Morning Glory

How is the strong physical craving dealt with differently than the voice?
It's much harder to push that aside and make it separate.

soberlicious

AV= any thinking that supports or suggests the possible future use of alcohol or other drugs.

AV doesn't have to be an actual voice or inner dialogue, it can also be disguised as a feeling or thought or idea/suggestion that my body physically needs or craves alcohol. When I first quit, I found my AV could even bring the smell of alcohol into my mind and I'd have physical reactions like heart beating faster, etc. But really, it's the AV trying another way in and if identified as such, physical cravings can be separated from and dismissed the same way.

In AVRT, the idea that a physical craving is much harder to push aside would be classed as AV, since it suggests a situation in which one would not be able to resist the urge to drink. That suggests the possibility of future drinking, so one using the AVRT would dismiss it as AV.

ru12

I think that I only physically craved alcohol when I was detoxing. I tapered off so I could minimize withdrawal symptoms. Once that was over, probably 3-7 days, I wasn’t physically addicted anymore and I my body didn’t physically crave alcohol.

The mind is powerful and it can make you feel all kinds of things. Maybe I was lucky as I really only had to deal with mental craving after detoxing and I could dismiss that as AV.

soberlicious

I posit that the idea that mental craving and physical craving are somehow different comes straight from the AV.

Whether they are or aren't different or harder doesn't really matter, the fact is that idea suggests the possibility of future drinking, so it's put in the same category of identify/dismiss.

daredevil

Agreed. But the physical crave is a sensation. Not just a thought. Per the literature--no distinction. In reality, an important one.

soberlicious

How so?

My AV would like me to think it's different, and thus harder...maybe even impossible to resist.

Why should that distinction be made? Is a sensation more harmful than a thought?

AlericB

The distinction is important because you can change your thoughts but not really your sensations You could say for example that I don't "crave" a drink, I want a drink, which I think is actually a more accurate description. You can then reassess things and decide, for example, that you don't really want to drink but would prefer to be sober and clear-headed instead.

daredevil

Sometimes the sensation arises out of a thought, but sometimes it precedes it. But I am not disputing how AVRT sees it. That, I get.

As a practical matter, recognition of the sensation, or thought, whichever the order, helps in dissociating from it.

soberlicious

MG asked about the AVRT in the OP, so my answer is that when using this technique, there is no need for the kind of reframing, or assessing, or deciding that you describe above. In AVRT, any thought, feeling, or sensation that suggests future drinking would be classed as AV and ignored. Anything that suggest future drinking gets chucked in the same bucket.

With the AVRT, the goal isn't to change thoughts or sensations, so that distinction wouldn't apply under this paradigm.

Morning Glory

Next Question. How do you ignore something that seems to be screaming at you constantly. I'm am trying to think of this in terms of quitting smoking. I can relate to that. The longest I went without smoking was 5 weeks and it never got easier. It was constant.

daredevil

Is discussion limited to responses within the AVRT paradigm?

I ask because the thread title didn't specify, but referenced AVRT and the BP.

AlericB

My answer was concerning daredevil's point which was not an AVRT one. I wasn't aware that the OP had asked for replies in only AVRT terms.

freshstart57

I don’t think ignoring thoughts or cravings is helpful. I think instead that a focused mindful awareness on the reaction to the thought is more helpful. This allows a detachment or separation from the thought with the goal of becoming the observer of the thought rather than the thinker. This allows some emotional elbow room, some time where the reaction can become awareness and recognition along the lines of ‘Ah Ha! You again! It doesn’t matter what thoughts or feelings you send along, it doesn’t matter. It will never matter because I have made my decision, once and for all. I won’t smoke or drink in this present moment. I won’t do it later, either. I will never do it, and I will not ever change my mind.’ Then, go and do something, something that non smokers or non drinkers do.

Notice I said ‘you again’, as we separate our self from the urge or craving. By making the vow, the urge comes from a part of us that no longer is in charge. That urge comes from that perverted and misguided survival drive which believes that smoking or drinking are essential to our survival. Well, no, that’s false. They may be essential to ‘IT’s’ survival, but too bad for IT.

The urge passes, but since you made this eternal vow unconditionally, it’s irrelevant when or even if it passes. This last part is important, MG, and is an important part of the ‘never again’ statement. That door is closed, that ship has sailed. It’s done.

