Terminally Unique

Boleo, if you want to know what I mean by this, there is an article entitled "Julian Jaynes’s Bicameral Mind Theory as a Metaphor for Alcoholism" by Dr. Jeff Sandoz


It is available here - see pages 7-14:

Newsletter of the Julian Jaynes Society Winter 2007, Volume 1, Issue 2

Soberpotamus

I just read the article. I'm pretty sure I read about Jaynes' Bicameral Mind theory in either a psych or maybe even my philsophy of mind class back in school. I love how his metaphor is interdisciplinary and ties in ideas from neurobiology, psychology, spirituality, philosophy (consciousness), anthropology, sociology... and even pulls from classical literature... and how the writer of that article applies it to addiction. I think you can probably substitute any effective recovery program for the one he specifically mentions in the article (I won't identify it because of a recent Secular thread post warning us not to discuss it here).

Boleo

I read it when it first came out in the 70's along with just about every book "Psychology Today" magazine recommended in the 70's & 80's. It made perfect sense to me at the time.

However, nothing that ever made sense to me ended up helping me with alcohol-ISM. It seems the only way to fight un-common sense is with more un-common sense (Kind of like fighting fire with fire). I had to throw a lot of life-long conceptions out the window to get sober. One of them was the idea that anything to do with force; namely diligence, tenacity or assertiveness would be affective against a disease/illness that only responds to power (Higher Power).

Here is a passage that pretty much describes how I now view anything Forceful:

"On examination, we’ll see that power arises from meaning. It has to do with motive, and it has to do with principle. Power is always associated with that which supports the significance of life itself. It appeals to that part of human nature that we call noble – in contrast to force, which appeals to that which we call crass. Power appeals to what uplifts, dignifies and embodies ennobles. Force must always be justified, whereas power requires no justification. Force is associated with the partial, power with the whole.

If we analyze the nature of force, it becomes readily apparent why it must always succumb to power; this is in accordance with one of the basic laws of physics. Because force automatically creates counter-force, its effects limited by definition. We could say that force is movement – it goes from here to there (or tries to) against opposition. Power, on the other hand, is still. It is like a standing field that doesn’t move. Gravity itself, for instance, doesn’t move against anything. Its power moves all objects within its field, but the gravity field itself does not move.

Force always moves against something, whereas power doesn’t move against anything at all. Force is incomplete and therefore has to be fed energy constantly. Power is total and complete in itself and requires nothing from the outside. It makes no demands; it has no needs. Because force has an insatiable appetite, it constantly consumes. Power, in contrast, energizes, gives forth, supplies and supports.

Power gives life and energy – force takes these away. We notice that power is associated with compassion and makes us feel positively about ourselves. Force is associated with judgment and makes us feel poorly about ourselves. Force always creates counterforce; its effect is to polarize rather than unify. Polarization always implies conflict; its cost, therefore, is always high. Because force incites polarization, it inevitably produces a win/lose dichotomy; and because somebody always loses, enemies are created. Faced with enemies, force requires constant defense. Defensiveness is invariably costly, whether in the marketplace, politics or international affairs."

-Power vs Force by David R. Hawkins

Terminally Unique

I agree that you need to stop fighting it, because you can't win if you get in the ring - you just need to ignore it. But, the idea that addiction is a return to bicameralism is very interesting, no? The addicted person is, in effect, devolving into an animal state.

Anyone who has ever been addicted knows that when addicted, you literally hear voices and images in your head telling you to "DRINK! NOW!" in a thousand different ways, often in technicolor. The addicted person obeys those voices and images as if they were commands from gods, as if their survival depended on obeying those voices. Thus, addicted people do the most obscene things, in spite of the consequences.

Soberpotamus

Yes, it does seem like a devolution to an animal state... And along with those black "holes" in the brain scans showing inactivity, quite a vivid metaphor.

Terminally Unique

I know that article mentions the 12-Steps (in a very positive light), and presumably that topic is out for this forum, but there is no forum here on SR where it would be appropriate to post this. This isn't exactly conference-approved or even typical "recovery" material, so posting in the 12-Step forum would be interesting, to say the least. It mentions gods, separation from god, addiction as a search for god, etc, so the secular 12-Step forum is out.

I hope the mods can forgive this instance, since it cuts across disciplines, but if it belongs elsewhere, feel free to move my posts regarding Julian Jaynes if need be.

Soberpotamus

Yeah, it was amazing enough that it connected AA's spiritual aspect with this amazing theory of consciousness, I thought. Fusing neuroscience and higher powers

Terminally Unique

The reason I am interested in this is because Jaynes' theory of consciousness is very similar to the "structural model of addiction" / "lizard brain model" of addiction. Jaynes posited a left/right split, but the idea is the same. Addiction can be viewed as a regression into bicameralism, and recovery as the breakdown of the bicameral mind, as the journal article suggests. It refers to the 12-Steps as replacing the voice of addiction with the "voice of recovery."

What AVRT does, in effect, is to accelerate this breakdown by making the addicted person conscious of the split, conscious of the "false idol" that is addiction, so to speak. With AVRT, though, the voice of addiction is not replaced; it is simply ignored. What I find remarkable is that while the work of Julian Jaynes and AVRT are independent of each other, they correspond with uncanny precision, one seeming to clarify the other.

Soberpotamus

Yes, I instantly saw that. I know just the main concepts of Trimpey's AVRT from having read about it here and there, haven't read Rational Recovery yet. But I immediately saw the parallels and why you must be sharing it with us I picked up RR this weekend at the bookstore and skimmed some sections. I'll be ordering it soon, along with the DeSena book.

Morning Glory

I moved it here since it seems to be a good topic. It is off topic for secular connections though since it involves 12 step discussions.

