Shia LaBeouf is Once Again in Some Shit (and: On the Nature of Addiction)
By John Corry, photo from TMZ
Jul 12, 2017, 11:44 am Eastern
So, once again /> Shia LaBeouf is in some shit #Omg .
After being arrested this past Saturday for obstruction, disorderly conduct, and public drunkenness, LaBeouf is now officially the star of his own reality show, one perhaps far more entertaining, and certainly more interesting, than the one that got him famous, Disney Channel's Even Stevens (2000-2003, 65 episodes) (and yes, I do mean to call that program a 'reality show' #HaveYouSeenIt?! ).
A video has been released of the bodycam footage of the arrest. It shows what can only be an extremely intoxicated LaBeouf screaming obscenities at the cop arresting him; such beautiful poeticisms as 'dumb fuck' and 'stupid bitch' can be heard coming from LaBeouf in response to his arrest as it happens in the video, such great philosophical points as 'I pay my taxes, get these shits off my fucking arm!' and, my personal favorite, (to a black police officer) '...(the president) doesn't give a fuck about you, and you wanna do what? Arrest white people?!'
I feel it important to point out here (and this has no relevance at all, I just find it funny :/) that a mere three years ago, future President Trump tweeted, 'I know Shia LaBeouf @thecampaignbook and when sober, a really nice guy. Must act together fast before too late' (ok, maybe it is a little relevant), but it's hard to ignore the fact that poor ole Shia has been on quite the downward slope for a fairly decent amount of time now. During the 2016 presidential campaign (and this again has *Nothing*Nothing*Nothing to do with I'm talking about here :p), LaBeouf staged a 'he-will-not-divide-us' 'performance art piece' in reference to a potential presidency of the aforementioned future president (Trump) only to have it trolled and disrupted almost nonstop by Trump supporters and free speech activists since its original inception. Its end came quite famously at the hands of a number of tech-savvy 4channers, who, after LaBouf moved his 'art piece' to an undisclosed location in the desert in an attempt to get away from the physical trolls disrupting his events, used satellite imaging and geographic mapping to pinpoint the exact location of the 'he-will-not-divide-us', and effectively put a final end to it.
The fact that that happened that way is fucking hilarious (and genius), and it's quite difficult (in one sphere of thinking at least) not to see LaBeouf's entire 'post-sober' life as just as equally hilarious–it's always fun to see the fall from grace, especially when there seems to be no modesty involved whatsoever on the part of the celebrity (as is the case with LaBeouf)–but, on the other side, this 'fall' can be taken not only as yet another 'public stoning' of a famous celebrity/child-star #SouthPark #BritneySpears #SouthParkEpsiode'Britney'sNewLook' #TheLottery , but even more so of the American public's subconscious and ill-willed demonization of an affliction which we are all endowed with at birth, though some of us more prone to its excesses than others: addiction.
If celebrity culture history has shown us anything, it's that child stars and the particularly artistically talented (depressed :'( ) are more prone to 'addiction' than the rest of us. There may be many reasons for this–I would suggest looking up some psychology on the subject if interested, as I am not a psychologist, nor am I too well versed on the matter–but there's one that seems pretty obvious to me: these people hurt. Conservatives can say 'get the fuck over it', and they would not be wrong, nor scientifically unsound, to do so, but anybody who has ever suffered from mental illness will know: it's just not that easy. It may be that easy in-theory, but in someone who deals with it on a day to day, moment to moment basis, just saying 'get over it, that really is all there is to it' is about the same ting as a business person telling a scientist to 'just get to Mars already, that's all we're doing here. Make the rocket'. Regardless of how true the statement may be, it doesn't say anything about the process implied (see: the difference between theory and the application of theory into reality).
We can all tell Shia LaBeouf to grow the fuck up, admit he has a problem, and that the reason we're telling him this is because we really do care about him, but that's ignoring the essence of something that has taken him years to develop (his entire life, as true addiction is a psychological issue, not only a mere physical one), and includes a large host of physiological potentialities and sources of instigation and follow-through. The notion that 'Addiction' is a disease is itself ignorant of this, as that notion certifies the afflicted with an understanding that they have no control over their situation, which, in many ways, is indeed true (there are certain qualities that make a person who they are, which are borne out out of long periods of time and experience; mental affiliations like 'addiction' certainly qualifying as such (this is further detailed in the following paragraphs of this article #Foreshadowing=OOO )), but that does not change the fact that only way the person is going to get out of a self-destructive situation is indeed by taking matters into her/his own hands, and proceeding with an equally esoteric, yet not without an openness to new experiences, mind.
