GerandTwine

Any Big Plan does not require AV recognition or separation from IT (the Beast) to remain intact. People have succeeded with abstinence pledges for centuries before the Jack Trimpey developed AVRT. The Big Plan is not some sort of weaker abstinence pledge that requires AV recognition or separation in order to work. The Big Plan is the ultimate abstinence pledge. It can stand alone forever.

In my experience, people who have made a Big Plan, or a non-RR abstinence pledge, have a very strong intrinsic attraction to AVRT and how it makes the Big Plan so much easier, or jives with how they did it alone.

On the other hand, I have also observed that people who learn a lot about AVRT and have not made a Big Plan will frequently find themselves not practicing the technique at important times, and also find themselves even seriously considering future use, however specialized or "cautious" the plan to use might be. Simply put, people who learn AVRT and have not made a Big Plan are usually not comfortable with the ironclad potency of AVRT, and not really interested in quitting, at least not yet.

Tippingpoint

Good work here GT!

I enjoy reading your posts...you're doing a great job in helping everyone to better understand the technique and the reality of a Big Plan.

I especially liked the draino analogy!

Dalek

Someone could make a decision to abstain for life, never even hear about AVRT, not use any of the AVRT techniques, and still abstain for life. People have been doing this for a long time, as you pointed out, and continue to do this today. One of the basic assumptions on which AVRT relies, though, is that someone cannot use without first thinking about using, regardless. Even if someone doesn't utilize AVRT or the I/It separation thing, they would still have to first recognize any thoughts of using before thinking "OK, I want to use, but I decided I wouldn't do that anymore, so I won't."

I thought it was clear, but perhaps what I was trying to say with "I cannot recognize all of the addictive voice and still smoke," which is the following, did not come across properly. Recognition and separation neutralize the Beast, because IT can't engage the peripherals, the voluntary muscles that do the actual using. By "all AV," I simply meant the tail end of the AV thought pattern leading up to using. In order to actually use, that last bit of AV, the "I will use" part, has to not be recognized (objectified) as AV, because only "I" can engage the voluntary muscles.

We cannot use without first thinking about using, and recognition puts the Beast, and the voluntary muscles, in neutral. This is why we can set our confidence level for abstinence arbitrarily at 100%, and is also why I say that recognition is necessary. You cannot "not use" without first recognizing the thought to use and then falling back on your Big Plan. The whole point of AVRT is to catch yourself in the process of changing your mind, though, is it not? Why else would it even be worth the trouble to learn and use AVRT, as opposed to simply making a Big Plan and stopping right there?

TheSubtleKnife

Hi thought I would post and say hi. rather than just lurking reading the posts as I have done this last week or so.

Absolutely love the concept of avrt and the big plan while I am rather new to it all It just makes so much sense. Have really enjoyed reading all of your posts. Have read all 4 threads. Am now looking forward to celebrating a sober birthday today. Darn beast loves birthdays but I'm going to celebrate this one my way not his! :-)

GerandTwine

Dalek, this quote you posted from RR: TNC does indeed support your belief that in order to succeed at not using again, you MUST recognize the AV. But there is a quote some pages earlier that shows that the logic being used that you MUST recognize your AV in order to not use does not diminish the stand alone invulnerability of the Big Plan. (highlighting added)

Now you are saying -

Well, in my mind, this is the height of squirrely AV deviousness. I think you will see here that you are claiming to have done the impossible - you failed to recognize your AV only split seconds after being entrenched in AV recognition and possibly even with a cigarette in one hand and a lighter in the other (which scenario, by the way, could easily be part of a Shifting exercise).

I'll repeat from p. 40 "You cannot fail to recognize your AV because there is nothing more conspicuous to a formerly addicted person than ideas of indulging once again."

As I see it, you DID recognize your AV all the way through the event, and decided what the heck, since I don't have a Big Plan this is as good a time as any for smoking, so I'm going to go along with IT.

GerandTwine

Hello SubtleKnife, it's satisfying to hear from people who've used AVRT. Your telling us is the visible tip of that huge iceberg of frozen Beasts, if you pardon the metaphor, because self-recovery is so established, and so commonplace, yet so unseen in the public eye.

