GaryE wrote in message <35b53eb9.130200...@newshost.cyberramp.net>... >On Tue, 21 Jul 1998 22:56:15 GMT, "Norm D" <no...@rocketmail.come> >Oh, I buy that. Certainly God is in one's perception of things and >certainly God gets credit as that person sees fit to give it. And I >alluded to that in my proposition that RR is a placebo as well. But >placebo's work. Damned if they don't. In anywhere from a few percent >to as much as 15%, as I recall.
As I recall, the 15% placebo effect was from a 1946 study. Studies since suggest that given reinforcing support by someone trusted, the effect can be as high as 85%. In AA the 'support' demonstrated in fellowship and at meetings constantly reinforce the "placebo" effect. Most folks don't consider their experience as a placebo however.
>Now if you lay that statistic down >beside AA and RR, guess what you got? But placebo's take all the fun >out of it. One day, Norm, the mind will be altered but not by booze. >We probably won't see it. But maladies such as this will be >'reprogrammed.' Along with aging genes and a bunch of others. I'm >pissed because I was born too soon.
Currently we have successfully grown neurons onto silicon chips. The possiblities are astonishing.
This whole thread reminds me of a debate between Catholics ans Protestants. They're both trying to get to the same place, but using different methods, and the methods vary only in their semantics.
One of the most helpful concepts I came across in AA meetings was that of "The committee in our head". This is a simple recognition that we have conflicting thoughts about most everything, and carrying out a dialogue with ourselves before making any decision is quite natural, and a completely acceptable thing to do. There is nothing at all "schizophrenic" about weighing the pros and cons of a course of action. For example, most of us are quite human in our having a strong desire for sex. But, in this time of HIV going around, it only makes sense to exercise a little judgement before making a decision. Part of us wants to do it, and part of us steps in and tells us to be cautious. Nothing at all "strange" in this process.
Where the problem arises between the adherants to AA, and the adherents to RR comes in, is that one might look to his od, or "higher power" for guidance, while the other might look to himself and his own better judgement. There isn't anything inherently wrong with either approach, as long as we recognize that once the decision is arrived at, it's up to us to get off our dead butts and do something towards our own recovery. The old saying; "Wish in one hand, and s--t in the other, and see which one gets full the fastest", still holds. If we don't do the steps, or if we don't practice AVRT, no one else is going to come along and do them for us.
It makes no difference at all how we come to the decision not to drink when we feel the urge, the important thing is that we learn to resist it---to take the RIGHT action. Thoughts are just thoughts. They aren't actions until we make them so. ANYTHING that helps us in making the right decision and doing something about it, is completely alright in my book----wave a chicken around , cast voodoo spells, or flip a coin, or make a conscious decision----if it works for you---do it, and don't pay any attention to those who will always be there telling you that you aren't doing it right, because you aren't doing it their way.. . Sincerely; Robt. L. Hobbs
Hi Norm, Thanks for the clarifications. So that it doesn't turn into a debate of semantics, please accept, reject, or supply new definitions of the following terms. Also, if you have the time, please go back and look at the site again with a 'willing suspension of disbelief'. It seems your first impression (from my brief description a few days ago in the 'Martha thread') stuck (?)
Schizophrenic: a person in a psychotic condition characterized by withdrawal from reality, having highly variable affective, behavioral, and intellectual disturbances.
Psychosis: Any severe mental disorder, with or without organic damage, characterized by deterioration of normal intellectual and social functioning and by partial withdrawal from reality.
Division: the state of being divided. the act or process of dividing. a splitting into factions, disunion.
Personality: A person as the embodiment of distinctive traits of mind and behavior. The pattern of collective behavioral, tempremental, emotional, and mental traits of an individual.
Schism: A seperation or division into hostile, opposing groups or factions.
I'm with you Bob, but some folks like the debate. Some folks can't (or won't) believe that because they know they are right that something other than what they know is also 'right'. Or they just can't stand it that their experience is not universal. So, you start a thread that looks kinda 'flame-y' keep reinforcing the similarities a while and eventually a couple people realize they are saying the same thing to each other and are arguing. This makes less sense to them so they stop.
I would have never started the thread except folks on either side of this argument come off (to me) as superior to the other, and I just don't see it. Because I'm in AA, I see a lot of additional benefits, but that doesn't discount someone in RR having similar benefits.
