Codependency as Limbic Bypass

Codependency as Limbic Bypass

Accountability, Addiction, and Moral Responsibility

For a long time, I understood codependency mainly in emotional terms:
need, attachment, fear of abandonment, control.

Those descriptions are not wrong — but they are incomplete.

What finally clarified things for me was understanding the mechanism underneath the behaviour, and then asking a harder question:

Where does moral responsibility actually begin?

A limbic problem before it is a relational one

At its core, codependency is not simply about personality or love.

It is about how two nervous systems attempt to survive without healing.

The limbic system is a prediction engine.
It learns from experience what leads to safety, agency, or threat.

When that system is injured early, people often discover workarounds.

In certain relationships, those workarounds interlock.

Two complementary bypasses

In what we commonly call codependent dynamics, I now see two distinct — but mutually reinforcing — limbic strategies.

1. Externalised safety

One person discovers safety through surrender.

Their nervous system has learned:

  • calm alone is unsafe
  • agency is punished or futile
  • autonomy leads to harm

Attachment becomes relief.
Deference becomes regulation.
Giving up agency feels like peace.

2. Externalised agency

The other person discovers agency through impact.

Their nervous system has learned:

  • effort was required but unseen
  • responsibility was demanded but unrewarded
  • agency only mattered if it changed someone else

Control becomes regulation.
Deciding becomes identity.
Being needed feels like existence.

Neither strategy is morally neutral.
Neither is purely malicious.
Both are addictive adaptations.

Why this can stabilise — and why that matters

These two strategies fit together disturbingly well.

One person gives up agency to feel safe.
The other exercises agency to feel real.

Each receives limbic reward from the other, not from reality.

This is not love in the first instance.
It is mutual regulation without healing.

And because both systems are being fed, the relationship can stabilise — sometimes for years.

Accountability is never absent

Here is where I part ways with many modern narratives.

Entering this dynamic is not morally innocent.

It is an error of agency — a choice, even if constrained, to accept an addictive bypass rather than pursue healing.

That does not make someone irredeemable.
But it does make them accountable.

Addiction does not remove responsibility.
It explains distortion; it does not erase agency.

Degrees of responsibility

Moral responsibility is not binary.

There is:

  • baseline accountability for what we participate in,
  • and increased accountability as awareness grows.

When the pattern is visible and nameable, responsibility increases.
When healing is possible and refused, failure moves from omission to commission.

Ignorance may mitigate guilt.
Insight increases it.

This is not cruelty.
It is the dignity of moral agency.

Why “narcissism” is especially resistant to insight

What is often labelled narcissism can be understood, in part, as addiction to false agency.

The reason self-reflection is so rare here is not mystery — it is threat.

To reflect would be to admit:

  • agency is contingent,
  • control is compensatory,
  • value is not intrinsic.

That threatens the entire limbic strategy.

False agency also masquerades as virtue:
confidence, leadership, decisiveness.
So there are few internal signals that something is wrong.

That does not excuse the harm.
But it explains why insight so often requires external confrontation.

Society’s role

These dynamics rarely form in isolation.

They are shaped by:

  • families that reward performance over presence,
  • cultures that sentimentalise suffering,
  • therapeutic models that erase responsibility,
  • narratives that divide people into pure victims and pure perpetrators.

That framing helps no one heal.

The hard truth

Both parties are broken.
Both parties are acting.
Both deny themselves — and each other — the possibility of freedom.

Understanding this does not absolve.
It clarifies where responsibility lies.

And responsibility is the beginning of healing, not its enemy.

​

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Validation vs. Valuation

Validation vs. Valuation I recently found myself reflecting on the difference between validation and valuation , and I realised that although the words are often used interchangeably, they point to very different things. Validation, at its simplest and most innocent, is a form of support in the moment. It says: you’re seen , you’re heard , you’re not alone right now . In practical terms, validation is important — we validate work to ensure it’s safe, correct, or fit for purpose. In relationships, it can be reassuring and kind. But validation has a shadow side. When validation becomes something I need in order to feel whole — when my sense of self depends on it — it quietly shifts from support into something corrosive. In its more sinister form, validation can become manipulation, or an inadvertent tapping into a core wound: without your approval, I don’t exist . At that point, validation no longer supports identity — it erodes it. Valuation is something else entirely. Valuation ...
Read more

AMS Guide Part 1 — Charter and Purpose

AMS Guide Part 1 — Charter and Purpose 1. What This Guide Is This document is a companion guide to the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate (AMS) Ontology . Its purpose is to: explain the ontology in plain but accurate language reduce cognitive load for readers encountering the ideas for the first time provide intuition, metaphors, and narrative scaffolding allow readers to grasp what the ontology is doing without needing to adopt its formal vocabulary immediately The guide is not the ontology itself. It does not replace formal definitions or axioms. It exists to make them understandable . 2. Intended Audience Primary Audience Readers with: a genuine interest in science and how the physical world works some familiarity with scientific ideas and language curiosity rather than professional obligation A good mental model is: A regular reader of a BBC science magazine, Scientific American–style articles, or long-form popular science writing. This reader: is not a practi...
Read more

Newton, Einstein, and Gravity Revisited Through the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate

Newton, Einstein, and Gravity Revisited Through the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate I recently watched a video titled “There Is Something Faster Than Light.” The specifics of the argument aren’t the point here. What caught my attention was the familiar framing that followed: Newton versus Einstein, non-local versus local gravity, classical intuition versus modern physics. This framing is common. It’s also misleading. What follows is not a critique of either Newton or Einstein, but an attempt to understand what they were actually observing , why their descriptions differed, and how those observations can be unified under a single, coherent ontology — the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate (AMS) . Newton: Gravity as Non-Local Action Newton’s law of gravitation is often caricatured as “action at a distance,” and historically, Newton himself was uneasy with that implication. From a modern perspective, Newtonian gravity is described as non-local : Two masses influence one another instantly N...
Read more