legna

I'm actually writing a novel at the moment and practicing with titles. Catchy eh? Just kidding about the title search, although after I post this I may be on a forum search that'll have me. Before I begin, forgive the twelve step reference, I'll be moving past it in a moment...

I was court ordered to a twelve step program in 1978. The 'god' thing didn't work for me but there were certain attractions for me - some ego based, some not. I had one relapse after seven years that lasted seven years and have been clean now for twenty-one consecutive years.

It wasn't until I came to sober recovery that I learned there were other recovery methods and while I don't espouse to be an expert on any recovery method let alone ones that I've recently been made aware of, I find myself nodding my head a lot in identification with rational recovery. My understanding of my addiction and rational recovery's understanding seem to be pretty close.

My tools for recovery are a hybrid of many techniques and I'm happy with the direction my life has taken since quitting drugs and alcohol. Which brings me to my point...the point I've felt for many years but dared not say:

I'm pretty certain that I'm cured.

That said, the idea of being intoxicated or under the influence has zero appeal for me today, not even for curiosities sake. Too, if I am wrong, the consequences far outweigh anything I could possibly gain from knowing. I don't want to drink; I don't want to drugs. I lost the obsession to use on my sixth day after three days unconscious that followed six minutes of no pulse. It's never returned. Not only the obsession hasn't returned but even something relatively benign like a simple, mild desire hasn't been there.

Anywho, I love recovery and what it has given me. I love the soul searching in spite of not believing in a soul. I love the freedom I experience today and all the gifts that I've received through working on my recovery. I have no desire to walk down any other path.

I shared one of the most difficult things that I've ever had to go through here in this forum when my wife relapsed and was facing life without the possibility of parole. During that time I was distraught, had moments of hopelessness and despair, but picking up was never something I wanted to do. I just can't imagine ever being in a place where that seems like a good idea and I NEVER have heard anyone with long term recovery say anything like that or float the idea that they think they might be cured... so anyone?

DoubtfulDebs

sweet!

maybe there's a distinction in AVRT terms between 'i am SO sure i will never drink again, and i will never change my mind, that i am essentially cured because alcohol is no longer on my radar as an option' and 'i will never drink again no matter how often, right now, i may still hear the addictive voice and not immediately recognise it for what it is'?

i can conceptualise the former, and am there a lot of the time, but i still have a few days every month with the latter.

JT makes the point that the moment you decide to never drink again, and never change your mind, you're RECOVERED, so my only caveat would be to worry for some people (not you, from what you've written!) would mistake the concept of 'cured' for 'i am cured from having a problematic thirst for alcohol, and therefore i can drink again, once in a blue moon, in mnoderation' which i personally don't think is possible for someone who has gotten phsyically and psychologically addicted.

i think that's my only question about the concept.

legna

Thanks very much for responding. I share your concern, or caveat and know that it is what has held me back from sharing what I just did until now.

The thing is though, I would take JT's take a step further... I truly think I could drink in moderation today if I chose to... but there is absolutely no appeal, not even at a social level. In fact, the idea of having a drink in a social setting is about as appealing to me as ordering a pizza with anchovies to share with my friends. I don't like what anchovies do to me (heartburn) and I don't like what alcohol does to me (impairs my cognitive functions) so I simply wouldn't do it...

but I think I could. Even using the disease model of alcoholism, it is said that alcohol is but a symptom of the disease. Address the disease itself and the symptoms go away.

DoubtfulDebs

can i really politely, and with all respect for your recovery, say that your post sounds one hell of a lot like an argument to consider the POSSIBILITY of drinking again in the future, which is what will undermine anyone's sobriety, no matter what system they use?

'hey sis, it's been 2 years, you can have a glass of merlot on a saturday night now' or something!

so i'm feeling wary now, no offence intended, that the concept of 'cured' DOES, indeed, segue into the concept of 'and now i could drink in moderation.'

i don't know you and don't claim special wisdom, just be careful - you sound an awful lot like someone whose only defence against that first drink is 'but i don't like it' and that's an easy barrier to break.