Another reason for starting the thread... it's ridiculous to say AA doesn't work in the universal terms some folks do that here. Just as ridiculous to go to where ever RRs post and say RR doesn't work. The person who claims AA doesn't work needs to explain why there are 1M+ sober in AA, not why there are x folks not sober in AA. Same in reverse. Being an AA member, to say RR doesn't work I would be required to prove the folks sober with that method are not sober using that method. I may be insane, but not that insane.
I used psychosis in the same spirit. Hell if a psychosis helps me recover, who gives a shit what it's called. I know what works and I do it. I suspect anyone not drinking who could not stop drinking before would feel the same about what they are doing.
Norm
r h wrote in message <22928-35B666DA...@newsd-153.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Big Planner wrote in message <6p63g4$9o...@news.cyberhighway.net>...
>Hi Norm, >Thanks for the clarifications. So that it doesn't turn into a debate of >semantics, please accept, reject, or supply new definitions of the following >terms. Also, if you have the time, please go back and look at the site again >with a 'willing suspension of disbelief'. It seems your first impression >(from my brief description a few days ago in the 'Martha thread') stuck (?)
>Schizophrenic: a person in a psychotic condition characterized by >withdrawal from reality, having highly variable affective, behavioral, and >intellectual disturbances.
>Psychosis: Any severe mental disorder, with or without organic damage, >characterized by deterioration of normal intellectual and social functioning >and by partial withdrawal from reality.
>Division: the state of being divided. the act or process of dividing. a >splitting into factions, disunion.
>Personality: A person as the embodiment of distinctive traits of mind and >behavior. The pattern of collective behavioral, tempremental, emotional, and >mental traits of an individual.
>Schism: A seperation or division into hostile, opposing groups or factions.
>Nah, I'll just go off half-cocked like everyone else... >>LOL - I suppose everyone is circumcised eh? <sorry... couldn't resist>
>HAHAHA that was good, I don't blame ya. At least you didn't refer to
Bobbit!
LOL, only because I didn't think of him.
The definitions all look fine... I accept all as provided except MPD should be ____ ____ <grin>. It's all semantics BP. The difference between the two programs, in the fundamentals, is semantics. The approach (terminology) is different in several respects. The issue I take exception to is when I hear that AA isn't this or that, followed by RR is this or that, when that opinion is nonsense. I take less exception when AA does it to RR because I prefer the AA method, but it doesn't make it any less nonsense.
If someone truly believes AA doesn't work... let them prove that the 1M+ folks who claim to be sober in AA are wrong. Same with someone who claims RR doesn't work. Explain to me what the problem is with those folks using RR methods... are they drunk? God haters will tell AAs they are delusional while they play the exact same game in their head the AA who believes in God is playing. It's my opinion those who hold those type opinions are the poorly informed about what goes on up in the ol neck bubble. Same true in reverse. So... it is all semantics and folks are angry at each other because they use different terminology to describe essentially the same effect.
There's no way I can prove God. I'm also rather certain I could examine every alcoholic who ever existed with every piece of scientific equipment imaginable and never find "the addictive voice". Being less diligent in scientific method, I can easily recognize millions of folks have a perception and experience of God, just as easily as I can relate to "addictive voice".
BTW - don't worry about having schizophrenic psychosis. In the context I used it, it's good for you <and me>. Example: Schism: A separation or division into hostile, opposing groups or factions. If your mind is divided into hostile groups "the addictive voice" and the <you name it cacophony of other voices> that is a division into hostile opposing groups or factions. It works doesn't it? So who cares what I call it? <grin>. I think if the negative emotional connotations are dropped from what is read between the lines in these terms you so excellently defined you can see the terminology I chose <I'm a writer, I chose most words for the particular emotional effect I suspect they will produce> is a rather good description of both camps. <self included - grin>.
Are we getting close to agreement?
Another BTW - I believe I understood AVRT clearly. I chose to represent it in a different perspective to illuminate that it CAN be seen differently. This is an echo for people who don't understand AA well and who misrepresent it as it is seen by those who use AA successfully. The whole exercise is to be absurd in response to the absurd with the hope those of us most absurd will recognize it. We have much more in common ground to stand on than the semantics that separate our common purpose.
>Uh Anthony I hate to discourage you but those are the same people that >keep breaking the cup holders on their computers. Or spend hours in >chat rooms rather then doing something worth while? Like? Bathing?
