Essential Alcohol part 2

Think about it a moment…

Yes. There was Failed Prohibition in the early 20th century US. Why did it fail ?

… actually take this moment and think about the reason why liquor stores Are considered an essential business and are allowed to stay open.

And think about it’s because that people would freak out without their alcohol.

The reason why they are keeping the liquor stores open is because people would freak out if they were closed, and this is to say, that they would freak out if they could not have their alcohol.

And then think about those people —

You ask a person who drinks or smokes pot if they are addicted to it. What is their usual answer?

No. I’m not addicted to it, I just like it. I just want to do it.

And I’m not talking about alcoholics or chronic drug addicts here. I am talking about your regular run-of-the-mill person who works in a come home and they may have a couple beers or a glass of wine or a scotch after work.

Or the people who smoke pot recreationally.

These people will tell you they could take it or leave it but that they choose to partake.

Then the pertinent insignificant question is why is drinking alcohol and smoking pot Essential?

If they are not addicted then why do they not just not drink and not smoke pot?

Without going into the equivocal answers which really makes no sense when you think about it even a small amount…

When you think about society you have to come to the inevitable conclusion that everything that we think is rational and civilized is based on a huge number of people who are addicted to being intoxicated.

And that is the fact of the matter despite what anyone would want to say to argue the contrary. Because the only argument that one could make to the contrary it would be that it’s not making my life bad or it’s not interfering in me being able to support my family or etc.

So basically what they are saying that if I have enough cocaine and I can go to work every day and support my family and put food on the table then I am not addicted to cocaine.

Or we could say that the 1015 years of someone who is a heroin addict where they can hold a job and maybe they sell drugs on the side and they support themselves and pay rent and everything looks perfectly fine on the outside, that those people are not actually addicted because they are functioning well.

And despite what ignorance would want to imagine the contrary, there are many people who are addicted to intravenous heroin use who function quite well for a long time in society.

I wonder if the coronavirus epidemic will allow humanity to become a little bit more honest with themselves.

No Judgement. I am not saying alcoholism or drug addiction is necessarily bad. I am only pointing out facts that often people will want to wash away as not factual, ie. An opinion.

Maybe take a moment and ponder the history of White historicism’s turn toward the discrediting of moral facts.

But that is a Philosophicalexploration for another post.

I have stopped watching and listening to the news.

I am cautious and intelligent. I am doing my part to be safe and protected for myself and those around me. If you are also, you no longer need the Covid daily updates.

Now, the news has become nothing more than a drug dispenser for people trying to get their fix of the fear cure.

The irony of Covid is that one becomes no longer able to tell whether it is a sickness of the body, or a sickness of the mind.

Most people think fear is something they get from “out there”. So it is the news now is just feeding that dellusion. As if they know more then their fear will be satiated.

*

Knowledge is knowing that you are hungry.

Wisdom is knowing that you are full.

The Nature of Evil: Humans, Coronavirus and Addiction

Rolling around lately in my mind has been strange juxtapositionings of ethical dynamics.

This started because I began to ponder statistics of human deaths. And then pondering the emotional response to the coronavirus thing, an interesting situation presents itself.

Let me see if I can spell it out in a simple way without getting too long in the post.

Recently I posted a few statistics about other types of deaths that occur in our day. What strikes me about comparing the number of deaths for any particular topic is that they are all relatively similar, at least, similar in regard to that really only a small fraction of people actually die while the overwhelming majority of people actually live.

So I had to keep present in my mind a certain kind of ethics in thinking about these human beings. While I was pondering these kind of abstract intellectual numbers I kept having to remind myself that I’m supposed to be feeling bad because people are dying. I had to remind myself that I cry almost every day because one person I was very close to died not too long ago– but not from coronavirus.

Nevertheless. Let’s just ponder a few large categories of major killers in our global society. Cancer; murder; drugs. Let’s do drugs — the category. Lol.

Those are the categories I considered to compare to coronavirus. And I think I conveyed in another post that I talked to a doctor friend of mine about statistics having to do with these categories and coronavirus, and he quickly pointed out at least so far as the drug overdoses that drugs involve a choice where as coronavirus doesn’t have anything to do with choice except that we can try to take precaution so we don’t get it.

This struck me as particularly insensitive, ignorant (coming from a doctor just goes to show that a medical degree does not necessarily denote great intelligence) and basically judgemental about the people who die from drug overdose.

And this continuing to be rolling around in my head, I was struck by the contrast in peoples attitudes towards people that are dying from coronavirus.

