusal to tolerate imperfection (sin) and its consequent guilt.[6][7] This syndrome results in a projection of evil onto selected specific innocent victims (often children), which is the paradoxical mechanism by which the People of the Lie commit their evil.[7] Peck argues that these people are the most difficult of all to deal with and extremely hard to identify.[7] He describes in some detail several individual cases involving his patients. In one case which Peck considers as the most typical because of its subtlety, he describes Roger, a depressed teenage son of respected well off parents.[7] In a series of parental decisions justified by often subtle distortions of the truth they exhibit a consistent disregard for their son’s feelings and a consistent willingness to destroy his growth. With false rationality and normality they aggressively refuse to consider that they are in any way responsible for his resultant depression, eventually suggesting his condition must be incurable and genetic.
Some of his conclusions about the psychiatric condition he designates "evil" are derived from his close study of one patient he names Charlene.[7] Although Charlene is not dangerous, she is ultimately unable to have empathy for others in any way. According to Peck, people like her see others as play things or tools to be manipulated for their uses or entertainment. Peck states that these people are rarely seen by psychiatrists and have never been treated successfully.
Evil is described by Peck as "militant ignorance". The original Judeo-Christian concept of "sin" is as a process that leads us to "miss the mark" and fall short of perfection.[7] Peck argues that while most people are conscious of this at least on some level, those that are evil actively and militantly refuse this consciousness. Peck considers those he calls evil to be attempting to escape and hide from their own conscience (through self-deception) and views this as being quite distinct from the apparent absence of conscience evident in sociopathy.[7]
According to Peck an evil person:[6][7]
Some of his conclusions about the psychiatric condition he designates "evil" are derived from his close study of one patient he names Charlene.[7] Although Charlene is not dangerous, she is ultimately unable to have empathy for others in any way. According to Peck, people like her see others as play things or tools to be manipulated for their uses or entertainment. Peck states that these people are rarely seen by psychiatrists and have never been treated successfully.
Evil is described by Peck as "militant ignorance". The original Judeo-Christian concept of "sin" is as a process that leads us to "miss the mark" and fall short of perfection.[7] Peck argues that while most people are conscious of this at least on some level, those that are evil actively and militantly refuse this consciousness. Peck considers those he calls evil to be attempting to escape and hide from their own conscience (through self-deception) and views this as being quite distinct from the apparent absence of conscience evident in sociopathy.[7]
According to Peck an evil person:[6][7]
- Is consistently self-deceiving, with the intent of avoiding guilt and maintaining a self-image of perfection
- Deceives others as a consequence of their own self-deception
- Projects his or her evils and sins onto very specific targets (scapegoats) while being apparently normal with everyone else ("their insensitivity toward him was selective" (Peck, 1983/1988, p 105[7]))
- Commonly hates with the pretense of love, for the purposes of self-deception as much as deception of others
- Abuses political (emotional) power ("the imposition of one's will upon others by overt or covert coercion" (Peck, 1978/1992, p298[6]))
- Maintains a high level of respectability, and lies incessantly in order to do so
- Is consistent in his or her sins. Evil persons are characterized not so much by the magnitude of their sins, but by their consistency (of destructiveness)
- Is unable to think from the viewpoint of their victim (scapegoat)
- Has a covert intolerance to criticism and other forms of narcissistic injury
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: new moon road
Posts: 1,545
EddieBuckle,
Thank you for the material from Scott Peck's book. I read it a long time ago, a time when I think I was not able to fully understand its meaning, as I had no life experience which would have helped me really understand what he wrote. But your post has prompted me to get a copy again, and read it with the eyes I have today, especially as the subject of evil is one I have been thinking about and talking with my therapist about.
As a classic codependent, I was most of my life unable to accept the concept of evil. I projected onto everyone an innate goodness and believed everyone could be rehabilitated. People like me are not, thankfully, usually in charge of the world (!), otherwise the Hitlers would have us all. Naivete is not only dangerous to the individual who lives in her fantasy world, it makes her useless in protecting those she loves.
Especially as parents, we have a responsibility to be absolute realists in order to protect our children from those who are dangerous to them. On this forum, we have many struggling codependents who are unable--for now--to protect their children from dangerous addicts because the codependent is projecting "goodness" onto the addict and refusing to see that goodness is not what he is about. He is possessed, in addiction, and he is dangerous. Children of naive, unrealistic parents are children of neglect, neglect due to fantasy. And I say that humbly, for I married a man whom I did not know was alcoholic when my child was 5 years old, and it took me nearly a year to fully accept how dangerous that man was to my child. And another year of trying to cure the man before leaving him. My son deserved a better mother back then.
