Addiction and Exile Part 1
I believe I will be continuing with my current theme of addiction in this post and perhaps in more to come. I think I will be a little more serious with it than when I first ventured the subject in Addiction and the AAA . I was fooling around with a flirtatious meandering and perhaps ridicule of what could be a serious condition, Internet Addiction. However this bloggologue will be truer to the subject at hand...Addiction in it's traditional form, that is, addiction to drugs and or alcohol, having said that, it also could pertain to any other addiction, whether it be gambling, sex, food, internet etc. etc. More specifically I will examine exile as it relates to addiction. In truth I am interested in addiction as a stand alone topic but tonight I have been inspired to explore exile in juxtaposition to addiction. I started reading Albert Camus's, Exile and the Kingdom and it has inspired me to elaborate something which is close to me.
Exile is the existential state which the addict is more or less placed, whether one believes this is self imposed or if it is a consequence beyond the control of the person in addiction, is essentially irrelevant. It is my feeling that the state of exile is a pre existing condition and that it is further compounded by the addiction and by the addict feeling marginalized and stigmatized by a society, which perhaps views addiction as a moral failing. Perhaps there is some justification in this stance. When one tries to impose one's own experience into something that is foreign, it is difficult to view a differing angle, after all, no one forced these people to consume the substance in the first instance. It is easy to believe that one has control over one's choices and who can argue with such simplicity. Perhaps one could also imagine feeling isolated where there seems to be no avenue or discourse to relate. It is easy to assume that everyone has equal opportunity and the necessary skills to effectively communicate and thus have some connection to a whole, yet what if an individual felt disempowered in some way and felt unable to communicate. Perhaps this individual was abused in some way or that he or she felt in a profound way disconnected and didn't belong. An outsider perhaps or a loner or just different. Exiled?
I am not advocating an excuse for addiction in any shape or form. Addiction is embedded into our society and I am interested in how the addictive process comes into being. I believe the scenario of exile can offer an explanation of how addiction can develop. Some consider addiction a disease and perhaps there is some merit in this argument. I am not convinced that such a disease exists, however I am not aiming to persuade anyone otherwise if they do accept the disease theory. I am concerned with the concept of exile and if this in some way contributes to a person choosing to become enslaved by addiction. I mentioned earlier that perhaps a general consensus in societal terms suggests a moral failing on part of the addict, which in turn assumes a choice. So I am running with such thinking, although I have a problem with morality in the sense that to assume morality one must think in terms of right and wrong. I want to lay aside right and wrong as these are subjective. If I can define "moral failing" as merely choice then I need not extrapolate needless interpretation of good versus bad, or right and wrong, neither of which are necessary when one is given choice.
A choice of enslavement perhaps sounds irrational. How can one choose enslavement when all of our democratic values are based on freedom? Perhaps this seems absurd and perhaps you are now vexed at having been deceived in some way because at the outset I stated that I was going to be a "liitle more serious". It does appear that the argument is beginning to take the AAA (Absolute Apathetic Absurdism) stance. Let me assure you that is not. I will not say that a level of absurdism isn't about to unfold, however I will say it is not of an apathetic view point.
It is late now and I will continue this saga at a later juncture.
Goodnight!
Exile is the existential state which the addict is more or less placed, whether one believes this is self imposed or if it is a consequence beyond the control of the person in addiction, is essentially irrelevant. It is my feeling that the state of exile is a pre existing condition and that it is further compounded by the addiction and by the addict feeling marginalized and stigmatized by a society, which perhaps views addiction as a moral failing. Perhaps there is some justification in this stance. When one tries to impose one's own experience into something that is foreign, it is difficult to view a differing angle, after all, no one forced these people to consume the substance in the first instance. It is easy to believe that one has control over one's choices and who can argue with such simplicity. Perhaps one could also imagine feeling isolated where there seems to be no avenue or discourse to relate. It is easy to assume that everyone has equal opportunity and the necessary skills to effectively communicate and thus have some connection to a whole, yet what if an individual felt disempowered in some way and felt unable to communicate. Perhaps this individual was abused in some way or that he or she felt in a profound way disconnected and didn't belong. An outsider perhaps or a loner or just different. Exiled?
I am not advocating an excuse for addiction in any shape or form. Addiction is embedded into our society and I am interested in how the addictive process comes into being. I believe the scenario of exile can offer an explanation of how addiction can develop. Some consider addiction a disease and perhaps there is some merit in this argument. I am not convinced that such a disease exists, however I am not aiming to persuade anyone otherwise if they do accept the disease theory. I am concerned with the concept of exile and if this in some way contributes to a person choosing to become enslaved by addiction. I mentioned earlier that perhaps a general consensus in societal terms suggests a moral failing on part of the addict, which in turn assumes a choice. So I am running with such thinking, although I have a problem with morality in the sense that to assume morality one must think in terms of right and wrong. I want to lay aside right and wrong as these are subjective. If I can define "moral failing" as merely choice then I need not extrapolate needless interpretation of good versus bad, or right and wrong, neither of which are necessary when one is given choice.
A choice of enslavement perhaps sounds irrational. How can one choose enslavement when all of our democratic values are based on freedom? Perhaps this seems absurd and perhaps you are now vexed at having been deceived in some way because at the outset I stated that I was going to be a "liitle more serious". It does appear that the argument is beginning to take the AAA (Absolute Apathetic Absurdism) stance. Let me assure you that is not. I will not say that a level of absurdism isn't about to unfold, however I will say it is not of an apathetic view point.
It is late now and I will continue this saga at a later juncture.
Goodnight!
posted by TwistedTripper at 10:22 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home