>Me I check the ng during coffee breaks or when I am stressing. Just >about the time I think I have talked to the worlds biggest goober. I >come in here and see, that Nope! I was wrong again! And dont I feel >grateful that I only had to talk to goober, shoot I could have talked >to a real dipstick! Like oh I dont know? Hmm, let me see, could it >be,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,__________________________ ___.
<snip>
I'd recognise that mindset anywhere! You work in tech support! :-)
it is in the give-away that we find our proper place in the scheme of things, and recieve substanance. It is in the give-away that we lower self-imposed barriers, which would stay the vita, dynamic flow of love, and keep us in our pain. It is in the give-away that we transcend our physical limitations the delusion of our seperatness, and experience the oness, the essential connectness to all living things. Wolf- with loving eyes.....
On Wed, 22 Jul 1998 17:54:42 GMT, thatf...@catfish.nildram.co.uk
(Anthony) wrote:
<snip>
>It was actually a serious point. Latest US Bureau of the Census >figures put their best estimate of world population at 5,931,143,067. >If we assume that, say, only 2% of them are alcoholic, that means >there are currently in the region of 118,622,861 alcoholics walking >around.
>So, statistically, the chances of one of those attempting to get sober >by waving a rubber chicken in the air are quite good. Since anyone >crazy enough to wave a rubber chicken in the air in the hope of >attaining permanent sobriety is almost certainly also crazy enough to >be a prime candidate for Usenet news, they're bound to show up here, >sooner or later :-)
It didn't take long, did it!
This morning I was contacted by a USA group, Chicken Wavers For Sobriety; they guard their anonymity even more closely than we do and do not currently post to Usenet news. They did, however, send the following proof...
GaryE wrote in message <35b722f5.82025...@newshost.cyberramp.net>... >On Thu, 23 Jul 1998 02:58:53 GMT, "Norm D" <no...@rocketmail.come> >wrote:
>>>>The definitions all look fine... I accept all as provided except MPD should >>>>be ____ ____ <grin>. It's all semantics BP. The difference between the >>>>two programs, in the fundamentals, is semantics. The approach (terminology) >>>>is different in several respects. The issue I take exception to is when I >>>>hear that AA isn't this or that, followed by RR is this or that, when that >>>>opinion is nonsense. I take less exception when AA does it to RR because I >>>>prefer the AA method, but it doesn't make it any less nonsense.
>Norm, I see that you have a nice skill for (stretching) logic. While >it may be logical to place AA and RR as fundamental equivalents, my >mind tells me that its just "semantics". I think a 'believer' will >tell you that God and AVRT are not fundamentally equivalent except in >the most abstract way. Maybe some would object to that. Suppose?
I certainly hope that if someone holds strong beliefs in something they will stand for them and if they don't like my view they will object or at least present a an argument with the intent of changing my mind.
>It even smacks of the old apologist's argument that theists make in >saying that their belief in a God is no different than an atheists >"belief" (semantics here) in no God. One cannot be 'right or wrong' >then because somehow they share some imaginary, ex nihilio proposition >that they start in the same place. In fact, some will say, that >atheism is a religion. Do you think the courts will recognize atheism >as a religion because some theists now claim it is?
There are logical reasons they might, political reasons they might not. Don't you think it will depend on who is on the court?
Crosspost alt.atheism and alt.religion if you want to see equally fanatic and oposing beliefs in action. But if you step away from it, just a bit, you'll see the exact same ardent defense of personal beliefs. It will demonstrate nothing about religion, God, or athieism, but it will demonstrate that what someone believes is true for them. I haven't examined the semantics of that debate, but in AA and RR there is common ground where semantics creates a schism that once understood, at least in AA principles (concern for the alcoholic who still suffers), requires acceptance and good will towards RR.
On a personal note, I prefer AA methods (God, terminology, semantics, etc.). It's what worked for me, I already perceived personal experiences as personal religious miracles and within that perception already held the belief that God, regardless of how I percieved it/him/her was able to provide the power I needed. My beliefs made the difference for me. I suspect the same is true the first time someone in RR recognizes the addictive voice and discovers they do not "have to" respond to it.
>Have you ever read the Russian constitution?
Only parts of it.
