GerandTwine

To me, this post reveals some of the beauty of AVR, a Technique that puts the Structural Model to use in exposing the awesome impact of the Big Plan. It's my Big Plan, which took about 5 seconds to complete, that is the actual source of making my future drinking impossible. It's a commitment that actually has a vast presence throughout American history. But the fact that literally scores of millions of people have made it, by other names, doesn't mean mine is any more or less secure. The Big Plan is either on, or not yet connected. It can't be turned off. It's not a switch. It's a permanently wired circuit. It doesn't need a lot of power/effort. It's just there.

The mixed feelings about a sense of need for support is nicely expressed by unentschieden, that mixture being part AV. Instead of support I consider these AVRT threads to be information exchange because the AV loves the idea that one might "need the support of this group". And, as I see it in my short time on SR, TU has been admirably accurate in providing information about what is AV and what isn't.

By the way, I translated unentshieden. It means "undecided". No longer, I bet.

Terminally Unique

The ambivalence/uncertainty, which you note with the qualifier "might not" is precisely what makes the statement Addictive Voice. It is also AV because it places a precondition on not drinking, which necessarily implies a condition for drinking in the absence of that precondition.

My response was probably too direct, notably with posts #17 and #18, which I was conflicted about, but I decided it might help others who were reading zero in on the more subtle forms of AV in their own thinking. Hopefully she won't take it too personally. Neither a Big Plan, nor AVRT, can be forced on another person.

This is true, but this thread wasn't originally about brain chemistry and neurotransmitters. From what I read, Creekryder was having concerns about viewing the Beast of AVRT as a distinct, rational entity.

Terminally Unique

As GerandTwine noted, AVRT is not really about support per se, at least not in the usual sense. Furthermore, if support becomes a precondition for not drinking, which necessarily implies that without support, one will drink, then the desire for support is actually Addictive Voice. That said, it is entirely up to you whether or not to stick around here. While I think that since you grasped AVRT so quickly, you might be able to help others grasp it, there is no obligation for you to do so, and I wish you the best either way.

freshstart57

This has become an AVRT discussion, and I like those plenty, but there may be a different and more comprehensive idea here. This idea of dissociation from our harmful tendencies, a core concept from AVRT, is not novel or new. It can be found in many many paradigms which can lead a state of grace, enlightenment, nirvana, and so on.

I am learning to appreciate the idea that we recognize distractions (such as an urge to drink, or the urge to rear-end that jerk on the freeway) as they enter our consciousness, but that we don't act on them, we don't even judge them. Instead, we separate ourselves from these distractions because they do not come from our Buddha nature / our Christian soul / our sober self etc. They are not 'us'.

Another way to look at this is to consider that by shrinking the attachment suffering / the pain body / moral failings, we are creating space inside ourselves for enlightenment / serenity / state of grace and allowing that to become the dominant force in our lives.

These are some of the parallels and comparisons that I have been thinking about, how to get rid of the junk like addiction so that I can make room for concern for others and serenity for myself.

Terminally Unique

This sounds correct, and Trimpey once compared AVRT to removing the firing pin from a gun, so that it can no longer work. The implication being that with AVRT in place, drinking or using is no longer possible.

Terminally Unique

Indeed it isn't, and you can find almost direct analogues in the scriptures of many ancient religions, certainly in the Bible.

This very thing is discussed in The Art of AVRT, and an analogy is made between one's stream of consciousness and a conveyor belt.

naz111

Makes sense. Once identified, what do you do with the red ball? What do you do with the thought? How do you avoid it entering the aspect of the mind that allows for thoughts to become actions?

fini

hi naz,
Terminally Unique hasn’t been around, and this is a very old thread.
welcome to you!
there are other AVRTers here, though, and maybe one of them can shed some light on your questions.
or read some of the other AVRT threads, or get the Rational Recovery book.

try this one: https://www.soberrecovery.com/forums...ml#post6851332 (AVRT Explained (long))

Free2bme888

Welcome, naz!

much to explore here in this very welcoming place❤️

naz111

thanks!!