This is how I see AVRT anyway.

soberlicious

No, I don't think there is any restriction on who can post here. I just thought MG's question was on how to get explain how the AVRT is used, for example when explaining it to someone who wants to quit and is interested in applying the technique. That's why I was answering from the AVRT framework?

Trimpey's book has a number of specific strategies to address what he calls "beast attacks". There is a chapter entitiled "The Beast that keeps coming back". It outlines specific actions (or strategies)on can use like tracking beast activity, addiction diction, labeling, taking a picture of your beast, etc.

The beast noise can seem incessant, almost overwhelming, but the idea that it will last forever and never let up is AV, since it's telling you in a way "There's no way you're going to be able to withstand this nonstop badgering, you'll cave and smoke" is suggesting future smoking. The book suggests separation and recognition that the Beast is suffering from not smoking, but that it's suffering is not your suffering. *You* are actually quit happy about not smoking. Of course it's going to whine and complain...it wants what it wants.

soberlicious

When I say ignore, I mean "not acting on". There is nothing I need "to do" about a thought or craving. It just is. It doesn't require any response or action from me.

I can look at a thought of "a drink (or smoke) would be great" or "I/we need a drink (or smoke)" and see it as craving, shrug my shoulders, and think "yeah not happenin" and move on. That's ignoring or dismissing to me.

freshstart57

I agree Soberlicious, of course, as we see this similarly. I ignore the AV in that It requires no action from me, there is nothing It can do that can move me to drink.

Ignoring Its presence might seem to be problematic to the initiate. It's there I suggest accepting Its presence. It will come and go and there is nothing I can do about It. I accept that it will pop up whenever it may, knowing that it has become irrelevant, there is nothing I need do about It.

Acceptance is a powerful non-action, and I find it to be helpful AF.

soberlicious

ok, yes, I see your point here and the distinction you're making is an important one. Ignoring the AV's suggestions isn't the same as ignoring it's presence or willing it to go away.

lol agreed and you're eloquent AF, btw.

Algorithm

In our lingo, Beasts have feelings. The Beast is largely a part of the primitive limbic system, and is therefore largely an instinctive, primal entity. It is driven by feelings to avoid pain, and to seek pleasure.

Addiction can be thought of as an endless cycle between withdrawal and consummation. Withdrawal feels bad, consummation (getting the fix) feels good. Those feelings of deprivation -- commonly called cravings -- are not my own, but that of the Beast.

The Beast is a 'bogus' survival drive, since it did not always exist, and because the body does not actually need nicotine, or alcohol, or any other hedonic drugs in order to survive.

That said, one of the prime functions of the Addictive Voice is to conceal its own existence, and by extension, that of the Beast. The AV will try and make it appear that the Beast's suffering from deprivation is in fact your own suffering, and that its sense of impending death by deprivation is your own.

See:

• Functions of the Addictive Voice : (Addictive Voice Recognition Technique (AVRT) Discussion Part 2)

No need to ignore -- simply separate.

It never got easier for whom? For you, or for IT?

You can separate, for example...

As long as the Option of smoking some more is possible, the Beast will bark away. It screens all thinking for opportunities to get a fix, and for any impending plans to cut off the supply. Trimpey uses the example of an airplane flight with regard to smoking.

When smokers board the plane, their Beasts largely hunker down, knowing that there will be no consummation for some time. As soon as the airport terminal is in sight, however, their Beasts 'wake up', wild with anticipation, and people start looking for their cigarettes.

The Big Plan is an airplane flight that never lands.

Dropsie

MG,

When I quit smoking many years ago I used a form of Big Plan w/o knowing it.

I had tried to stop a few times unsuccessfully.

I then just decided that starting again would mean stopping again, and I never wanted to go through the suffering of stopping again.

So I decided that no matter what I would never smoke again. My unknowing big plan.

And taking that once and for all decision meant that it did not matter how much I wanted to smoke, which was a lot, I was never going to do it because I had decided.

And I cannot explain why, but this time it wasn't will power, it was the fact that the decision had been taken.

Smoking is a bear, but if I stopped, anyone can, believe me.

XX

daredevil

How does one differentiate the AV from the beast? Are they actually two discrete entities, or is one a machination of the other?