>It is very similar to >ours. In fact, it grants citizens even the constitutional right to >work, to have a job making it 'better' than ours. It has a separation >of powers. Judicial review. And as far as I know, the Constitution >is/was actually used, not ignored. One could put asides the semantics >of Communism and Democracy and say that fundamentally those forms of >government are the same. Had that been the case, history would have >certainly been different and the gazillions of dollars spent to build >weapons might have been used to build schools and create the world's >finest school system and the world's finest products of that finest >school system. Or really provided security for people who leave the >work force. But it didn't happen.
I may be mistaken, but I think you are comparing apples and oranges. The more accurate comparision is communism vs capitolism. Both claim to be democracies, while both are quite socialist.
>The God deal divides, Norm. I wouldn't reduce everything to that but >I would say that it somehow creates more than a semantic difference. >Not only does it divide, it does so in epic proportions. World view. >Christianity has a world view that truly separates it from atheism is >significant ways. But Christians and atheists may have similar >humanitarian concerns. And Christians, I believe would be not take to >the idea that those humanitarian concerns make their beliefs >irrelevant because they share similar processes of though or human >concern. Me believes you are stretching the exercise of logic far >beyond its meaningful pale so that you may logically dismiss the real >differences.
If I had chosen to discover and illuminate the differences I would have been foolish as I didn't do enough research on RR to discover those differences. I chose to identify similarities to find common ground and there-by eliminate some of the apparent hostility between factions. Because of the nature of the similarities it required some stretch in areas that go beyond anyone's ability to provide "proof". In the course of that stretch I treated religious beliefs as a mind exercise which is NOT how 'believers' perceive their experience. I also used the same technic in the treatment of RR's 'beliefs' by showing that what they do is psychosis. In the strictest terms both could be percieved that way, yet neither are. Both apparently work using similar mental (spiritual) activities that cause a psychic change. This IS common ground. I didn't dismiss differences, I highlighted similarities in a manner conducive to disagreement where the conclusion from both sides would hopefully discover that both methods produce a psychic change and have similar ground to work together on.
>Personally, I like competing ideas. I used to didn't like to be >challenged in what I thought and rightfully so. I took those things >personally. Atheism was not a different idea about God that some >other people had, it was a direct and personal statement that said I >was 'wrong.' What gall. Moi? Wrong? I'll show you. You see, when >people challenged what I held to be true, they obviously didn't >understand who the hell I was. Norm, that was a hell of a frame of >mind that caused me untold problems. I needed to elevate my thinking, >according to the advice in the BB to a higher plane. I needed to get >out of this 'personal' stuff. You see the debate is not about ideas >but about people's beliefs and that is not a matter of semantics.
You might be surprised to discover beliefs are often semantics. There is an intimate relationship between the two. What someone believes... is true for the believer. If someone believes essentially the same thing, but expresses it significantly different so it appears to be different, certainly they become competing "ideas". Like you, I've read extensively in the 'self-help' field. There is little significant difference between all the various "methods" except semantics. The more popular books present the information in ways that are easily understood by the widest audience, but that doesn't change the same method presented in an obscure and difficult to relate to presentation that a smaller audience understands better for whatever social, cultural, or educational reason. This I argue is the case with AA and RR. Psychic change of the individual created by beliefs based on different semantics around the same phenomonon.
>In Russia, the difference was seemingly small. One political party >versus many. Competing ideas versus a party line. AVRT, as a >technique may be replaced by something different in time, as it >replaced the original approach. The God idea will be replaced?
Not likely.
>(Understanding that the euphimism, HP, is with exceptions, the God >idea). People would tell you that would gut AA. I agree in the >notion that the 'better or worse', 'right or wrong' may not be >productive or conducive to 'good relationships.' It happens. You can >minimize the differences if you like, but there is some real substance >there that you may have missed. Methinks, of course.
Understanding differences is useful in making choices. Understanding similarities builds tolerance of apparent differences and reduces conflict.
I probably missed quite a bit actually and those things are certainly worthy of debate.
>Anthony wrote in message <35b44e43.321516...@goodnews.nildram.co.uk>... >>On Tue, 21 Jul 1998 02:46:48 GMT, "Norm D" <no...@rocketmail.come> >>wrote:
>>>Not knowing what RR is, and granting it a brief read before starting to >form >>>opinions, I am now wondering...
>><snip>
>>It actually takes a core tenet of fundamentalist Christianity and >>presents that as non-religious. Ironic, huh?
>>Anthony
>I love irony <grin>. I was thinking Rig Veda 1.164.20 rather than >Christianity, but I'm sure if I thought about it, I'd recall Bible verse >along the same lines.