GerandTwine

The two above 1996 quotes which together maintain Big Plan invulnerability, combined with a 2010 quote from The Art of AVRT which Dalek used in post #320 which I copy below, indicate what I believe has been a small semantic change in AVRT over the last 15 years or so. (highlight added)

It is a subtle, yet very critical, adjustment in terminology. By including the qualifier "very likely", I believe Trimpey is acknowledging that it might be a little confusing to absolutely require recognition of the AV to succeed at a Big Plan. This also disconnects the AVRT idea "you cannot fail to recognize your AV" before using from the more general obvious fact that "you cannot fail to think of using" before using.

TheSubtleKnife

Love the metaphor Gerandtwine. So very true.

TheSubtleKnife

Yesterday was my first birthday in at least 18years that I've ever had sober. My father was visiting and he too is an alcholic but not isd not ready yet to give up. It was amazing how clear I could hear my beast as well as hear my fathers."its your birthday one won't hurt you". And then when I explained to my dad that I wasn't drinking he was explaining how much stress he has and how he needs a drink to cope.

It seems so obvious to see the AV thoughts now even when they are other peoples AVs. But darn if I know what made me wake one morning to see it has I had problem and to realise it was in my power to solve.

Aussiebutterfly

Well done TheSubtleKnife and congratulations!

Yes stress is a pretty common excuse to drink isn't it? I know I used it a lot. Thing is alcohol causes stress and depression so you end up in a never ending loop all the way to an early grave. Hopefully you'll be a good example that your dad will want to follow.

Dalek

The AV is indeed conspicuous, and pretty difficult to miss, especially in the context of a Big Plan. This is why I don't particularly mind the fact that I must recognize the Addictive Voice in order to abstain. I trust that in the context of a Big Plan, that I will be perfectly capable of recognizing the AV when it appears. The beauty of AVRT, at least in my experience, is that once the AVRT seed takes root in your thinking, you begin to notice the AV earlier and earlier in the chain.

I don't deny that I chose to smoke, but the part that I underlined in your text is the part of the AV stream that I chose not to objectify. It is a very subtle point, which is why we are going back and forth, but I believe that Trimpey chose his words carefully. If you look closely, you'll notice that he uses the expression "objectively recognize," which means recognize and objectify. As long as the AV remains out there, objectified as the voice of the Beast, the AV can't have any effect.

Dalek

The only difference between alcoholics and teetotalers is that alcoholics have a strong desire to drink (the Beast) and do drink. Are you ever going to drink again? If you don't drink, and never will, how can you be an alcoholic?

If this question sounds strange, have you noticed that former smokers who have quit smoking don't usually call themselves "smoke-a-holics" or nicotine addicts? Why do this with alcohol? Is there any difference?

"I am an alcoholic" or "I am an addict" translates to "I am my desire to use. I am my Beast." With AVRT based recovery, you are not your desire to use. You are not your Beast. You are a normal human being who doesn't drink or drug for personal reasons.

GerandTwine

I have a sugar Beast. I've been known to love eating a dozen Dunkin Donuts at the drop of a hat. But last winter I saw a show about how the huge volumes of sugar consumed is one of the biggest dietary problems in the US and for personal health.

On Jan 1, 2012, I resolved to not eat any sweets (except occasionally pure honey and pure maple syrup) for one year and monitor my health and decide at the end of a year if I wanted to make a Big Plan for sweets. Well, I've gotten good at recognizing the sugar Beast and its AV barking. My health has improved tremendously. I've lost 20 pounds and have been at my ideal weight for the longest time ever since college decades ago. I've been thinking about moving up my Big Plan date, and cut out honey and maple syrup, too, but of course the AV says no. So, I've been waiting on that Big Plan.

Well, my wife likes sugar, so there's a bunch of it in the kitchen. (pause while I go to the kitchen) I just went to the kitchen, recognizing the AV all the way up to including this very moment. I took out a jar of cranberry chutney jam loaded with sugar and ate three giant spoonfuls. As I was swallowing it, I made sure to focus as strongly as possible on objectifying the AV as the voice of my sugar Beast. It is loving this whole experiment. Yes, there it is, that object other than me, the AV. "See, sugar is no big deal. Of course you can moderate! Your AVRT fanaticism is ridiculous?!"

How was I able to do that?

Dalek

For those of you who have read The Art of AVRT, have you noticed that in addition to the much heavier emphasis on the moral axis of AVRT than was present in The New Cure, Trimpey also seems to shift the focus away from the Structural Model of addiction, towards the "stream of consciousness," or self-identity in operational consciousness framework based on the work of Julian Jaynes?

