Are we Sick?

Wir sind bunt...

... alles andere wird sich weisen.

Questions concerning dependency typically revolve around symptoms, manifestations, interventions, and modalities for effecting "cure." Aspects such as addiction memory, total abstinence, and sundry others are routinely invoked in ascertaining suitable interventions, marketed under a "best practice" paradigm.

Factually, disease is defined as the antithesis of health, delineated as impairment of well-being.

Analytically, it denotes a state of diminished capacity engendered by functional disruptions in body or mind — disruptions corporeal or psychical in nature, impinging upon an individual's health and well-being.

This proves to be insufficient and difficult to verify in concrete terms, because as a patient, one would certainly demand detailed information about the illness. This is probably the reason why I never sought out a doctor or clinic for my own addiction: I did not feel ill, nor did I feel that help could be offered to me there, nor did I feel the urge to ask for it. It simply did not seem plausible to me.

This, however, typifies the dependent perspective, wherein their "world" remains patently ordered. We shall address this anon.

In 1964, the WHO supplanted the term "addiction" (Sucht) with "dependence" and "abuse," aiming at enhanced operationalizability. Etymologically, Sucht denoted "to be ill; to languish," bearing no relation to seeking or search — notwithstanding metaphorical apertures we shall assuredly explore within our knowledge alliance.

As consequence of this terminological shift, manifold avenues now exist across diverse domains for perceiving or designating one as diseased.

Thus, are we ill or not?

This query eludes definitive rejoinder, necessitating first the interrogation:

Am I healthy?

a matter ripe for disputation.

In my praxis, I privilege the designation "not ill", grounded in straightforward, plausible rationales of profound psychological salience for myself and my clients. ​