>Maybe I'll think about the 'cult' thing next, seems some irony might be >there too.
>Norm
>Hey guys!
Re your thoughts on RR, having spent most of a day reading the "small book" I came to the conclusion that the RR program_despite all claims to the contrary_ is very similair in many aspects to ours, their "beast" is our "ego" etc. They just do it without God. Rationalism and Randian Objectivism _which seem to be the basic philosphies behind RR_find belief in something outside self irrational.
I was however very surprised to find how respectful and non judgemental the author of the "small book" was toward AA. He conceeds that there is a very basic difference in philosphy but the aim is the same.
My feeling is that we ought to "live and let live" . RR may help people we cannot. Anna who is yodalady and has been going to REAL MTGS a lot lately.
Big Planner wrote in message <6p8pb4$r0...@news.cyberhighway.net>... >Okay, I think I get it. I'd have to agree that it was absurd. I was also >sucked right in, I've seen some truely bizzare posts in the alt.recovery ngs >and I thought you were serious. Quite an excersise Norm, quite a strange >little trip we took. Now I just have to try to figure out when you're using >your creative liscense and when you're tellin it like it is :)
>Regards, and I'll see you in the next great experiment!
>BP
The wonderful thing about 'creative license' is the writer can stand where ever they please and look at something. From where they stand, what they see is true. Change point of view and maybe it is not so true. From the points I presented arguments, they were true. I don't see addictive voice as sincerely schizophrenic psychosis, but it can be seen that way... An ardent atheist could easily argue convincingly that the 'god concept produces the same psychosis. That would be true from that point of view, yet I wouldn't believe it. It's a psychotic existence, but it pays the bills. Maybe I should go to law school... <grin>.
I'll give you a clue when I'm using creative license. If it's controversial I either need to work something out and am trying the best I know how, or I know there's a problem and I think discussing it will help resolve some differences. I've adopted, love and tolerance is our code... from AA. If I seem outside that code I'm having a problem or am trying to get someone I care about to see the same problem I'm seeing. 95% of the time if it is a thread I started.... It's me with the problem. <grin>. Thanks for your input, you were gracious, and tolerant, and I learned quite a bit from you. I hope the experience was as rewarding to you.
>Norm D wrote in message ... >>Hey guys! >Re your thoughts on RR, having spent most of a day reading the "small book" >I came to the conclusion that the RR program_despite all claims to the >contrary_ is very similair in many aspects to ours, their "beast" is our >"ego" etc. They just do it without God. Rationalism and Randian >Objectivism _which seem to be the basic philosphies behind RR_find belief in >something outside self irrational.
>I was however very surprised to find how respectful and non judgemental the >author of the "small book" was toward AA. He conceeds that there is a very >basic difference in philosphy but the aim is the same.
>My feeling is that we ought to "live and let live" . RR may help people we >cannot. >Anna who is yodalady and has been going to REAL MTGS a lot lately.
Hi Yoda Lady: You said it so much better than I. Thank you.
>Big Planner wrote in message <6p8pb4$r0...@news.cyberhighway.net>...
>>Okay, I think I get it. I'd have to agree that it was absurd. I was also >>sucked right in, I've seen some truely bizzare posts in the alt.recovery >ngs >>and I thought you were serious. Quite an excersise Norm, quite a strange >>little trip we took. Now I just have to try to figure out when you're using >>your creative liscense and when you're tellin it like it is :)
>>Regards, and I'll see you in the next great experiment!
>>BP
>The wonderful thing about 'creative license' is the writer can stand where >ever they please and look at something. From where they stand, what they >see is true. Change point of view and maybe it is not so true. From the >points I presented arguments, they were true. I don't see addictive voice >as sincerely schizophrenic psychosis, but it can be seen that way... An >ardent atheist could easily argue convincingly that the 'god concept >produces the same psychosis. That would be true from that point of view, >yet I wouldn't believe it. It's a psychotic existence, but it pays the >bills. Maybe I should go to law school... <grin>.
Norm,
This is a pretty radical version of total relativism in epistemology, that is, the theory of how we acquire knowledge, or move closer to "the truth" (truth: understood as the closer and closer correspondence between what we think about the world, and the way the world really is).
The way I read what you wrote, you seem to be arguing that anything that anyone believes is "true," at least for them. This is pure relativistic subjectivism.
