Moral Psychology.

If I might continue with the recovery theme. In the chapter called ‘The Doctors Opinion’ of Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous, the second letter from Dr Silkworth states:

“We doctors have realized for a long time that some form of moral psychology was of urgent importance to alcoholics.”

What is moral psychology? No one that I have ever encounter in the recovery community has ever talk about this.

Wikipedia has this to say about it:

Moral psychology began with early philosophers such as Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates. They believed that “to know the good is to do the good.” They analyzed the ways in which people make decisions with regards to moral identity. The battle of good versus evil has been studied since the time moral psychology became accepted as a formal branch of psychology/philosophy up until the present and it continues to expand. As the field of psychology began to divide away from philosophy, moral psychology expanded to include risk perception and moralization, morality with regards to medical practices, concepts of self-worth, and the role of emotions when analyzing one’s moral identity.

This makes sense. ‘Risk perception, ‘risk moralization’, ‘morality with regards to medical practices’, ‘concepts of self worth’, ‘the role of emotions’.

It would seem that he is saying that what ever treatment for alcoholism, it should address the person’s — If I may be so bold — distorted sense of reality.

Any comments?


perhaps Ill make this blog a Big Book study site.  At least for now.



Moral Psychology.

Bad Taste.

If I might start.

Keep in mind, I am interested in a variety of topics concerning intoxication, and not only recovery. But I will start with this observation.

With the whole ‘drug epidemic’ it might seem to some distasteful to start a blog that has to do with talking about drugs, as if I am advocating doing drugs.

I am actually neutral on the topic of drugs, doing them or not doing them. Though I have had my share, I myself do not get any more intoxicated than on coffee or even sugar, though my intake of the latter is, as I try, somewhat minimum.

No. I am not advocating people get high. I am merely proposing that people do use intoxicants, and from a quite philosophical level, people do not critically engage in talking about drugs and intoxication; they merely suppose and prepose upon what they figure is obvious. (Where have we heard of that method before?) The common and usual talk about drugs is reactionary and based in fear. Of course; many people have a good reason to be afraid. I am not invalidating the trials many people go through; I have had my own.

The talk about drugs is always problem, the problem of drugs and addiction. And the solution has been vested in two arenas, if I may, two discourses: science and spirituality.

In fact, if one looks within what we call, the recovery community, there is so much confusion there. On one hand, we have the fundamental AA methodists, who demand the solution as a strict submission to God. One the other side, we have the scientists who see medicine and therapy as the way. I would submit that neither one is any better than the other, which his to say, statistically, there is no method that works better or has shown better results than any other. In the middle of these two poles we have the mish-mash of various methods, from religious-spirituality to scientific-spa-spirituality. It is no wonder we have found another lucrative money making sector. And  all of it is based in the AA maxim that we do not interfere in whatever it is that the addict herself claims was her solution.

Whatever talk occurs, it does not consider it faults; it faults are wrapped up in the drugs themselves, psychological predispositions, family and persona traumas, and various causal combinations of those elements. We are so scared that the addict might relapse, we need walk and talk softly. There is no room for any other sort of discussion concerning the using of intoxicants. For example, there is no clause that says people might get high because it feels good, and that they get addicted because that is the nature of the physiological condition, of the body of the addict and the chemistry of the substance. Likewise no one life to consider that the lifestyle is serving the addict in particular ways that allows them to continue in that life in the same way as a house husband or wife has difficulty entering the workforce after 30 years of being a homemaker. Similarly no one considers drug addiction philosophically. No one, to my knowledge, considers addiction under its existential possibility.

This last might see that since drug addiction is not getting solved by conventional methods, that proportionally more and more people are getting addicted and dying everyday, that unconventional methods might be needed. Perhaps, it is the current talk, the current discursive arena, about drugs and addiction that is faulty.

I say, it is time to stop being so afraid to talk about drugs, use and addiction, of all sorts of type of use, from non-problematic to problematic.

For example: Sigmund Freud was a cocaine addict. Is he the only major figure who was strung out? He is still referred to in discussion of phycology aside from his drug use. What does that mean ?

Any comments?


Bad Taste.

Open Biases.


I figure its about time to have a place where we can talk about all things drugs and intoxication related. A place where we can talk about anything and everything.

Now, lets truly be open about this.

Lets talk about being high and fkt up. Lets talk while being loaded. The goods; the bads. Lets talk about being loaded, the possibilities, the science and the spirit. The goods and the bads. Lets see what bubbles up.

But Im not particularly thinking toward recovery. One of the things that kinda drives me nuts is the incessant move toward the recovering alcoholic or addict, like getting high is bad, or will always lead to bad things, and not getting loaded is good.

Yet also, Im not saying lets exclude recovery — lets include it. But lets include it in a discussion that includes everything else about intoxication. Lets include everything that has to do with drugs and intoxication. Lets use this space to have all sorts of discussions that have to do with intoxication. See this as a platform, a center, where everyone can talk about all aspects of drugs: chemistry, spirituality, business, mental states, physical states, philosophical states, artistic sites, art, intelligence, cosmic, music, et cetera.

Lets have open discussion about it all.

I know there are people who get high on all sorts of things and like it, who are not addicts, maybe yet, but maybe not yet, who function in their life who use drugs and alcohol normally.

Is everyone getting the picture?

Im thinking honest, introspective, critical discourse of all sorts.

Anyone with me?

Now; I get this space because Im a philosopher, and I think there is more going on than people can or will admit. I think life and all the recesses of discourse — academic, philosophical, scientific , spiritual, whatever else — got drugs and intoxication all in them. I think everyone is influenced by intoxicants but no one talks about it seriously and openly. And I think it is because we have the specter of addiction lingering over our Politically Correct heads. There is nothing wrong with getting sober; I think there is a great social problem around drugs. But there is also nothing wrong with not being sober. Lets get it out in the open where we can all see it, all of it, everything, in the light, our opinions, our knowledges, our critiques, our biases. Lets argue; lets discuss.

How are we ever going to get anywhere if we cannot talk openly, to be able to see as well and confront our biases, biases that probably exist everywhere but are invisible because we can never talk to each other across domains about this world.

Lets have a safe space for an open and unfearful dialogue on drugs and intoxicants, but lets also have a space for unflinching critical dialogue. Im thinking a space where we can speak honestly.

I will post my own stuff as well as others I find.

While I do have my own opinions, I will try to be open minded in unbiased in administering this page. But also, I will probably not want endless ramblings on nonsense; but sometimes nonsense might be contructive.

Lets experiement.

Lets see what happens.



Open Biases.