18 November 2020
In the multipart blogs (Resilience, Sobriety v Recovery, Why did I use?, Perfectionism, and finally this series, Acceptance), I keep reviewing an idea to see if I’ve explained my present understanding as clearly as I’m able to. (At least) two points from the Acceptance series could be clearer.
The first of these is the second premise of SMART’s own idea of universal life acceptance. That premise is that we can choose to accept or resist what life throws at us. In the first of the Acceptance blogs, I ended that discussion focusing on the fact that we’re built to fight for life.
This was an idea I became aware of before consciously recognizing expressions of a life force. The first recognition occurred reading Dylan Thomas’s line, “The force that through the green fuse drives the flower/Drives my green age...” For me, there was an ah ha moment of epiphanic proportions. As I read more science and philosophy, the selective advantage of a self-sustaining life force was obvious. The argument I’m struggling to articulate is that, at a certain point of peril, something deep within us starts fighting, as a drowning man with no swimming skills keeps flailing in the hope of time and rescue: we’re built for struggle. If you accept the existence of a life-force or instinct, resisting the truth of reality seems an even greater waste of time. Instead of squandering precious hours, days, or years, resisting the inevitable, face up, draft a strategy, move forward and correct as you advance.
The second idea to be clarified, the Stockdale Paradox, states that "You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end — which you can never afford to lose — with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be." The last part says it all: eyes wide open is the only way to go. Why? I believe the answer is the same as the last sentence in the paragraph above. Avoiding the brutal facts of your situation denies you access to the tools you will need to understand, prepare, and move forward.
Radical (meaning to the root i.e., all the way down) acceptance syncs us up with reality, the truth, and the things we need face to take our next steps; resistance postpones forward movement, sometimes until it is too late.
So, after trying to overcome addiction, if it consumes a person’s time and thoughts.
They should accept addiction.
What are the things you accept the circumstances to and those you resist.
Apartheid ?
Hi, Allan, I believe you’ve asked two questions.
Per my understanding of the first question, no, a former user should not accept addictive thoughts that overwhelm her consciousness. Instead, she should work persistently to modify the content of her mind by being where her feet are and redirecting her (possibly obsessive) thoughts.
I have no experience with apartheid but will say that the question seems to misunderstand acceptance versus approval. Accepting is not approving. Accepting is being strong enough to overcome the pain buffered by denial and to face reality squarely. If you read the blog of 28 October, it outlines this concept using the Stockdale Paradox. I hope this helps. Keep asking questions, Allan, and thanks for reading.