Terminally Unique

To bring this back full circle to what I was pointing out to Boleo, what is interesting is that Jaynes may have been alcoholic, as suggested here. He may have himself regressed into bicameralism, and yet was unable to see the connection. If that is true, that would be ironic, and a testament to the power of addiction. The man, brilliant by many accounts, spent 50 years developing his theories, and yet could not see that he was living them!

http://www.danielwhartwig.com/documents/jaynes.pdf


Side Note: It seems that Jeff Sandoz actually wrote an book titled "Alcoholic Iliad/Recovery Odyssey: Utilizing Myth as Addiction Metaphors in Family Therapy." An excerpt is available here:

http://www.bookpump.com/bwp/pdf-b/9425114b.pdf

Boleo

I would not be surprised. 2 of my favorite writers/spiritual leaders ended up going that route. Soren Kierkegaard and Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche.

Just goes to show ya, knowledge alone does not treat the ISM of alcohol-ISM.

I am still reading "Alcoholic Iliad/Recovery Odyssey" so I won't respond anymore in this thread till I am up to speed on the subject. If nothing else, it looks like a good read so far.

Supercrew

Boleo, you seem to be a well read educated person, but what does this statement really mean?

Just goes to show ya, knowledge alone does not treat the ISM of alcohol-ISM.

It's just AA babble. Does it mean that even if you know alcohol is killing you you still want to drink it because it makes you feel good?

Boleo

Perhaps it is a bicameral mind related issue? Knowing I could/would/should stop drinking is no help when the emotional part of the brain over-rides the intellectual part. Whatever part of mind it was that wanted to drink, it simply trumped the rest of my mind when all the cards were in.

In my final days of drinking, I was not looking to feel good. I was looking to get comfortably numb (something I can do with meditation today).

Supercrew

This was my experience as well. But comfortably numb equaled good for me. What you call the ISM was just another excuse on some deep level to continue drinking even if I knew the consequences. Action took me out of that mindset.

Ananda

I find the idea of myths and stories very interesting. Two times I utilized some of these methods and expereinced great growth. I guess it's sorta jungian (I'm not that up to snuff on intelectual stuff, but I'll give this my best shot).

One therapist had me study hamlet (the original..not the short movie versions LOL...although Keneth Brannan (misspelled) did do a like 12 hour version that includes the play's full text). The detailed actual play held some close parallels to my life and helped me to break through some strong rationals I had for drinking in my 20s.

I found that "women who run with wolves" was a good source for fairytale myths that deal with our inter-life in a unique and helpful way.

This has been my past expereince, unfortunately, and I am not sure how to "combat" it....in the end I have in the past drank because I felt good, felt bad, was sick, felt pressure, whatever....I always found a way to trump the obviously logical knowledge that drinking doesn't work with some wierd emotional rationalization..wrapped up in intelect.

I do find that meditation and aknowledgement of my tendancy to rationalize increase my length of sobriety. It seems to me to have less to do with my desire to not drink, and more to do with my natural human tenancy to buy into deluision (that is buy the BS)....Personally I have only been able to avoid acting from delusion when I have had a solid practice of mindfulness and/or meditation. (secular 12 steps integrated into my life by whatever method)

Boleo

The antidotes to delusional thinking are principles that allow us to live without expectations or judgement. Namely humility, benevolence and detachment.

When we place principles before personality (our own personality). We automatically stop rationalizing our decisions.

Terminally Unique

My experience has been a "bicameral" type arrangement when addicted. The only problem is that the voice of authority that says "let's get a drink" or "let's go to the liquor store" comes from within my own head. It appears to be "me" - which it is - only it isn't the rational me, it is the primal me. That part of the brain simply reacts. If it felt a drop in alcohol or nicotine blood serum levels, it would start talking, showing me images of the bottle or the cigarette, etc. Naturally, that part of the brain is very well adapted to get us to do what it feels it needs to survive.

Try not eating or not drinking for a few days and you'll get an idea of how powerful it is. It is the same mechanism with addiction, only misdirected. Recognizing that misdirected survival drive allows me to ignore it. I still hear it, to be sure, but it can no longer masquerade as me. If I hear "let's get a drink," I think "Lets? F*** that! You can get a drink, a******, if you can manage it without my help, (I'd like to see that!), but I don't drink. Nice try."

The voice has lost its authority, and I give it as much weight as I would a suggestion coming from a two year old. It does feel at times like I'm talking to myself, though. :-)

Boleo

Actually I have tried not eating and not drinking for a few days. 3 days without food or water, 10 days without any food. 45 days without solid food (juice & water only).

The addictive voice was no where near as powerful as not drinking was. In fact, after a few days the voice went away entirely. It even became somewhat blissful after awhile. This may explain why some people become anorexic.

When I gave up smoking, the addictive voice was extremely loud for the first 2 weeks, then gradually faded away to a whisper after that. It never did leave me completely, the way a spiritual awakening would do the job. I still get an urge to smoke once or twice a month, even after 10 years of abstinence.

Here is were the obsession to drink was unbareable, it started getting worse (louder even) after 2 weeks and stayed that way for nearly 5 months. Then, when I finally surrendered all my expectations of ever learning/finding/achieving sobriety it left like surgical removal. That is why I call it a spiritual awakening.

I struggled intellectually as hard as I humanly could - I surrendered all my expectations - Moksha unfolded before me.

Supercrew

My experience has been very similar to what Boleo describes. The difference being that I didn't subscribe to a spiritual solution. I really can't explain it, but the urge to drink which had been with me for the better part of the last 10 years has completely disappeared. Looking at it now I think it was just a process of maturity and action. I have grown as a human, and it has created a mental awakening in me, and maybe that is what occurs when someone works the 12 steps.