Perception and Addiction

Let's return to the admonishment from yesterday:

"Kid, there's good news and bad news for you about this disease.  The good news is that this disease is a problem of perception.  The bad news is, that's a big %@#& problem!"

The disease of addiction is a disease that effects the addict's perceptions.  This problem of perception is complex, and both is affected by and enhances the physical reaction to the addictive substance/activity.

So, let's say we have a gambler.  He ingests nothing that would effect his biochemistry, yet his perception of gambling is such that he receives a biochemical high when he engages in the activity.  A heroin addict, on the other hand, definitely gets a chemical effect from his usage, which is enhanced by his perception.

We know that the perception of either heroin or gambling varies from person to person because there are plenty of people who try both and do not become addicted.  However, when the addictive condition is present, activities/substances can become addictive.  What's more, one addiction can be traded for another: addicts can often 'quit drinking' by using marijuana or prescription medications or even indulging in some activity.

It is his perception of pleasure that fuels the addict's pursuit.  Now, this 'pleasure' is often nothing more than an escape from his pain and resembles nothing of what normal people would consider pleasurable (opium dens and crack houses are not the lap of luxury), but when the addict's perceptions have been sufficiently twisted, the pigpen seems like a good idea.

This is why recovery is described as an 'awakening.'  Just like the Prodigal Son remembers his father's love and his perception of the tolerable circumstances of the pigpen changes, so the addict must have an awakening that changes his perception of pleasure in his disease.

Once the perception of the object of the disease, the addictive substance/activity, changes, then the addict is able to examine potential alternatives.  In the disease without such an awakening, it is impossible to interrupt this circular relationship between the perception and the brain's reaction to the perception.

This latter effect is important: when the person perceives pleasure, his brain releases hormones that enhance the experience.  The body is commanded to relax, which is kind of an 'all clear' alarm for the system.  The experience of pleasure int he chemical sense then goes back to the brain and reinforces the perception of the activity as pleasurable.  

This is why an alcoholic will endure day after day of hangovers, and the food addict can receive exquisite delight in poor-quality snacks.  The perception of pleasure and the need for it is so intense as to utterly override reality.

The 'pleasure principle' as it were is not confined to addicts: 'normal' people do this all the time, when they engage in an activity they associate with pleasure which causes great distress and suffering.  If you have been around your relatives during the holidays you know exactly what I am talking about. 

However, the king of all perception problems is the inability of mankind to perceive God as a loving Father who will help us through our struggles, will heal us from our wounds, and grant us eternal life in Him.

According to the Fathers of the Church, pleasure is entirely subjective, and therefore we should avoid all forms of it and focus instead on what is needful.  By changing our perceptions in this manner, we can derive pleasure from good and eternal things, things that are worthy taking pleasure it because of their constructive rather than destructive effects.

There's a lot more to say on this, and that's why this is a blog.  Stay tuned for more.

Food Addiction and the 'Physical Allergy'

When AA got its start, it began with several 'revolutionary' concepts:

- Will-power is not enough to cure the alcoholic

- The cure for alcoholism is spiritual in nature

- Alcoholism has a physical component based on an atypical reaction to alcohol which is referred to as an 'allergy'

Since that time, the concept of physical dependence has been well-studied.  We now know about dependency, and its withdrawal aspect, which occurs when the human body adjusts itself to the 'poison' of the substance being ingested and comes to 'need' it.

What is trickier to understand, however, is that this allergy which the founders of AA spoke of is not as much about dependency and withdrawal as it is about the experience of intoxication itself.  In a nutshell: some people like being drunk, and others do not.

I know a number of people who do not drink heavily because anything more than being a little 'high' is very unpleasant.  They like being in control of their faculties and resent the loss of coordination, vision problems, and mental slowness that comes from the second or third drink.  However, there are many people who enjoy this feeling, and for a small percent, the feeling of intoxication is extremely pleasant.

This last group has the 'allergy' or unusual reaction to alcohol.  They are immediately effected by it in a profound way that leaves them desiring more.

So, now the question comes up: can a person have a 'food allergy' in this same way?  Can food itself have an 'intoxicating' effect?

I think there are two ways of looking at this intoxication: physically and spiritually.  

