Dalek

Yes, it is. Remember, addiction is a pleasure-driven survival drive, and AVRT identifies the desire for pleasure as a sign of health. AVRT does not remove the desire for drug-induced pleasure, but rather, allows us to live comfortably in its presence. Desire, which, again, is a sign of robust health, and not pathology. This is an AVRT axiom, and an early chapter in the book course is devoted to it. See Chapter 10 -- "Surprise! You Have a Healthy Brain!" -- in RR:TNC.

There may be some parallels with Buddhism, but AVRT does not teach that desire is suffering. A struggle with desire, perhaps, but not desire itself.

The state of no-desire may be the ultimate goal, the state of Nirvana in other addiction recovery models, but not with AVRT. A good analogy is one's sex drive, which for most people who are in a committed, monogamous relationship inevitably leads to having desires which go unfulfilled. It is doubtful most people would want to be neutered simply because they can't fulfill desires they may feel towards anyone other than their partner, though.

Just as we would not be perturbed by those desires, neither are we perturbed by the presence of addictive desire. We simply recognize the desire for addictive pleasure for what it is. Since it is a sign of health, and originates from the very same part of our brain that ensures our physical survival, we do not want to remove it. That same instinct that drives us to drink/use also happens to drive us to live. If we lose that, we might not be around for very long.

Granted, the effect over time of continually abstaining in the presence of addictive desire is a gradual reduction of the frequency and intensity of that desire, but this is incidental to AVRT-based recovery -- a potential side effect. It is not an integral or a necessary part of it.

To wit, having a Beast is not bad, and neither is having thoughts which are Addictive Voice. There is no need to be disturbed by either.

RobbyRobot

Awesome share, Dalek.

I enjoy the very last the best. Sums it up nicely.

Yeah. So true. Makes it all so easy, lol.

Dalek

Apologies for beating a dead horse and not including this in my previous post, but I knew I had read this somewhere. This statement from the Rational Recovery FAQ, pertaining to anhedonic drugs intended to remove desire, should clarify the RR stance on this.

Also, apologies in general for my seemingly erratic posting style. My Internet connection to this forum is somewhat on the order of old-school unreliable dial-up, which causes some problems.

freshstart57

A magic bullet? No, I am not that naive, and I accept and understand that my AV is part of a healthy brain. Nonetheless, annoying things are annoying. While I understand and accept that bees are a part of a healthy environment, I would still prefer not to be stung. This leads again to a distinction between skillful and unskillful desire, as well as skillful and unskillful suffering. This is a useful distinction here, because without it the reductio leads pretty darn quick to the absurdum.

I am enjoying the discussion, Dalek, and your considered response to my posts are most welcome. Thanks for stepping in to attempt to fill the void left by our venerable Terminally Unique. Coming along nicely.

ReadyAndAble

You guys are fascinating. I have been wanting to reply all night!

So I'm buying the bees. A preference for a smooth, easy journey through the day—to live comfortably in the presence of AV, as Dalek phrased it—is not the same as eagerly anticipating the magical disappearance of AV. Isn't RR making a nod to the basic human desire for comfort when it says we can learn to relate to AV "as less than a nuisance"?

Bearing in mind that a preference is not the same as a condition, I don't see how it meets these criteria:

Dee74

continues here:

http://www.soberrecovery.com/forums/...-part-5-a.html