JT says, and i believe, that the disease model IS the addictive voice giving people a get-out-of-jail-free excuse to relapse whenever they feel like it.

to start wondering how much you COULD drink if you wanted, is 100% pure addiction, under AA or AVRT or any other system at all.

i also question respectfully whether you're wise to wave the possibility of future moderated drinking before the eyes of a forum that's read by hundreds of addicts every day, because dear god, it's an attractive idea, and the first step to relapse for every single one of us.

be safe, and be careful.

edit to add: if, and only you can know this, the reason you are posting this here is to hear from someone that yes, the addiction CAN be cured and you can now enjoy the occasional drink, except you choose not to, then you are courting relapse. please consider this without immediately rejecting it, and go embrace whatever's held you sober until now.

soberlicious

The word cured implies that you have an illness or disease. Since I don't believe that addiction is a disease or an illness, then I would not frame it as being cured.

Do I think you permanently ended your addiction on your own a very long time ago? I absolutely do.

In fact, I think most people do it this way, including many of the people I've met in support group meetings.

As to whether you could moderate...(which coming from you I know is completely hypothetical) who knows...it's not an impossibility, nor is it a guaranteed possibility. Which is why it's moot.

I don't think this discussion could prompt someone to drink or even to try to moderate. I think that would be another excuse...and excuses, like triggers, are a dime a dozen.

DoubtfulDebs

i agree that nothing external can make someone drink, or stay sober, nonetheless the possibility of future drinking IS dangerous, it's tripped me up for many years of trying to quit, so i respectfully say that i believe discussing (however hypothetically) whether it would be safe to drink again, or (as this was the point) whether a person formerly addicted COULD drink again in moderation, is totally contrary to having a Big Plan to never drink again - in my experience and that of the people i've discussed addiction with irl, ANY possibility of even considering future use will be widened by the addictive voice into the probability, and then the fact, of future use.

why would anyone want to consider the possibility, if they plan to never drink again? - is what i'm getting at!

the leap from hypothetical to 'oh sh1t, did it again' is a bit shorter for some of us than maybe for others!

legna

I truly get it, I really do. Here's the thing, I've felt this way for seventeen...eighteen years? Here, let's try this:

I am a Buddhist. Here's the line that sold me on Buddhism thirty-five years ago:

And so, as a practicing Buddhist, I'll not be swayed by someone else's idea of whether or not I am cured. In fact, it's against my religion to do so. My reason for bringing it up then? It is part of my due examination and analysis. You all collectively will have more ideas and perspectives than I can muster by myself. Therefore, it seems reasonable to tap into the collective wisdom of a group of people who have an enormous amount of knowledge and understanding about addiction. Weigh what I'm told and then reach my own conclusion.

I am atheist and I know this is a secular forum and so this might not be the best place for this analogy but I've used it in the past (on a different subject than this) and I was able to make my point...so let's give it a try: You said,

To use a Christian example...and to quote Jesus:

Now you can substitute the power of positive thinking here if you like but ultimately, and because we haven't seen a lot of mountain moving, at least in this area - I've concluded that if this was possible, then about the time you had enough faith, you'd realize that the mountain was just where it needed to be. Likewise, I'm thinking that about the time you realize that you could have a drink, you'd realize there is no redeeming feature in doing so.

DoubtfulDebs

for me, the time i open the door to the POSSIBILITY of drinking, be it worded as 'could' or whatever - i will drink.

that's why i needed a Big Plan to never drink again, and never change my mind - because i experienced (and sometimes still do) strong physical and emotional cravings for drink, accompanied by a battery of good reasons to drink, from 'it's good for the heart' to 'you deserve it after your horrendous past' and so on.

for me, there are a multitude of redeeming features in taking a drink at any time, dressed up as 'doctor beast' (the health reasons) or my 'best-mate beast' who wants to show me a good time, who understands me and makes me feel better...