In the first case, physical intoxication it made up of two components, the first being the effect of the chemical itself directly against the human body, and the second being the body's release of chemicals to combat the effects of the chemical.  In the case of alcohol, the alcohol and its metabolized components have a direct effect on the body.  It is rather complex, so if you are interested, you can read more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_alcohol_on_the_body

However, the second and actually more difficult aspect to explain is how two people can go through this same chemical experience and yet derive two entirely different experiences, either pleasant or unpleasant.  Human beings can derive a variety of opinions from the same object: one person 'loves' spinach, while another person 'hates' spinach.  The spinach is the same, but the perception is different.

This gets to the crux: the allergy spoken of in AA is more about the individual's 'opinion' or perception of the experience of intoxication.  For example, I've had several major surgeries in the last few years and been given a pain medication that I hate, yet I've known quite a few people who absolutely love the drug I was prescribed and abused it heavily as addicts.

Years ago, a fellow told me this story.  He was new to AA, and one of the 'Old Timers' told him, "Kid, there's good news and bad news for you about this disease.  The good news is that this disease a a problem of perception.  The bad news is, that's a big %@#& problem!"

Addiction is a matter of perception, and as we all know, perceptions are often impossible to change.  A bad experience can often ruin our further enjoyment of an activity or place.

This now goes back to food: the experience of food can become an addiction, and while the food addict can remedy many of his underlying problems through the Steps, his real battle is to work with God in modifying his experience of food without the 'ecstatic' component.

For many addicts, this ecstatic experience largely has to do with context.  So, water tastes 'better' if you have been working in the sun for an hour without a break than it does sitting on your couch on a Saturday afternoon watch TV.

The food addict will experience less ecstasy if he has worked the program and dealt with the underlying issues that made food seem all that more important than it is.  As his own sense of well-being and happiness improves the perception of a 'need' dissipates.  However, because he has developed the 'expectation' of food as a highly-pleasurable experience, he must constantly watch his intake and the conditions under which it occurs.

This perception issue is a big problem.  

I will discuss more about this in terms of how the Fathers of the Church wrestled with this 'appetitive' issue.  Our understanding of this is not new.  Ascetics have struggled with it for years.

"As if God was real"

Years back, I heard an AA speaker talk about how her sponsor gave her a challenge: spend three days acting as if there was no God.  Don't pray, don't ask, don't even think about God.  After three days, her sponsor asked her what was different about her life.  The answer was, "Well, not much really."

Her sponsor replied, "That's your problem."

For many people, and myself I include in this category, it is easy to forget God.  In fact, I spend most of my time without any sense of His presence.  In order to remember Him, I have to work at it constantly, and even then I get mixed results.

For example, I pray, but my prayers are distracted by other thoughts.  I have to constantly pull my mind back on track.  I have had days where I ended up so busy in the morning that I skipped morning prayers altogether, yet I will never fail to greet and talk to my wife and children upon rising.  Then, as I begin the prayers, the phone rings, and when a priest's phone rings he must answer it otherwise the people will think he is inattentive to their needs (slight whiff of sarcasm, but the truth isn't far away).  I must interrupt my prayers and deal with upset parishioners and needy children.

Even on the Holy Altar, we clergy often bounce around and gossip as if God is utterly absent.  We forget what is most needful... and Who it is who is more present than any of us.

In recovery, we cannot afford to take our relationship with God as secondary, even though it seems many times like God is not there.  The blind man cannot see the far mountains, but that does not mean they are not there.  Our inability presently to see and hear God does not necessarily exclude His reality, especially when we have evidence to the contrary.

When we ignore God, then we leave ourselves open to fear, and thus the passions.  Recovery is about awakening our conscious contact with God in every moment, though many of us only experience 'glimpses' that keep us pointed in the right direction.

If you want to know what that looks like, to pray and be certain that one is in the presence of the Almighty, then read this story:

http://roadsfromemmaus.org/2012/03/05/go-tell-your-mother-were-celebrating-the-liturgy-right-now/

The priest's home is on fire, and he sees the Liturgy as more important.  If the Liturgy is a divine moment of contact with eternal ramifications, and material possessions are temporary things, what is more important?