"Truth," (or, as I generally more modestly prefer, "relatively approximate truth") however, is generally understood to have an objective status, an independent, inter-subjective, collective, public status, shared by many people (provided they conform to the same rules of evidence and logic). We rely on this fact for language, communication, science, technology, and all major social relations.
Some one may believe that "two plus two equals five." But they would be wrong. It would not be the "truth," even for them. It would be a mistake, an error, a misapprehension, or perhaps even an illusion or delusion. Only if you unwarrantedly and torturously stretch the meaning of the word "truth" way beyond any reasonable bounds, can you encompass "2+2=5" under the rubric of "truth."
When used in straight philosophical discussions about meaningful propositions, these kinds of hyper-elastic stretchings and elisions of the meanings of words are usually a violation of the ethics of language, perhaps just for trivial partisan or argumentative reasons. (Of course, this comment excludes artistic stuff like James Joyce's word-crunching antics in creating poetry or literature).
What someone believes to be true is not necessarily true. It is, until further demonstration, just a belief. To achieve the dignity and status of (relative) truth, it must be reproducible by any other skilled and reasonable investigator, experimentally consistent, controlled for variables, and correspond to actual reality.
What your post above seems to describe is not numerous "truths," but merely numerous beliefs or opinions or guesses.
All of which are subject to the objective rules of proof before they can even get close to being considered "truths."
Unless, of course, you are not using the word in its normal epistemological sense, but rather in some vague, poetic, metaphorical sense. But, if that is the case, in all fairness, it should be openly couched that way.
Hi Joe: Wouldn't want to argue any of your precise points as I agree to a large extent. My point about truth still stands. If you believe something is true, regardless of the accuracy relative to reality, that belief is true for YOU until it is revised. I did not believe I could get sober. I went to AA. Folks in AA believed I could get sober. I changed my truth in light of the new information. I believed I could get sober. I did what they did. It worked... closer to reality. As for stretching... helps the circulation <grin>. Your mileage may vary.
> >Not knowing what RR is, and granting it a brief read before starting to form > >opinions, I am now wondering...
Yes I admire Norm for making an effort tojwards an open minded appraisal of RR. I couldn't do it because I have been prejudiced by the ignorance and malice of the RR people who post here.
> <snip>
> I'm actually getting fed up with threads about "rational" recovery. > Let's try a thread about Irrational Recovery. Did anyone get sober by > waving a rubber chicken in the air? Who wants to start?
> Anthony
AA arose out of the opinion of some at the time that for the alcoholic to recover a whole "psychic change" was necessary. The steps were developed as a means to achieve that entire psychic change. I don't see how it is possible that a rational mind could decide that it needs an entire psychic change. The rational mind would not admit there is a psyche (greek: soul). But if the soul is a subset of the mind, then a rational mind would see no reason to change itself.
If all this is true it means that AA is completely irrational. But I live with that happily, as I don't accept there has to be a rational explanation for everything.
In article <35b9659...@nntp.ecn.net.au>, Wozza <wozza@&nospam%ecn.net.au> wrote: > If all this is true it means that AA is completely irrational. But I > live with that happily, as I don't accept there has to be a rational > explanation for everything.
> -- > Kind Regards > Wozza
Personallities come and go, eh Wozza? No personallity will harm AA.
Wozza wrote in message <35b9659...@nntp.ecn.net.au>... >Anthony wrote: >Yes I admire Norm for making an effort tojwards an open minded appraisal >of RR. I couldn't do it because I have been prejudiced by the ignorance >and malice of the RR people who post here.
Being rather ardent about AA and educated beyond any meaningful purpose I wanted to try to see RR as 'comparible'. I usually don't stop there. I'm in the process of trying it with other things equally "addictive voice" that annoy me about myself.
Report: On the first attempt using RR AVRT, I failed miserably <not drinking related>. This doesn't mean I am "giving up" the method. I will continue to try to use these principle on a clearly identified "addictive voice" of mine. I suspect AVRT folks will say, I didn't fail, I simply selected to indulge in my hunger or pleasure, which is true. But it is semantics. I wanted to avoid the behavior, identified the 'hunger' and the voice which simply overwhelmed me, despite my oposing desires to not participate in the behavior. The next time this issue comes up, I will employ the AVRT methods again. <thank God it's nothing urgently life threatening>. I will continue to "practice AVRT" until it becomes clear to me, I need to address it another way.