all those redeeming features are regularly, though less often as time passes, presented to my by my addictive voice, and that's why i wouldn't rest my sobriety, and therefore my life and my sanity, on simply not finding a good reason to drink, because the addictive voice is full of nothing BUT good reasons to drink.

once i open up any line of thought in which 'i could drink' is an option, it undoes the 'and i will never change my mind' part, also the 'never' part, and without that hard line that stamps out all the redeeming reasons to drink i'm sunk.

that's how this looks to me.

perhaps you're talking about a path of non-resistance to the concept of taking a drink, since the alternative to you is a simple fact of not wanting one any more, whereas i am taking a path of not opening the concept of drinking, a kind of non-resistance based on not summoning up the false and lying arguments in favour of it - which my beast/AV has endless supplies of?

and i don't resist the arguments for it when they do crop up - i simply say my Big Plan in my head and think about something else.

Soberpotamus

Interesting. Does seem like he's taking a path of "non-resistance" since it's Buddhism that he's coming from... but I can see the possibility of danger as well.

legna

Let me ask you this...

Is it possible to come to an understanding with the beast? I'm still a bit unsure that I've got the terminology down so I'm not able to say definitively that I've isolated it but... this isn't being communicated well, let me try a different tack.

I no longer feel that I am at odds with any part of my psyche. I see various parts, parts that I once was at odds with - for instance, my inner child (for lack of a better phrase) and I used to be completely at odds. I got busy parenting myself in a healthy way and we've made peace. My inner child trusts me now and when we are at odds, doesn't fight me. I listen to that part of me, I respect that part of me, then I decide based on what I think is best for both parts of me..

soberlicious

if you are securely abstinent then there is no conversation or thought that can make you drink again. In fact, there is no circumstance under which you would drink. Within the Addictive Voice Recognition Technique, people often engage in shifting exercises, to purposely stir the beast. The beast stirring doesn't mean you are going to drink, it just means the beast is stirring. It means nothing more than that, since you hold the power, not it.

DoubtfulDebs

only that it will do anything in its power to make me take that first drink, and the thousands that will follow on if i allow defeatist beliefs in as a result of that.

AVRT is not battling your beast/AV, it's not being at odds with a part of YOURSELF - that's actually the favourite lie of the addictive voice, that it's YOU.

AVRT is recognising the urge to drink as an addictive voice, NOT you, and ignoring its excellent arguments (it will draw on all your weaknesses, sttrengths, and memories to try and get you to drink) and then just getting on with it.

what AVRT is NOT, and a lot of people seem to fall down on this, is a constant state of arguing, battling, trying to silence or tame (no offence intended!) your beast.

the AV/beast simply IS.

it's your job not to mistake it for you, by RECOGNISING its voice and then going back to your own Big Plan - to never drink again, and never change your mind.

engage it in battle and you're likely to lose.

(i'm using 'you' as a figure of speech and don;t mean you personally or anyone reading specifically! )

i think the concept of battling each urge as though it was an argument with merits that have to be carefully weighed up is what the Higher Power in AA and the Big Plan that brooks no wiggle room in RR/AVRT set out to replace.

if i had to consider each drink craving as though it was legit, i'd be as sick as i was years ago, i mean physically sick from the alcohol and mentally sick from the self-disgust and feelings of helplessness and despair.

anything that gets people off the hook of trying to resist urges with their own logic being used to judge the 'drink/don't drink' thing, when half of it's been hijacked by the addiction, is going to help.

legna

I was immediately reminded of Euclid's rather terse reply to a student who asked, “What shall I gain from learning mathematics?” Euclid replied, “Give him a coin if he must profit from what he learns.”

That said, I'm not trying to be disparaging at all and very much appreciate the exchange. For me, understanding self is about my only hobby and what continually drives me when all other pursuits become tiresome. Pity that there isn't a job market for philosophers.

soberlicious

My beast understands that sh*t is not going down like that anymore. I get that she wants to drink, but I don't and I never will. Since I'm the one with the hands, she is SOL.

Yes, my beast and I have come to an understanding...what I say goes. End of story.

legna

LOL, yep, you are my favorite person on sober recovery for sure.