My response to this article was at a gut level because I know how easy it is to set aside God and deal with 'pressing matters' at the expense what is really more needful.  My prayers are more important than other things that may come up, and it is my sheer sloth that has me not waking up earlier to pray before the 'little distractions' wake up and demand feeding (or refereeing as the case may be).  I am also probably more attached to my possessions than I ought to be, enough so to have the strong desire to rush out with a garden hose if I heard my house was on fire, liturgy or not.

But, this priest demonstrates his own good instincts: he finishes his prayers and work with God first, then goes and surveys the damage.  He seems to get it that his stuff will be replaced by God (if you'd like to be part of that, click here:

http://www.stots.edu/support.html).  However, his prayer and worship has greater meaning.

We say things like, 'Money can't buy you happiness' but look at our impulses.

During this time of Great Lent, when we are called upon to examine ourselves and prepare for the celebration of Christ's Resurrection, this story is a good reminder of how we ought to live: not according to material concerns, but in the presence of God that even the loss of valuable possessions cannot interfere with.  If we desire sobriety and the 'conscious contact with God' outlined in the Steps, we first should know what it looks like.

That's what it looks like.

Please add Fr. Adam and his family to your prayers, and consider helping them out.

Food Addiction

With the first day of the Fast 'under our belts' (pun intended), it should be no surprise that the topic of food would be on our minds.  Well, maybe just on my mind.  In any case, one of our readers (David Dickens) posted this comment:

I wish you might address the unique problems of food-addicts, in comparison to other addicts. It seems to me that all other categories (from alcohol, drugs, sex, or behavioral stuff like theft or violence) can "enjoy" total abstinence.

How would any alcoholic do if he were forced to have one beer every day for the rest of his life, but remain sober? For the food-addict this is very much the case. We must eat.

Anyway, perhaps it is more a subject for a future post. But I'd welcome an extended exposition of your thoughts.

Food addiction represents one of the most difficult addictions to address precisely because of what Mr. Dickens points out, "We must eat."

This passion is rooted in Gluttony, and therefore is easy to discern directly from the classic list of Seven Deadly Sins.  But, the strange thing is, food addiction is not really about food.  Then again, alcoholism isn't really about alcohol.  What we are addicted to and why we are addicted are often two entirely different things.

A true gourmet will push away a substandard dish and go hungry rather than eat bad food.  If it were about the food, that would be the reaction.  But, the food becomes a 'tool' that the addict uses to avoid pain.

The process of recovery means healing from the origins of that inner suffering, the same way we are healed from all the passions.  Yet, in the early stages of recovery, it seems also like the food addict is expected to indulge in his addiction moderately.

What is really going on for this type of recovery is for the addict to discern when he is eating for necessary nutrition and when he craves food to avoid himself.  Yes, this can be difficult to discern at first, which is why the addict must examine all of his thoughts.

Other substance addictions (alcohol and drugs for example) are largely avoidable unlike food, but food does not have the chemical composition of drugs that profoundly effect the sense the way that food normally does (unless you are chewing betel nut or eating fugu [blowfish] livers).  Other substances become addictive because they alter the chemistry of the brain.

In the case of food addiction, the brain chemistry is not altered by the food, but the reaction to it.  By working the Steps and asking God to cure us, the 'bridging' reaction between food and addictive brain reactions can be constricted and someone can eat with caution.  Nutritional eating and addictive eating can be differentiated.

To a certain degree, the same is true of alcohol and certain drugs: addicts have surgery all the time, and use pain medications properly.  Alcoholic priests serve liturgies and masses with real wine and don't relapse.  Sometimes there are occasions when we must return to a substance which we are addicted to when pressed by necessity.  But, necessity is the operating factor.  A Catholic priest who is an alcoholic must be careful that he is not serving ten masses a day, and an Orthodox priest who is an alcoholic would do well to watch how much wine he pours in the chalice if he must consume the remainder after the liturgy.  

There are sex addicts who are in marriages where normal physical relations are expected.  Again, the process of discerning whether the intimacy is appropriate or inappropriate is key.

This is not to say that non-addicts are free to do as they please.  The ascetic practice of discerning one's thoughts is essential for all people seeking happiness and peace.  To be abandoned to one's impulses is the first step towards true torment: the loss of impulse control takes us down a dark path, even to addiction.

