What is an addiction then!? and why is this word negative!? I think when we talk about this word, the implied message logic is that it is bad because it puts a person into an extreme condition, thus is not sustainable, thus is not healthy ← so there are quite a few assumptions:
Extreme state is, bad (but is it bad because of #2 below, that it is not sustainable!? or, regardless it is sustainable or not, it is just bad being in any kind of extreme? and is there such a thing as "extreme & good"?).
Unsustainable is no good. Well, this is actually interesting then, because then I would ask, what is the sustainable state!? Is drinking water instead of being an alcoholic more sustainable!? Is it defined as being able to live longer, thus more sustainable? or less likely to be bored of!? This last one must not be true then, because alcoholics don't get bore of liquors, thus definition of this word, alcoholic!
So, it is not whether you will be tire of doing the same thing over and over. What about being able to do that longer than others!? When you can walk longer than sprint, walking, is more sustainable than sprint. Therefore, if taking average course one can last longer than the other, this one is more sustainable.
- These two criteria have nothing to do with whether this addiction makes one happy. You can be addicted to an act that makes you really happy, but it is still an addiction, thus, bad.
So, is being in an extreme state really bad!? I actually start to think that they are not.
First of all, what is an alternative if not being extreme? Somewhere in the middle. But how to identify of this point!? Without knowing it, how do we know we are off!? and even if we do know where it is, is keeping at that balance state all the time possible!? I would argue it is not. So people are thinking of deviation — what is the degree of us deviating from this balance? But this leads to two questions:
How to measure a deviation ← and this implies we know two data points, the reference (that balance point), and where we are.
What is the criteria so it becomes bad?
So, as long as we don't have a definition of these two, we can't battle "not being extreme", because we just don't know.
Secondly, we associate addition to things like smoking, drugs, these things get you high, well, under the name of also making you happy. Therefore we think they are bad, because your body craves for them once you are addicted. But is getting high, bad? We know these things make your brain emmit some chemicals so you feel the experience. But other actions can trigger them just as well — sports, sex, and in stone age days, hunting, war → we know getting in a fight will get your body into a state that it feels, high, then extreme fatigue ← isn't this the same cycle that getting high experiences!? I don't know. Maybe they are different chemicals, different processes, but I think there are tremendous overlap between the two.
Thirdly, if getting high makes you, happy. Don't we all be pursuing, happiness, in life, as the ultimate goal!? Then, here it is, why not!? So it is not sustainable, won't last, but then, what will? I feel there is a convolution of logic → this doesn't feel right, but I don't know what it is, 诡异的逻辑.
Well well. So I don't have an answer, not even a train of thoughts, just a mess of conflicting statements. But still, as I have been telling Noah, as I have been told by my dad at Noah's age, two things don't touch — drugs, and gambling. Addiction or not, they will ruin your life, and your happiness.
Addicted to love? Might be ok.
— by Feng Xia