Triggered

Sure it's part of you...probably always will be

Just ask it to change it's language

fini

hey naz,
what i personally do after i “hear” the thought is step back and go whoa, there is this thought in my head! will you look at that!
and i do look at it, wonder why it popped up, what is behind it, so to speak.
so my actions around it are investigative, or these days mostly just shrugging in some kind of amazed acceptance that this pop-up stuff is still there occasionally.
interesting point you make about the “aspect of the mind that allows for thoughts to become actions”.
hm...who does the allowing?
thoughts ”become” actions? really?
no, i think not. we somewhere somehow take steps to turn to action.

all that being said, these are just my thoughts and i’m no AVRT follower so hoping someone will come and converse with you about the red balls.

fini

never mind anything i said, naz, i just saw the other thread you’re posting in here and the great conversation there.
so you’re in the right spot to bat those balls around

naz111

Thanks fini for the response! It's easy for me to get lost in thinking about my thinking. I find the mind and human behavior so interesting. In the end, who cares. Just quit and move on! Hahaha - there are more interesting things to think about!

I'm just curious, what ever happened to TU?

fini

don’t know what happened to TU.
maybe they did exactly what you propose: just quit and move on ;-)
tongue in cheek, of course. if everyone did that, you’d never meet long-term sober people on any forum.
what a loss that would be!

MythOfSisyphus

An old thread but a good topic. AVRT is the only thing that every worked for me.

DriGuy

An old thread, but a topic that I haven't talked about, at least directly or indepth. First, I'm a fan of Rational Recovery, but that doesn't mean I don't question anything about it. To address the original question in the thread, "What about identifying the "alcoholic voice" as the "beast," or "some other entity" rather than ourselves?" I've wondered about this some, because compartmentalizing the AV in a way that removes these illogical thoughts from ourselves is not the way I usually address my inner conflicts. I see them as me, not another entity, and I need to take care of me, not someone else. If I think illogically, I want to address that as me. I want to own that crap inside me and deal with it directly.

Maybe for others, such compartmentalization helps to detach it from themselves and made it less threatening. I prefer to own it with full clarity and accept this nonsense for what it is. But perhaps compartmentalizing has merit as a tool to soften the blow and free us up to take a more impersonal view without holding ourselves directly responsible, and if that helps others, OK. I have pointed this out in other threads, without making a big deal out of it, but the AV is us feeding us our own BS, not a separate entity. I assume everyone realizes that. I'm just being pedantic now because this was the original question here, and it's something I have thought about, although not to the extent that I want to undermine RR or AVRT.

Having said all this, I have always thought it was funny cute to label that ugly side of us as a separate entity, the AV. There is a certain cleverness in that, but from my perspective, unnecessary. Calling it the Beast takes it too far for me, because beasts are mean, where the AV is more dumbass stupid and illogical. I don't see it as having evil intentions. It's just a part of us that doesn't have a clue about how to process thoughts and information effectively.

Triggered

I agree with most of this. I think on a purely practical level, it's not helpful to continually imagine ourselves as two separate entities. I do believe though, that addiction affects our behaviour in a way that's unrecogniseable when seen from a sober perspective. There are things we do under the influence that we couldnt even imagine doing when not. I do find the AV analogy useful, but only to the point where I can try to reduce it's presence until it becomes irrelevant. I've spent all my time during my drinking years trying to 'escape'. Part of the healing process for me is returning to self where that is a more rational place free from the madness of addiction.

DriGuy

In that regard, it is as if we are two different people, and I sometimes look back at the drinking part of my life, and ask, "Who was that guy?" Well, of course it was me, but even today, that person strikes me as a completely different person. So in that way, the AV kind of makes sense as a different person. Of course it's us; We all know that, but it's also a part of us that we can override if we want to make the effort. RR drives this point home in its book, when it points out that are thoughts are not our actions. We may not control our thoughts, but we can control our actions. And it's a good idea to keep those two things separate if we want to change.

There is a wonderful part of the script in the movie, Batman Begins. I can't believe I'm quoting Hollywood, but once in a great while they profoundly nail something. Batman's alter ego, Bruce Wayne is acting like a jerk when his love interest turns up and is openly disgusted by him. He chases after her, and tries to defend himself by saying, "Underneath, I'm not that person." She says, "People don't know who you are underneath. You are defined by your actions." I was blown away by that line. Our thoughts, good intentions, bad intentions are NOT our behaviors. Our behaviors define us to others, and if we are paying attention, they also define us to ourselves. We can control how we behave, so we control who we want to be.

MythOfSisyphus

As a tool I have found it work well. There of course is not a literal "beast" separate from "you" that lives in your head but in practical terms it works as though there is. AVRT has worked well for me.