The idea of "Total Abstinence" is only the beginning of the treatment of addiction.  There are plenty of 'dry drunks' who are totally abstinent and totally miserable.  Abstinence is less about the substance as it is about the spiritual condition underlying the abuse.  An alcoholic may ingest alcohol on occasion, either accidentally or because of a good reason, but this does not constitute a relapse unless the passions were behind the ingestion.  Sobriety is much more than abstinence, and it is dangerous to think that an addict who has a year of clean urine tests is any more 'sober' than someone who pops dirty on every test.  Substance testing does not discern whether the spiritual disease is still operating in an untreated manner.

Anyway, Mr. Dickens, this is a big issue, and it will come up again and again as we plod on through this subject.  Thanks for your comment.

Abstinence and Fasting

When an addict begins the path of sobriety, he must be willing to be separated from the object of his obsession for the rest of his life.  He may only be able to endure the thought of being separated for a a short time, even an hour ("I'll have a drink later, just not right now").  But, this is still with the understanding that real sobriety is a desire for permanent abstinence.

The addict who harbors ambitions of returning to abusing will eventually do so.

In the Church, there are is an often misunderstood concept of 'fasting.'  Sometimes, we think of abstinence in addiction as a type of fast, which is true in some ways but not true in others.

Fasting in the Church centers around the notion that what we fast from is not necessarily bad, but rather we need the spiritual exercise of denying ourselves certain things to weaken our self-will and bring out the hidden passions that must be cured.  In some respects, an addict could relate to such a fast: alcohol is not necessarily bad, but its abuse leads to the avoidance of our fears, which in turn feed the passions.

But, in addition to fasting, the Church teaches 'feasting.'  We return to the things which we fasted from, not to over-indulge, but again enjoy properly.  Addictive abstinence has no return.  The alcoholic never goes back to drinking.  He can never plan to control and enjoy his drinking at some later date, because the disease has affected him in such a way that the control mechanisms that others have he no longer has.

Fasting is about exercising control, with God's help, but the addict's abstinence is about a permanent loss of control.  Even the monk who fasts from meat year-round can have a dispensation to eat because of health issues or circumstances.  The addict cannot return, except (depending on the addictive object) when under supervision and even then it must quickly end lest a relapse occur.  Food addicts have a truly difficult path: no one can go without food, and so they must have a very regimented dietary approach.

What both fasting and addiction-abstinence teach is how to confront the passions without avoidance.  We must stop avoiding our passions and repent of them.  We must dig deep to repent of our fears and receive God's healing.  Fasting gives us this opportunity on a temporary basis, which is why there is always an end to the fast, marked by a feast.  We return with joy.  The addict never returns to his addictive substance with joy.  Yet, the self-denial of both acts reveal the passions.

Christians are expected to permanently abstain from sinful behavior, such as idolatry and fornication, and yet identify themselves as sinners who do such things.  It is very close to if not the same as the notion of being a sober addict: just because the addict is not acting out on his obsession does not mean he isn't an addict anymore.  Christians who abstain from sin are not to think of themselves as no longer sinners.  In both cases, thinking you are 'cured' leads to a lackadaisical attitude which ends up in relapse.

Addicts can benefit from fasting, since it exercises the will in areas that the addict still retains control.  Some addicts fall into the trap that since they abstain from their addiction they have enough spiritual exercise and so they indulge in their unrestrained self-will in other areas.  This is not helpful.

Neither should Christians who are not addicts assume that they can resist their own temptations enough to immerse themselves in what is tempting without risk of engaging in the behavior.  An addict knows he cannot go into places of temptation without risking a relapse, yet many non-addict Christians routinely engage in risky behaviors that put them in danger of falling into sin, then wonder why they fall.

I wish there was better terminology in English to describe the different between fasting and permanent abstinence, but we are stuck with the language that we have.  My hope is that addicted and non-addicted Christians will understand that fasting (as a periodic and temporary discipline) is beneficial for spiritual development, and that objects of obsessive temptation are not fasted from, but permanently avoided.

All Sin is Seeking God

Shame is the sense we have of being 'less than' what we should be.  A shameless person thinks his actions are perfectly normal, whereas someone who is ashamed has been 'exposed' or 'caught' being 'inferior.'

