Insanity: Expanding the Working Definition
17 August 2008 - 17 אב 5768 by Huw
T THE Recovery Centre - and in 12 Step Programmes around the world - the definition of “insanity” is “Doing the same thing repeatedly expecting different results.”
This is seen, especially, in the addict’s attempt to recreate her world over and over doing the same drug and ending in chaos every time.
I’m exploring a second definition - perhaps a subsidiary one, or #2 to the above #1.
I don’t have a succinct way to say it, though…
At work I have, a couple of times, suggested that two people in conversation allow each other to “say back what you’ve heard”. I’ve used this with my own boss, “I think I have that, let me say back to you what I understand you to have said: please correct me.” What this has shown to me is how many times I assume the clear meaning of what has been said - without realising my own biases playing in the process.
This new part of insanity comes when we refuse to recognise this bias play in a conversation.
Most of us are quite clear that (in some area, at least) I’m right and everyone else is wrong: the True Believers™ hold that POV in religion or politics or, whatever. But one tends to ego mania the more the assumption is “I’m right” - not only in, eg, religion but also in science fiction novels and how to hypermile.
To be clear: this is most often in areas that opinion - not facts or real knowledge - make an impact. And most things are opinion! Again, how often I do this stuns me. I *assume* I know what you mean when you say XYZ. I *assume* you know what I mean when I say 123.
The issue comes up not in “I’m right and everyone else is wrong” or even “I’m more right…” but rather when one assumes if anyone thought about it for a while, in an impartial way, they’d end up doing it my way.
In religion this comes out as “If anyone is diligently searching, and humble enough to accept truth when he finds it, he will become XYZ religion.” In politics it’s “If anyone thinks about the issues facing America in an honest manner they will naturally XYZ.” We see this often in specialists who don’t want to help: “Well, clearly, you’d use the widgetX to do that job.” No, not clearly at all without your specialised knowledge.
But it becomes insanity when it goes to a deep and all embracing level.
For, example, in many religious documents the writer appeals to the “clear sense” of scripture without realising his own bias in reading “clear sense”.
Or “Naturally one uses the shrimp fork…” as if anyone would know that or it was logical to do so. (The cultural biases of the SAT testing system are a good example of a mild form of this problem.) Stating that “XYZ is the Greatest Evil of Our Time” etc…
My own experience is how many times I can disrupt a conversation with a constantly-repeated word by asking what the word means. I did this last week during a class at church by asking what does “saved” mean? I did it once at 815 by asking the meaning of “persons” as opposed to “people”.
Like all addicts, the solipsist self-medicates to adjust the world around her. The medication in this case can be as simple as the adrenaline rush caused by anger that someone could be different, but may also be alcohol, drugs, etc.
The tonic to insanity, as tought in 12-step groups is to first rise up and do nothing. That action, not take the drug, not make the statement, not think the thought, applies to areas of life “outside the addiction.” Doing nothing allows the human mind to consider the action most appropriate; the next right thing if you will. Sanity (and serenity) comes at this moment when this is repeated, as a matter of dicipline, unconciously. Most sane recovering people cease to fight anything, yet manage to make an impact on the world around them by living in the moment and when challenged, they read the Sermon on the Mount or something else that teaches 12-step principals.
The Taoist idea of “wei wu wei”. Of doing by not- doing or “do not-do”. As Lao Tzu says, “By the sage doing not-do, all things are done.”
I’d much rather do!
Exactly, Huw! Though, The serious Christian in 12-step recovery has the added benefit, I believe, of a purpose-driven life that may elude some Taoist practioners. Many in the church cloak the A-type personality with a sage-looking wisdom but are still unbending to the mental trappings associated with thier particular intelectual cult. (evangelical, liberal, blah, blah, blah.) If sane and, in 12-step recovery, the Christian grounds herself in the cross and keeps an open-mind. Anger and fear are considered the number-one offenders in relapse, so the sane recovered person uses diciplined techniques to avoid those emotions.
“Anger and fear are considered the number-one offenders in relapse, so the sane recovered person uses diciplined techniques to avoid those emotions.”
Ah, Kevin. You know - I’m sure - how many times those are the driving emotions both inside of and outside of active substance abuse. Fear of “other”, anger at “difference”, fear of change, anger at frustrated desires, fear of death, anger at god(s).
Perfect love drives out all fear - if we give him a chance, that is. Not “removes the thing we’re afraid of” but transforms our response to it - and that is, in the end, the same thing (for nothing exists save in relationship).