In short, people who die from drug addiction are blamed and are viewed as bad people. Even though people are getting more intelligent and empathetic about drugs and addiction and substance use disorders, I would have to say that the overwhelming majority of people are very ignorant and self-righteous about alcoholism and drug addiction and view people that have such a problem as somehow morally compromised if not bankrupt.

Whereas people that die from coronavirus are not viewed as bad people.

And this was still rolling around together in my mind when it dawned on me that the ethics really falls into that something which is completely random, e.g. the coronavirus which comes up utterly because of an act of nature, is really having nothing to do with any sort of blame that we can place on humans except that we were doing human things– We view the deaths and human toll that occurs because of this random act of nature containing more “ethical energy”. And I mean this in the sense that if I am not sad or disturbed or worried about the great potential for human deaths that are occurring because of coronavirus then people judge me as unethical and somehow inhuman.

Even as the death toll presently may be less than the death toll that is taking place during the same time of people that overdose from drugs.

And the tragedy of people dying from something that is pretty much human created, which is to say, that drug addiction is really created because human beings synthesized distillates which affect human beings more radically than their natural state within plants, but as well with synthesized and created drugs from scratch that are more dangerous and ugly and deadly for human beings then anything we could find the natural sphere.

Yet if I’m not concerned about all these people dying from drug overdose, let alone the social devastation it is indeed creating everywhere, and from being a drug addict, I am not ethically condemned in general even though more people overall are dying from this human made problem.

It seems to me that peoples’ ethical value placed upon human beings is greater than when it’s something natural or something that arises completely innocent of human activity. Whereas if human beings are involved in the tragedy, then as a society we don’t care as much.

That strikes me as contradictory and quite ironic:


This odd ethical behavior reminds me of a book I started to read which told of how particularly terrible acts of nature used to be considered evil, where as only recently, say since the beginning of the 20thcentury , we refer the name of evil to only what human beings do.



STATS and FACTS:

you compare.

Opioid deaths in United States.

Coronavirus Deaths worldwide

The Biggest and Most Profitable Drug Cartel in the World.

Opiate epidemic

(I’ll control my own intoxication, thank you)….

plus,

Mass murder….

equals :

What could be more obvious??

The United States of America.

Addiction as Materialist-Empiricist Ailment

www.nbcnews.com/id/44147493/ns/health-addictions/t/addiction-now-defined-brain-disorder-not-behavior-issue/

Addiction is a conundrum. It’s manifestation is tragedy.

Now, the recognition of addiction has a primary disease of the brain I think is good, but question we need to ask is: what good is it?

I wonder what kind of money making opportunities open up because of this seemingly ethical win for the treatment of addiction.

Because, if we say that it is specifically a neurological disorder now all of a sudden we’ve given license and motivation for large abuses by pharmaceutical companies.

My question is: How did one who was afflicted by this brain disorder, one who completely destroyed her life, was basically on some sort of intoxicant for 27 years — how did this person with a physical brain manifestation of addiction who had been using substances for 27 years suddenly stop without any effort or medical or theoretical intervention at all? and be happy, never to worry or return to active addiction?

I think while recognition of its primary status as disease is important, the story is not over and is hardly recognized.

This reported and accepted definition of addiction does extend beyond mere substance-abuse, I think one of the other problems of this situation has to do with how addiction to substances might be conflated into categories of addiction of which it has no common basis. So what if someone is addicted to chocolate? They are so sad and depressed because they’re overweight because they eat chocolate brownies all day long. Have they burn all their bridges with their family members and friends? Have they started stealing from Department stores and gas stations? Perhaps they are both depressed and unhappy, but it could be a case of a sort of parallel evolution which have no common cause. And then also, one treatment of depression, while alleviating the problem of eating chocolate, may do little to stop one from shooting cocaine.

We still have many problems and questions to sort out, and I hope this recognition does not cloud the complexity of the issue, to reduce it to a unitive holistic category “neurology”.

For example, for the substance abuse part of it: what exactly are we after in trying to remedy addiction?

Are we only trying to get them to be able to hold a job? To be contributing socially? Do you just not use drugs? We might do that with a legal cocktail of drugs.

Or are we trying to get a comfortable, productive, and happy person who lives a filling life?

Would we be providing a disservice to an addict by telling them that they have a physical problem that can only be solves with the continuing use of other, more socially acceptable, substance?