The concept of sin in the Orthodox Church, and its implied concept within AA 'harms,' is that of an act which does not match who we are.  God does not create random laws that we accidentally break, nor does He establish bounds that we cannot help but break.  Sin is preventable and unnatural, though we find ourselves in a peculiar condition of not acting according to our nature.  We are 'tempted' to go against what is best for us.

And yet, these unnatural acts of sin, which cause us shame and humiliation, are often based on an honorable foundation.  We think we are doing right, or seeking what is good.  Most of the time, we are hungry and in need of something when we sin, which is the power of temptation.  It arouses within us a yearning, an appetite for something 'good.'

Addiction is the stage when this appetite can no longer be controlled, but rather the will becomes broken and the appetite is unleashed.  Nothing can stop it once it finds an opportunity to use the focus of its hunger: the drink, the drug, the act.

But, what are we really hungry for?  What is the cause of this yearning?

Deep down, our humiliation's basis is our desire for God.  We seek His goodness and His consolation.  We desire His love and blessings, His healing and forgiveness.  The temptation is when we find an 'alternative,' something easier than going after God.

Man's humiliation is when he turns in his dignity as being make in the Image and Likeness of God for something inferior to him rather than superior.  If man turned to God, he would attain to something magnificent and honorable.  But, when he goes for something less, like food or drink or drug, man loses his dignity.

The Canon of St. Andrew of Crete, which begins again tonight, speaks of this loss of dignity when man sins in his yearning for God which ends up in sin.  But, even our sins are not a complete waste: when we examine them, we see how much we really want God more than anything else.  'Hunger and thirst for righteousness' as in the Beatitudes, though our actions do not appear to match this desire.

The remembrance of sins, such as the 'drunkalogue' or the Canon of St. Andrew, is not a morbid 'self-flagellation' to stir up guilt, but a powerful tool in reminding us that even in the most non- or anti-spiritual moments, we are spiritual beings seeking union with God.

Taking spirituality away from people only makes them more self-indulgent and takes them further away from the dignity of what humanity is supposed to be.  People are left with propping up the thin veils of materialism, which eventually results in addictions of all varieties.  People want God, and will do anything to find Him... or even a poor facsimile.  This is the heart of sin. 

The Joy of Liberation

Continuing with the previous theme, the story of our sins is also the story of God's forgiveness and mercy.  We should never want to entirely escape our pasts, and while our pasts have shaped us, they do not necessarily define us.

My past took me through the 'dark night of the soul,' when I despaired in my misery without any hope.  Existence hurt.  Even death did not seem to be an escape.  I don't know if that makes sense to anyone, but that was how I felt, even though no one else saw it but me.  I was good at keeping my private world to myself, but all that did was create a spiritual pressure cooker.

This inner suffering led me to both sin and to seek God.  When I found Him, it was a great joy, but that joy was also joined with my sins.  The ugly thoughts and deeds were wrapped up with God because He is my liberator.

In the Canon of St. Andrew of Crete, which the Orthodox Church sings this week, God is portrayed as a judge, but also as a liberator.  He frees people... and the hymns demonstrate the various examples from the Old Testament.  When we are forgiven, we are freed.  This is a constant theme in the OT.  Read it for yourself.

Recovery is not the utter erasure of sins, but liberation from their death.  Sure, we still deal with the consequences... the scars, the impediments, the wounds that heal slowly... but they do not kill us.  In fact, the wounds of sins are directly connected to the healing of Christ.  If you are not wounded, then you cannot be healed.

The canon reminds us of this truth: God heals and liberates all mankind from the death of despair.  Yes, death is despair.  One who is despondent cannot really live, since he sees nothing but bleakness and torment.  In order to act, and by this I mean to move towards one's joy, one must have the hope that there is an attainable joy.

We are meant for joy, but joy is not found within us until God comes within us.  Despondency is utter self-concern, and so there is no joy in it.  God liberates us from hopelessness by emancipating us from sin by delivering us from our self-obsession.  Once we get out of 'self' we can receive forgiveness and be free.

The Canon reminds us of this liberation so that we can apply it to our own lives and derive hope.  Addicts more than anything need hope, which is why step groups need older members in recovery to teach the newer ones about this hope's attainment and to demonstrate how it looks.  Slaves don't know how to be free.

For us in the Church, the saints are our examples of freedom.  They show us what it like to be liberated from death and despair.