In The New Cure, there is a heavy emphasis on the Structural Model, but it seems to be missing entirely from The Art of AVRT. I didn't see any pictures of the brain in the book, and in Chapter 11 (pg 121), the author refers to "another version of AVRT," which is basically most of the AVRT crash course. Conspicuously missing, though, even in that chapter, is the Structural Model of addiction.

Instead of "I am not a beast brain, I am a neocortex," as in the AVRT crash course and TNC, the I/It split becomes "I am not my body, or any part of my body."

Dalek

Well, your sugar Beast certainly wasn't able to swallow that jam, since it can't engage the voluntary muscles. You decided that "you" would swallow the jam, and you did. You may have been aware of the AV, but at some point, the AV was not objectified, and there was no longer any separation between you and IT. What IT wanted became what "you" wanted.

Most likely, you thought to yourself "I will now swallow some jam" right before doing it, no? As soon as IT became "I", the separation broke down, and the AV was no longer objectified as 'not you', because 'not you' (IT) can't do anything. What other way would there be for you to use your arms to get at that jam other than to lose the separation?

GerandTwine

There may have been no separation between what we both wanted, but I'm positive I was objectively recognizing IT and IT's voice the AV while eating all that sugar. The way I brought it into my consciousness was the same, the way I pictured it was the same; the whole objectifying process was the same, I was simply going along with it this one time. There were still two of us during the whole event even while swallowing.

My point is this. AV recognition has no practical use to me without a Big Plan.

As I remain almost sugar free so far this year, I've recognized and objectified my sugar Beast and it's AV, but all that doesn't have any real effect on whether or not I will eat sugar because I don't have a Big Plan. I just ate sugar for the second time this year and it was only sort of a big deal, not really, though.

When I make my Big Plan for sugar, then I know from experience with other Beasts, that AVRT will have a very useful purpose in making it so much easier to get on with my gastronomic future.

I can feel it even now. I am seriously thinking about a Big Plan for sugar right now. Oh my gosh! Does it mean I will never experience the taste of sweetness again. Oh, wait, there's stevia. Will that be OK? WOW! Is that what I really want? Yes, now the AV is really poppin'. Yes, now AVRT makes sense. It will really help tie it all together - and quickly, too. WHEW! Haven't I loved what's happened by almost not eating any sugar so far this year? Of course! HAH! I win. Well, not quite yet. Dag-nab-it!

OK, I'll let y'all know when I make that Big Plan for sugar.

------

You know what? Enough of this pussyfooting around.
I will never eat any sweets again.
THANK YOU BRAIN!
Oh, WOW!
THANK YOU (AGAIN) AVRT!

------

There. Done.

Dalek

I agree. Without the Big Plan as an anchor, the AVRT tools won't do much good, and it all becomes a tentative, indecisive, "maybe I will, and maybe I won't" kind of thing. You can keep it up for a while, even a long while, but since you are still choosing whether or not to indulge one-Beast-attack-at-a-time, that is very shaky ground, not much different from the usual. You may as well take the ODAAT approach instead.

I suspect that you may disagree with me here, but since the Addictive Voice can also be adequately defined as simply any thinking, imagery, or feeling that contradicts your Big Plan, I'm not convinced that without a Big Plan, someone can even recognize the AV properly. Perhaps I make too much of the need for separation, but they are liable to miss some things, and to attribute the AV to themselves, instead of to their Beast.

TheSubtleKnife

Thanks Dalek. I hadn't looked at it like that. And yes I have made a big plan. So you are very right about me being a TeeTotaller.

Infact I decided to never drink again before I had heard of AVRT and the big plan.

That's how I found it. I was googling for "I will never drink again".

Most things I seen said one day at a time. Or I will not drink today. And I thought if I had a husband who said I will not cheat on you today how would I feel. In comparison to I will never cheat on you. Its a rather powerful difference.

Dalek

Yes! Yes! I couldn't have said it better myself if I tried.

Another good one is when a habitual drunk, temporarily on the wagon for the Nth time, says "I have no desire to drink." I then think "What are they saying, exactly? That the only reason they aren't drunk is because, presently, they have no desire? That as soon as that desire comes back (and it will), that they will get drunk?"

The reaction when I ask them this question is usually priceless, with a look on their face that says "Uh-oh, they're on to me!"

To use your analogy, we can imagine a husband who says to their wife "honey, I'm not cheating on you because I have no desire for sex."

TheSubtleKnife

So very true.