I know plenty of substance abuse addicts who stay sober “just for today” who also have to constantly remind themselves to not use today, who are otherwise not very content nor happy accept that they are not using drugs.

Must we really shoot for the lowest possible outcome? Or can there be a variety of acceptable outcomes?  Do we enforce the lowest and hope for better?  Or do we present the best possible outcome –however that manifests, do not condemn any level of success short of using again.

As well, though, I know some addicts for whom using is no longer an issue. They do not think about it, they don’t worry about using; the problem is simply gone.

How does the neurological model explain that?

How do we inspire toward the best outcome, which is, complete recovery and no residual possibility of abusing drugs again, while also not shaming people who’s best is to just not use today?

5 g phone. Addiction says: just give me the uncut dope. (Cathartic vent.)

Just draw that shit up and stick it right in my vain right now. that’s what I want. Rock that shit up stick it in my pipe and let me boil my lips until I have blisters all over them with that shit. I don’t even care. Crunch that shit up, smash it up, cut me out a line and let me fill my nostrils and anus with it.

I don’t give a shit why the 5G phone is better but you better give it to me fucking right now because I need that shit more than I need anything else. Let it fill all my holes.

Addiction. How does that feel? Is anyone offended? Is anyone entertained? Is anyone worried? does anyone even think about it?

I think I’m going to start calling them stupid idiot phones; anyone with me? Or better yet fuck you phones. Every time we go to refer to any phone, whether it be your own phone or someone else’s, whenever you have to say or use the word “phone”, instead say “fuck you stupid idiot”.

Like when you’re hanging out with your friends and your phone is on the table over there and it starts ringing can you say “hey man, give me that fuck you stupid idiot phone”. It just seems a lot more honest that way.

Let’s do it.

**

I definitely have the minority opinion here:

So what?

Who cares? Who is caring?

Are you caring?

Why?

(silence fills the globe). No answer.

I think my attitude really resonates with how Kierkegaard put it: where is everyone going so fast?

I must be sane.

I wouldn’t say I would go all the way back to blackberry days. But I would say that my iPhone three was just fine (except that I hate Apple now). So I’m good with this 4G phone whatever the hell it’s called (I don’t even care and I don’t even know what the hell my phone is I just know it’s shitty Apple). 🐨

$$$

So, that was just a rant. There’s very little philosophy in it and I’ll do my philosophy around it another time and another areas.

God, I can’t wait….🐥

Integration and Humanity: Gabor Mate interviewed by Russel Brand on addiction, history, humanity and world leaders

Gabor Mate and Russel Brand on addiction and world leaders

https://feelingmywaybackintolife.wordpress.com/2018/11/11/gabor-mate-and-russel-brand-on-addiction-and-world-leaders/
— Read on feelingmywaybackintolife.wordpress.com/2018/11/11/gabor-mate-and-russel-brand-on-addiction-and-world-leaders/

Philosophy and Racism.

The other day, I commented on a post over at Larval Subjects.

Someone replied to my last comment:

Racism is socially constructed. Just like gender. They are just signifiers without a signified. Now how do you think you can explain and convince someone who doesn’t even know this kind of thinking exists?

This is a damn good question, so I am offering my take here.
—-
While I disagree with the general form of a “signifier without a signified”, nevertheless
another way of putting her question is “How do I break into the game?”

The short, short answer is, you don’t.

I will try to not make this answer the very involved answer because if I were to do that I would be merely still playing the game, and part of the answer to her question is, indeed, that we are already playing the game. And besides, I could probably write a book answering just this question.

In the short, short answer, and without going into all the verbosity of metaphysical ins and outs, Lacan and Zizek psychoanlysis calls this game the “The Master Signifier”.

The problem with a question such as hers is, as I just said, you , we, are already playing the game. You are already part of the game of the Master Signifier.

It is not “All Good”. Zizek somewhere lately has said (had been saying) that the problem with what he calls “the Left” is that it has no balls; it is disorganized and it is failing because it has no ground, that is, because its members cannot agree on the ground. The problem is inherent to this manner. The problem, basically, is that I can have my “good” morals, but everyone else is allowed to also have what is ‘good’ for themselves: It bends both ways, and then both ways again, and then back upon itself. In short, there is no strict philosophical reasonable manner to overcome this dilemma because what I call conventional philosophy is already a part of the Master Sginifier.

I will try to show what I mean by this through an analogy.

*

Addiction.

How many of you have ever watched the show “Intervenion”?

