Minutus

I still think that one of Wendy's point needs to be emphasised - that of
susceptibility - if you take the TV away the state still exists, and when
you take a case of this kind this definable state will follow through. As
Rosemary was suggesting you can start building rubrics. When taking the case
of children it is vital to question along these lines even though watching
television is such a common occurrence.

But with television, alcohol, tobacco and drugs we are still tending to make
value judgements. We ascribe a certain amount of blame onto the substances
as being social nuisances which are highly damaging to the individual and
society at large. But they are the end result and not the beginning.

But as addiction is intimately linked with notions of withdrawal (and all
that that denotes) there are other aspects of addiction which aren't
necessarily seen as damaging.

What about the workaholic who has become an extremely successful business
person who cannot and will not give up their work addiction.

Doesn't even religious fervour fit into this category - for those whose
lives are so dominated by their religion that they cannot live without it.

People who suffer from chemical deficiencies will show addictive attitudes
towards some foods.

All of us can probably look at our own lives and come up with quite a list
of things we cannot do without (and I don't mean food and water).

Addiction is a huge and multi layered interesting issue. Getting at the
cause of these states (syphylitic by nature?), the definable state itself,
and to a certain extent the reaction during withdrawal all makes for very
interesting cases. It is worth working on and incorporating questions along
these lines into your case taking methods.

Happy Sunday, Joy

greetings joy, I have attempted to cut & paste your most recent and
hope that I have not truncated your thoughts in so doing.

I still think that one of Wendy's point needs to be emphasised -
that of
susceptibility -- if you take the TV away the state still exists,

Yes I would concur but I would suggest that susceptibility refers to
a circumstance of the constitution.

...... addiction is intimately linked with notions of withdrawal....

I would suggest that addiction is a condition of imbalance of the
vital force and a reflection of the constitution.

What about the workaholic who has become an extremely successful
business
person who cannot and will not give up their work addiction.

This condition of imbalance is a reflection of someone who is stuck
in their linear time aspect of expression. The imbalance is the
absence of fluid movement through imagination time and no time as is
appropriate.

Doesn't even religious fervour fit into this category - for those
whose
lives are so dominated by their religion that they cannot live
without it.

Religious 'fervour' I would place in the no time state with a
disconnect to linear time. That's what makes it 'fervor' rather
than merely an expression of their myths.

regards, and apologies to all for all too lengthy superfluous
content which I had replied with recently.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]