Wednesday, 23 February 2011

Addicted to survival

Bri led me to a discussion about fa(t)shion, I'm afraid my interest in that area is still dormant (not sure exactly why). So the comments gained my attention more than the post itself. Although the usual fat hate derail was present and correct spewing its usual effluent over proceedings it still managed to be unusually varied. It featured other streams of thought one about the place and value of allies.

I've been looking forward to people reclaiming these 'events' by being taken up with the intensity of actual ideas. Although I know moderation has to have a hand even to this extent, I hope this is the start of something.

I have to admit though one of the trolling moments caught my eye showing as it did how the rage and fury has meant a lot of notions are going unquestioned at all ends because they are usually either not heard or ignored.

Someone called April responded to the 'food addiction' wheeze haters think is eau so clevah right about now, at the end of this comment;

Lastly: How can you be addicted to something you have to have in order to survive? That’s like saying I’m addicted to breathing.

The response from T:

I am not trying to diminish the rest of what you say…. but “How can you be addicted to something you have to have in order to survive?” Are you joking?

To be fair, it might be in the wording but what is the counter you might ask? Me too, let's find out from :[

Gluttony, or eating in excess, is the addiction of food.With your logic, anyone who has ever tasted alcohol will forever be alcoholic. It doesn’t make a lick of sense.

It's easy to laugh, we've all under the pressure of hearing something that outragous to our sensibility failed to be able to explain why that is just sooo ridonkulous.

It amuses the way they dealt with their unquestioned sense of righteousness bumping into a modicum of polite countering.  Parlaying their shock into that is just so absurd I can't even find the words, which of course hides the fact that you have no counter, doesn't it!

(I won't tell them if you won't)

This tactic might work (thus far) in the context of fat but when you start invoking addiction, you are talking about something else.

What April says is true of course addiction is the wrong model to use for what is necessary for our body's even if it is in excess because that excess has to be an imbalance of what is required rather than the acquired necessity of that which isn't.

That it seems difficult to differentiate actual necessity from that of acquired necessity shows in part the amount of leeway given to the subjective feelings of addicts about their addiction. I have to say that has always seemed to me to be because the addict persona comes from the male persona.

The extent of this means that something we all need food and eating is compared to something we do not, as in our consciousness, the need the addict feels has assumed a greater power even than the need to eat. IOW addiction feels more real, more of a necessity than eating.

Part of that is also the trivialisation of female experience or ability to define human reality from her experience, i.e. fatz. This has actually compromised all human beings ability to understand how eating works, which is why it can be described without irony in terms of addiction.

The irrationality of all this has always pissed me off no end it permits the rancid " you can be addicted to anything" horsejiz.


If we continue the example of breathing, hyperventilation or over-breathing would be the correct model-if imbalance is actually present- and that hyper pre-fix tends to be used when vital processes are out of whack.

Because they are innate they have inner machinery-so to speak-dedicated to their continued function. These cannot be attacked or removed without doing the same to existence, so they must be balanced. To be frank with you that would be a better bet with addiction, in the sense of re-balancing the underlying chemical basis of addiction.

Addiction  is when the production of pleasure chemicals we need to function (rather than survive) are compromised, due to manual intake. The body reduces production as a reaction to them being taken to reduce the possibility of overdose. To a certain extent depression has a similar problem, it can be a deficit, like addiction or a faltering of the system under assaults on your nervous system.

When you have an idea of how depression can undermine function, reveal aches and pains-mental and physical- you otherwise wouldn't feel-you begin to get a sense of part of the addiction process but also why abstinence is such a load of shizz. And why it fails.

Yeah, that's sounds familiar doesn't it? Judging efficacy by its actual results rather than what they are supposed to be. Keep doing it and blow your mind.

The difference between the way we see over-breathing and overeating, shows how far off a rational track the crisis mentality has put us. The excess in a necessity especially is usually about lack elsewhere in the same mechanism, like a see-saw with one end up in the air and the other down on the ground. Not knowing what that is makes it hard to deal with genuine cases of hyperphagia and/or polyphagia.

As an aside, binge/compulsive eating disorder/s should probably be "polyphagia or hyperphagia nervosa". Because a) that tells you something about them and b) it's not about eating nor is it necessarily about damage to the structure but provoked by the physiology of the mind and nervous system.

Addiction may be like that in certain aspects or may feel like that emotionally, but it is simply not appropriate to form a basis of understanding from the unnecessary comparing the necessary to it as if the positions were reversed.

Mis-using addiction this way is about the agenda of hype and panic, there is also stigma. There is a real cruelty to that, just as addiction was beginning to be seen by wiser heads for what it is a physical rather than a moral issue, others seek to use the stigma invested in it to add extra to others, underlining both.

As we've all found one way or another, fat/self acceptance tends to occur when we realise that obesity doesn't describe us but the opinion of fatness, it is a phantom and we are just chasing that. The root of obesity is ob edere basically "to eat " doesn't that sum it all up? Normalcy patholigzied and replaced with a normalized pathology.

I mean, who doesn't eat? When fatz do it becomes a pathogen causing the disease of fatness. You couldn't make it up. Oh, actually you could, if you have the privilege.

When fatz believe in this we end looking to confirm what isn't actually there. It is disconcerting how easy it is to do this with the duress of authority pressing on you. Turning your everyday existence into signs of the demonic eval you are creating with conscious intent. I wish I'd noticed that if I was creating it I could just stop creating it the same way.

Such a costly oversight.

No comments:

Post a Comment