AlericB

No, I am asking if one decides to permanently abstain are they then somehow rendered incapable of ever drinking again, that is, they do not have to carry any further burden of responsibility. With respect, it seems to me that this is the import of most of the recent AVRT teaching here - a long way from how the common man/woman quits IMO.

dwtbd

Rendered incapable? Somehow? If they decide to permanently abstain , I suppose they render themselves incapable but certainly not by some questionable force (somehow) , they render themselves through , via, by their decision. They do it to themselves on purpose ! Just like when they borned their Beasts

dwtbd

If by common you mean the greatest number, most statistics( yeah I know) suggest the common persons( throughout the centuries) that ended their substance abuse issues, just 'up and quit' and AVRT is basically then the distillation of that process presented with its own nomenclature.
The phenomenon predates 'recovery' .

AlericB

Why do I never get a straight answer to this?

My question is: Do you think that when you make a Big Plan you are responsible for keeping it or do you agree with the recent "teaching" here that a Big Plan is, somehow, unbreakable and so you are not required to be responsible for keeping to it throughout your life?

This is not a pedantic point. It goes to the heart of who we are: are we responsible for our actions or aren't we?

daredevil

AlericB,

It’s only unbreakable if a person keeps it (which is the intention when making it). I don’t suppose a BP absolves personal accountability. I see it more as an unbreakable resolve than an unbreakable promise; after all you need an unbreakable resolve to stick with the big plan over the course of a lifetime.

AlericB

daredevil,

I think 'resolve' is a better word than 'promise' when taking about changing substance use because it better conveys the notion that continuing action is required, and it's unbreakable only if your actions make it so.

soberlicious

What continuing action is required after I quit drinking?

I don't do any action continuously in regards to my abstinence. I like it that way.

daredevil

Not drinking is an action.

TheToddman

Inaction == still an action.
Indecision == still a decision.

I always used to answer questions like this 'it depends'.

I like to look at the potentially unalterable and immutable in terms of context, and if I understand correctly the secular way embraces a more fluid context so as not to absolve one from accountability but allow for said context to frame the execution of The Plan.

There's a similar dichotomy in the Christian realm with freewill v. predestination. In my assessment neither allow the adherent to lean on cheap grace.

Am I off base here?

*ducks*

Algorithm

Absolutely not. The Big Plan is a self-imposed self-denial of a particular indulgence. It is the epitome of one's capacity for personal responsibility.

The Big Plan simply removes the precious Option to ever choose one way or the other again. That is what the "I will never change my mind" part implies. It means, quite literally, "I will never choose again."

There is nothing recent about this, as far as AVRT is concerned.

JeffreyAK

There are a bunch of secular ways, but the Big Plan seems to be specific to a particular secular way, RR. I heard "DDNMW" a lot in Lifering, which I suppose is a Plan of sorts, don't drink no matter what, but there it's accompanied by a whole bunch of tools you use to help you achieve that - mostly action tools, not thinking cerebral tools. I'm less familiar with SMART, but they are big on particular kinds of tools, and using those tools is a kind of plan. I suppose one could consider working the steps in 12-step as a different kind of (not really secular) Plan, too. I think plans in general are huge and common among many flavors of addiction recovery, secular and otherwise, but they do differ a lot in the details.

soberlicious

hmmm I see we are getting all deep and philosophical here...ok I'm fine with "not drinking is an action", but I think of it like breathing or blinking, there isn't any conscious effort to those actions. I don't have to take certain measures to make sure I blink every so often or remind myself why it's important to breathe and convince myself that breathing is better than not breathing in order to perform that action. It's just default. Same for me with the inaction (aka action) of my not drinking. My decision to have zero indecision was a onetime action regarding the inaction of my drinking alcohol ever.

Or something like that.

Algorithm

With AVRT, we are not 'subject' to AV, as if we were on the defensive, powerless against the big bad Beast. We accept and learn to welcome the AV as a sign of health, simply a consequence of physiological adaptation.

We do not fear the Beast, because all it can do is bark. That bark, in and of itself, is harmless, much like other thoughts that may cross through our minds.

AVRT is recovery with an attitude. No fear.

There is no wrangling, because with a Big Plan in place, anything that the Beast says is dead wrong, even before it says it. With AVRT, we simply recognize, attribute, and separate.

Algorithm

Jack Trimpey is a trained RET/REBT therapist, and it was he who first attempted to apply REBT to addiction recovery. This is not surprising, since he was simply working with the theory of counseling which he was already familiar with, and with the knowledge he had at the time.

This application is most apparent in his first publication, The Small Book, which SMART recovery still uses, and which Rational Recovery no longer recommends as their approach to recovery, except as reading for historical purposes.

Trimpey later saw, as AVRT came to fruition from what he was learning, that RET/REBT was incongruent with the paradigm. This was a large part of the reason for the split between SMART and Rational Recovery. They are simply not using the same methods.

The Big Plan is a chosen irrationality, and through the lens of AVRT, any further disputation of the Addictive Voice beyond the Big Plan is essentially a negotiation with the Beast on the terms and conditions under which one will abstain.

I covered much of this in a previous thread:

Algorithm

It is the Addictive Voice itself which makes it appear to be the same as your physical needs for survival. It is an illusion of necessity, since obviously, many people don't smoke, and millions have quit smoking, without dying as a result.

I won't question the validity of your PTSD here, Morning Glory, but there is no separation here. Your Beast itself has no PTSD, after all.

The Beast is a revisionist, and it will change the motivation for smoking, in order to conceal the real reason. In this case, it is 'borrowing' from your personality and history, and equating its own needs for survival with your own.

The Beast's survival depends on control of the "I" in your mind's eye, and this is largely achieved through its use of language. It is important to recognize such thoughts as those of the Beast -- as AV -- and not your own.

AlericB

This is obviously a definition of health I'm not familiar with . I would categorise an artificially created survival drive that will kill me as a chronic disease.

AlericB

Having the purpose to never drink again does not remove the option of being able to do so. How can a plan do this?

dwtbd

The presence of a rogue survival drive isn’t dangerous to health and well being , long term alcohol consumption on the other hand is.

Deciding to abstain from alcohol consumption will safe guard an individual from any alcohol related damage.

AlericB

It would be harmful to my well-being because it means passively accepting the presence of thoughts, feelings, wishes, desires and urges to drink which I have to recognise and separate from for the rest of my life. I would prefer to resolve my thoughts and feelings about drinking to something I am happy with.

Morning Glory

It would make more sense to me to have a big plan that says,
My Beast will never drink again and I will never change my mind.

It helps separate it that makes more sense to me. Is that wrong?