Go watch an episode, or one of that type, or go find a freind who is addicted to something. You probably have a friend who is addicted in a bad way, or likely, at least, a freind of a freind.

Anyways,
After the set up and the slice-of-the-day-in-the-life-of-the-addict, the Interventionalist comes in and sits down with the family and loved ones of the addict. What does the Interventionalist do or say everytime? What is the point of meeting with the group of loved ones?

Often, the family is a mess also, over their loved one being an addict and all the nonsense they do. So the Inteventionalist tells them right off that this is not the place to argue among youselves. And then she says that you will not engage with the addict in argument, that this is not the place to deal with whatever direct issues are going on between you and the addict.

The point of the intervention is to disrupt the fantasy in which all the family and loved ones are involved. This is also why if one of the (interventioning) family members has issues like drugs or drinking also, or codependacy, or anger problems, then the Interventionalist will offer help to them also. The point of getting together with the famlily is to get them to behave as if from outside the Master Signifier. The way you do this is to consider the whole situation, not just the ‘subject’ or the addict in this case, and stop interacting in that situation.

While this analogy can only be taken so far, It has some good uses for our philosphical/critical race theory uses. The main thing to notice is that interaction does not cease; only interaction with a certain dynamic. Conventional philosophy would have it that everything is contained under the one rubric of infinite possibility and that this is the domain of philsophy: Everything it sees fit to call unto its own. I generalize this motion into indicting its reason, but again, with the caveat (similar to the family/interventionalist/addict situation), that I am not speaking about a category in which all human beings participate at all times.

The point is not that somehow I get to or am able to get outside of a Master Signifier; that idea merely retains the fantastic frame of the Master Signifer itself, though using the parameters of the fantsy to contruct a fantasy about getting outside of it. The main issue is reason. Here, the reason in question is the crowning government of a body of generalizable anarchists.

Just as a manner of speaking, you cannot make an argument about the problems with anrachy using the terms of anarchy and you likewise cannot effect the anarchists from being chaotic by imposing a ‘sensiblity of government’. Both manners simply play into the scheme of signification that is already occurring. The anarchists will hear such anarchistic rhetoric as supporting thier cause, and they will hear the plea to order as the reason thier ideals are founded in a ‘more correct’, manner of appropriating the situtation.

*

Catherine Malabou might be onto something with her ‘passionate enagement’ and ‘plasticity’, and even ‘climate change’.

Why do you think the family in the intervention gets all emotional in following the instructions that the interventaionlist gives them? That is, that they must not engage in argument with the addict, that they must have a bottom line beyond which they will not relent?

The intervention is not an arguement with the addict; it is not an attempt to convince through reasonable discussion that addict to get treatment. It simply places boundaries against which the addict is thus able to view the situation that is outside of the fansasy. This outside is ultimatly still part and portion of the Master Signifier, but what the intervention allows for, in L-Z psychanalytical terms,  is a viewing of the Real object. Of course, this object is not some sort of “real real object”. It is that object which the Master Signifier signifies to be the impossible case of any condition; these impossible cases are ‘suspended’ in every situation. What the intervention does is allow for a stable platform, a butress perhaps, a wall, against which the addict is able to view the impossible sitation that arises outside of the codependent and fantastic family dynamic.

The family is crying because they too are part of the fantasy of the Master Signifier and they are being asked to stop playing in it. Or rather, to bring about by Being actual subjects the Real object in the play of all possible outcomes, which is to say, “in the last instance”. They themselves must, in effect, lie. In order to be fidelitous to the truth of the situation, they must not tell the truth, which is to say, the ‘truth’ of how they see it, the ‘truth’ of how pissed off they are and why, the ‘truth’ of all the things they ‘know’ and ‘feel’. They must take on faith what the interventionalist is saying to do will reveal the truth of the situation of the fantasy to all participants. They are told to simply talk about the facts, how it used to be between them, how much fun they had together before the addiction, how they love them, and how they will not interact with them at all if they do not walk into the space of the unknown that is being opened for them at this moment.

*

Again, this analogy only goes so far. But we cannot abide someone destroying our house simply out of love for them. At some point we just accept the facts of the situation despite what argument may ensue about whther or not they are the facts, or what constitutes facts. Indeed, we do not shut them down if they wish to continue in thier way; they can do what they want. But once the facts have spoken, then things becomes really real.

We cannot convince racist or sexist people that their practices are racist or sexist if they are not willing to at least take a step into the unknown. But we also do not simply accept the repercussions of thier destructive activity.