If 'Addiction' is a disease, it is a disease all humans have.
An 'addiction' to 'life' is the threshold that makes all of us 'human' 'practical' and, indeed, 'alive'. An 'addiction' to happiness, 'happy' or 'sad'; to sleep/rest physically 'functional' or 'nonfunctional'; to 'knowledge' 'intelligent' or 'not intelligent'. If humans did not have the 'need' (mental and physical) to imbue themselves subconsciously in these objective activities, our capabilities to partake in their offspring would be nonexistent, or at least a bit more difficult to attain. (Ergo our 'addiction' to 'happiness' is how we are able to practically pursue the goal of it, and move on when we hit a hurdle (this is because 'addiction' is such an extremely strong motivating factor); it is also how we become 'sad', in this example, when it is in deficiency (kind of like: we need a 'fix'?).) (This can also be applied to 'knowledge', and, conversely, ignorance/'blind bliss', though these are obviously a bit more psychologically complicated.)
A natural 'addiction' in excess or in deficiency is where problems arise. ('Natural addiction' meant to exclude inherently excessive addictions like most drugs and biases.)
An addiction that is hurtful or no longer beneficial in any of these aspects is an addiction to 'excess', metaphysically speaking, which is what 'drug addicts' have. The reason so few people can just do heroin every once in a while and not become 'addicted' isn't because those people are not prone to the physical or mental addiction to heroin any more or less than a full-blown heroin addict may be, but because they are, consciously or otherwise, more apt to actively question the excesses inherent in its usage (also: why a more questioning person may be less of a dick (because she/he is more questioning of her/his inherent biases (excesses))).
Is this antithetical to what it really means to be a drug addict? Does this ignore the complicated psychology previously mentioned as a force to be reckoned with, and, therefore, potentially put this entire ridiculous article to wrong? Part of the reason people do drugs is to get away from that 'questioning'; so does that mean that there is a difference between an addiction to a substance and an addiction to 'escape'? (Escape from questioning?) Or are they perhaps both part of the same path? An addiction to substance following an inability to compromise with the addiction to 'escape'? To 'fill' the 'fix' either consciously or realistically? And what comes after that... ($)
Shia LaBeouf may not be much of a philosopher (or: maybe he is? o.OO), but he's surely got a fucking problem when it comes to keeping a lid on his eccentricities. Keep in mind, however, that he's one of the very few people who can say that they were both rich and famous by the time they had their first legal drink (and wouldn't that be nice?). Is there any reason to suspect that such a degree of fame and fortune before one's mind has fully developed may interrupt the growth of the mind's ability to understand itself in its relation to its inherent potentiality for 'addiction' and 'excess'? If life is characterized by how much money is one's bank account (or: what her/his status in society may be #TheEssenceOfFame ), life is no longer regarded as a living organism growing with itself through time ('Becoming Defined'), but, rather, as a number, as simply added to or subtracted from as in any other mathematical equation, which is not to say that money has no place in society, nor that it shouldn't be further dissected as far as evolutionized practicality in time-wrought human affairs is concerned, but that its oversimplification and societally un-questioning basic nature within a mind which grew up with it as such as a prerequisite for 'Happiness', 'Knowledge', or 'Life' may make said mind more prone to view money (again, for them subconsciously synonymous with 'Life', 'Happiness' etc.) as a concept existentially in-excess, and excessively necessary for its own (again: 'Life's, 'Happiness's, etc.) growth and survival.
Money is not necessary for psychological growth and survival; knowledge and love are more than enough. Then again, if writing this article has shown me anything it's that Donald Trump has proven himself to be less 'excessive' than Shia LaBeouf (have you seen his NYC penthouse?), and, apparently, the bigger man as well, so what the fucking hell do I know (like, seriously?)?
... *Nothing :'(