Taking Time to Listen

Last Saturday (January 12th) I was walking down Talbot Street in Dublin when I was beckoned to stop by one of those religious ‘enthusiasts’ that you see from time to time. I had a few minutes to kill, so I decided what the hell? (I am aware of the ironic choice of wording) and stopped to talk to him.

For those of you who aren't aware of my religious standpoint, I consider myself to be agnostic. While I do recognise the work that science has done in the expansion of our knowledge of the universe, I believe that there are aspects of the religious argument that it will never be able to disprove. Digression aside, I chose (in the conversation on Talbot Street) to neither hide my own beliefs nor attempt to argue for them with him. He was there to present his standpoint and I allowed him to do so.

Now, there were a number of points he made that I found dubious and ill presented, and others that I have heard refutations for before (Pascal’s Wager for one) but again, rather than challenging him, I took it on board and promised I’d consider what he said. Toward the end of our conversation he recommended a number of books to me regarding his argument, one of which I have actually picked up today, and provided me with an email address to contact him.

To once again digress from the main point of this post; I've had the last two weeks booked off work and I’d been considering doing something “different” this week – something I wouldn't usually do. Prior to this I thought it would be something outdoorsy (rock-climbing, hiking etc.) but this intellectual pursuit might actually turn out to be it.

On point; we’re so used to ignoring or arguing with people who don’t share our exact ideas and values these days. I don’t know what I’ll get out of this, but at the very least I've stopped, listened and given someone else the chance to make an influence on my life.  

Expansion on a Though

Before going to bed last night, I felt compelled to leave the waking work with a tweet

Okay, one last thought/question. Does #addiction challenge a negative or chase a positive?

At this juncture I just want to clarify what I mean (and use more than 140 characters to do so.) A crux of addiction, and it’s treatment as a psychical issue, is the question of whether the addiction fills a void for the addict or whether it offers a state of advanced pleasure (or orgasm) that can be achieved only through abuse of a certain substance or activity.

On the outside there are similarities in both positions – the addict seeks to use their addiction to obtain something – something to fill the void or something to give them pleasure. However, their differences are far more worrying.

For the addict who abuses to fill a void there is only despair or ‘normality’ (an imperfect term but something most aim toward.) That which is abused offers only to stabilise that which is already broken. As such, treatment of such an addict must surely centre on what is causing the void in the first place.

Conversely, if the addiction is the method by which the addict achieves excitation/nirvana/orgasm then it must be treated in a manner that recognises this. In such cases might we not instead try to understand why the specific addiction was chosen (perhaps not consciously) and focus treatment around this?

I hope that in some way helps decipher the ideas running through my head when I posted that tweet.