Dr. Carl Jung believed that when addiction takes hold of a man, that creates an opening for the "evil principle" to enter his soul. Dr. Jung felt--as do many theologians and spiritual thinkers--that evil is a real and constant presence in the world and is always in battle with good. He felt that, alone, the addict is defenseless against this energy that has found a way into his soul via the opening created by addiction (which has paralyzed the addict's willpower). And he felt that the only hope for the addict to find his way out of this terrible prison was fellowship, service, and a lifelong spiritual program. Substance abuse, said Jung, is really a misplaced longing for union with God. It is a longing to transcend the material world and become one with the Spirit. (We call alcohol "spirits"). And Jung felt that the only way out for the alcoholic or drug addict was to feed this longing with that which truly nourishes the soul: confession, forgiveness, and ministering to others. AA is designed to give the alcoholic or addict a structure in which to do this. And I want very much to have faith in that.
Thank you for the material from Scott Peck's book. I read it a long time ago, a time when I think I was not able to fully understand its meaning, as I had no life experience which would have helped me really understand what he wrote. But your post has prompted me to get a copy again, and read it with the eyes I have today, especially as the subject of evil is one I have been thinking about and talking with my therapist about.
As a classic codependent, I was most of my life unable to accept the concept of evil. I projected onto everyone an innate goodness and believed everyone could be rehabilitated. People like me are not, thankfully, usually in charge of the world (!), otherwise the Hitlers would have us all. Naivete is not only dangerous to the individual who lives in her fantasy world, it makes her useless in protecting those she loves.
Especially as parents, we have a responsibility to be absolute realists in order to protect our children from those who are dangerous to them. On this forum, we have many struggling codependents who are unable--for now--to protect their children from dangerous addicts because the codependent is projecting "goodness" onto the addict and refusing to see that goodness is not what he is about. He is possessed, in addiction, and he is dangerous. Children of naive, unrealistic parents are children of neglect, neglect due to fantasy. And I say that humbly, for I married a man whom I did not know was alcoholic when my child was 5 years old, and it took me nearly a year to fully accept how dangerous that man was to my child. And another year of trying to cure the man before leaving him. My son deserved a better mother back then.
Dr. Carl Jung believed that when addiction takes hold of a man, that creates an opening for the "evil principle" to enter his soul. Dr. Jung felt--as do many theologians and spiritual thinkers--that evil is a real and constant presence in the world and is always in battle with good. He felt that, alone, the addict is defenseless against this energy that has found a way into his soul via the opening created by addiction (which has paralyzed the addict's willpower). And he felt that the only hope for the addict to find his way out of this terrible prison was fellowship, service, and a lifelong spiritual program. Substance abuse, said Jung, is really a misplaced longing for union with God. It is a longing to transcend the material world and become one with the Spirit. (We call alcohol "spirits"). And Jung felt that the only way out for the alcoholic or drug addict was to feed this longing with that which truly nourishes the soul: confession, forgiveness, and ministering to others. AA is designed to give the alcoholic or addict a structure in which to do this. And I want very much to have faith in that.
Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: NC
Posts: 1,737
EG,
Within the rooms of recovery you will see the same spectrum of personalities that exist in wider society. I think that the vast majority of people in recovery are trying to get better, yet a few definitely exhibit what Peck calls militant ignorance. To me this is not the same thing as what the Big Book describes as "constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves." Those folks are unfortunately mentally ill or lack the mental capacity to fully grasp their actions and the impact their actions have on others.
The first three steps of recovery require honesty, openness, and willingness. In truth, no alcoholic or addict really knows how honest, open and willing he or she is/can be when they pick up their first white chip. They learn by doing. Those few like the person you describe have sociopathic characteristics - they give all outward appearances of having the spiritual basis of recovery but are unwilling to actually surrender. They do not recover because they will not completely give themselves to recovery.
Within the rooms of recovery you will see the same spectrum of personalities that exist in wider society. I think that the vast majority of people in recovery are trying to get better, yet a few definitely exhibit what Peck calls militant ignorance. To me this is not the same thing as what the Big Book describes as "constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves." Those folks are unfortunately mentally ill or lack the mental capacity to fully grasp their actions and the impact their actions have on others.
The first three steps of recovery require honesty, openness, and willingness. In truth, no alcoholic or addict really knows how honest, open and willing he or she is/can be when they pick up their first white chip. They learn by doing. Those few like the person you describe have sociopathic characteristics - they give all outward appearances of having the spiritual basis of recovery but are unwilling to actually surrender. They do not recover because they will not completely give themselves to recovery.
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
