Each post in this blog is made as part of a building process. In the near term, I’m going to continue to put forth a argument for my mission – affecting how addicts are seen by our staff and treated. I’ve scanned and found very few attempts such as we are making in the field of addiction. In more technology focused sectors there is lots of talk about the philosophical and ethical implications of this or that device or code or distribution. There is some discussion related matters of chemistry that relate more the brain mechanics, but addiction is discussed and it is also discussed in cognitive psychology, but not as a business or market segment or a learning platform. Those are the areas I want Changed Life Ltd known. So I give you more of how we approach our work:
Our Standing – considered practitioner – Grounded in ontologically discussions of “community” or “not” and replenishment.
Our Focus – market demand – technically assisted counseling service we argue should focus on tactfully supporting our objection to chemical only cures for addiction. In that, we argue that chemicals to treat addiction is unpractical without sufficiently addressing the primary cause of becoming and staying hooked: “our unhappy, disconnected lives.
Our Style – decision systems – listening to Hamlet’s maxim, that nothing is either good or bad, but thinking makes it so – heuristic: our argument follows from such an insight thwarting both:
(a) Nothing, which is true, is true, and noting, which is false, is false, but thinking makes it so;
(b) Nothing is either true-or-false but thinking makes it so. But we see another possibility – perfecting spaces of true through flow – experience optimization.
Our Stand – perfecting space, as constructivist, we are worried that the sense of a proposition p, the way in which it points to thriving or failing, hinges on the style of happiness produced by p and maintain. Over time”: ideas.
Our Language – descriptive in situations where “translation is hard … when one gets to whole new ranges of possibility that confound the favored styles of reasoning.