Just to go on with the Buddhism for a moment... meditation is a big part of my life. In getting quiet and watching, I've come to a pretty solid understanding of who I am...sufficient to know that what I just said makes no sense because there is no 'I' in who I am... English sort of falls down in an explanation of this.

In addition though, I have found (for myself) that the ego is multi-layered and there are different things going on, on different layers...one might call them voices or personalities. A scientist might differentiate between the planes or layers as evolutionary in nature...and that idea works for me. But knowing those voices for what they are...they've lost all power. I'm just enjoying the view from the top of the evolutionary mountain and looking for the layer after this one.

legna

Oh! And let me just say that I really, truly appreciate everyone who has weighed in on this. Seriously, you've made my evening a joy... who would have thought I was going to engage in such an engaging, thought provoking conversation tonight.

Thinking back to my childhood - pre-computer, pre-internet, who'd have thunk...

DoubtfulDebs

here's the thing - what i must not, or rather WILL not, do is allow myself to believe my beast has a point. and one of the points it likes to make to me, is 'of course you can have a drink now and then, don't be such a drama queen, you went a bit overboard but look - 2 years! - you're good to go!'

that's why i think that's a strange topic to open up, and one people might want to be wary of.

your Euclid's student would have done better taking that coin if the alternative was to let his family starve to death, after all, and those are the stakes i'm playing with here - life and death, not which theory is the best.

nothing else ever kept me sober as easily or as well as this has, but the one thing that threw me, and that kept on throwing me year after damned year, was the possibility of moderate drinking, of being able to 'control it' and AA, RR or self-designed, i think that's a dangerous concept - not saying you're promoting it, not saying anyone can be swayed by it, just that i personally reject it completely since i know first-hand and through family the damage it can do.

an ounce of just being effortlessly sober is worth, for me, a ton of exploring theoretical possibilities because that kind of theoretical intellectualising that led in some way to the outcome 'drink' (and i'm not taking an ANTI-intellect stance, such as some people accuse some 12-step groups of doing) was and still is the exact tactic used by my beast.

very true, and i read JT saying that to fear beast activity IS beast activity since, as you said, it means you're starting to hand it the power again.

but i know from my repeated struggles before finding RR that if i started to consider the possibility of drinking again, that would be me listening to my AV, and to actively invite that isn't helping me stay in secure abstinence - since i wish to remain secure, i don't consider the possibility of drinking, because i will never drink again and i will never change my mind. it's on the list of things i will never do, and for me, certainly ANY idea about being able to moderate now or in a set amount of time would mean i've handed power over to it, since the AV is 'any thought that suggests the possible future use of drink' to paraphrase JT. it's also not part of the 'never' - like the guy in the book who fantasises about drinking in his next reincarnation!

i stick with 'never' because for me, it's safer than what-if's and maybes and coulds - i tried them before and nearly killed myself listening to all the good reasons my AV/beast had for me to drink 'one more time/just this once/only a little' etc.

soberlicious

Exactly, it gets a little like the semantic twilight zone. I see the beast as a metaphor for desire. It is part of my existence, but it does not drive my existence.

DoubtfulDebs

knowing my beast for what it is makes it lose power... that's the 'R' in AVRT innit!

mistaking it for myself is the downfall, and the one i avoid... when it starts with the occasional 'maybe have a drink now and then' b*ll*cks, i just shut it down with my Big Plan rather than fight it, or treat it as valid, and perhaps the reason i had a lot to say so far on this thread is the concept 'have a drink now, you're not addicted any more' is EXACTLY what my beast likes to tell me, because it worked so devastatingly well before.

thanks for putting that concept in print so i can see what are, for me, the huge and ridiculous problems with it. i'll take it as a salute for my 2-year thing from the shared subconscious (or sumfink!)

funny old world!

soberlicious

"I will remain securely abstinent, as long as I don't ever consider the possibility of future drinking" is AV. IT will consider the possibility of future drinking, but YOU never will. "Never" has no contingencies.