BTW - this is also how I approached AA. I tried it. I failed a couple times with it too. I know it works when I do what I'm suppose to do. Being new at the RR technics I suspect there are things I don't know. Unfortunately, I've never heard of RR outside the net, and certainly don't have someone f2f to help me understand it.
>AA arose out of the opinion of some at the time that for the alcoholic >to recover a whole "psychic change" was necessary. >The steps were developed as a means to achieve that entire psychic >change. >I don't see how it is possible that a rational mind could decide that it >needs an entire psychic change. >The rational mind would not admit there is a psyche (greek: soul). >But if the soul is a subset of the mind, then a rational mind would see >no reason to change itself.
>If all this is true it means that AA is completely irrational. But I >live with that happily, as I don't accept there has to be a rational >explanation for everything.
>-- >Kind Regards >Wozza
>"One who loved not wisely yet too well"
I like what you've pointed out about rational... In AA we look at the facts, see they are either "untrue" or simply don't work, then try the irrational - which works for many. I'm happy it does, considering the alternative. As for how RR resolves the psyche thing, I'm still confused. From what I've been able to determine, it appears they do the same thing folks in AA do. They ignore the irrational and take what they can use. For those who need an explanation for everything, they get their semantic gymnastics into high gear and play connect the dots.
Hey Norm; Assuming you weren't putting us on by describing your brief foray into "trying on" your Addictive voice", I'll try to respond to your lack of success.
AVRT isn't something that just falls into place right off the bat. LOL It takes a little practice, and a hell of a lot of soul-searching.
Probably any of us would recognize our AV if it came at us head-on like; "Damn, it's hot. A cold one would go so good right now".The AV is much more subtle than that. For instance, if I have a thought: "Gee, I wonder how my ex-wife is doing now ?" Sounds like a pretty harmless thought, doesn't it ? But, after practicing AVRT for awhile, I learned that this innocuous though would lead to something like; "Why did I screw that up---wish I had her back." This would lead into deeper things, and before I knew it I'd be feeling so bad that I'd get into;"what's the use?', and I'd be off and drinking again. The AV exists in many thought processes,and learning these takes a little time.
Sure, one can read all it takes to begin the process of AVRT in just 30 minutes, but then the work has only begun. I've been working it for better than 8 years now, and I'm still learning. This is much like "cleaning up the character defects" that AAers do---an on-going process tthat will probably never end.
Most who really practice AVRT, and are pretty in touch with their thoughts and feelings will come to the point of having a reasonable expectation that they can stay sober in about a month, though this can vary widely. Until they reach this point,it't would be premature to expect them to get into the next phase, which is setting up their own plan for full recovery.
I have known people that read just one RR book and turned their whole life around, but I could probably count thase on one hand. For most of us, it takes a lot more conscious effort.
I started this letter with "LOL", because I immediatly thought of the poster that said he got AVRT and sobriety in 30 minutes. I have no doubt that he did, but this is so untypical that I had to laugh at the thought that others would think this was that easy. It ain't. It took us years to get into the pattern of compulsive drinking, and we ain't gonna snap our fingers and be all well again.
Us RRers sometimes make it sound a lot easier than it really is, probably because we forget how we struggled in the beginning. After a year, it gets very easy, almost automatic, and I guess that's the way we tend to come across, but the reality is that we put a lot of work into it, before it got easy. Sincerely; Bob
> I. I am > responsible for my behavior, drunk or sober. It was not "it" that made me > do anything. This is childish misdirection of responsibility to an > imaginary 'character'. This is rational as it puts the blame directly where > it belongs.
Norm, When I was drunk, I was not responsible for my actions. However, I was accountable!!!! There is a big difference.
>It's possible with multiple personalities that one "character" > can be diabetic, while the other "character" is not.
Norm, being a diabetic is not a personality character. It is a physical condition.
> Since "God" cannot be proven by any scientific means that would satisfy an > atheist, lets assume He is a creation of an additional personality "outside" > the individual, or is "magic" that folks foolishly believe in. This idea > (contain within AA principles) still keeps the fundamental personality > within a person's perception of themselves as whole and demands > reconciliation and incorporation of the whole personality. Recovery.
> Let the debate begin...
Norm, suppose the magic was the Devil, do you think the devil as a higher power would work? The higher power has got to be something good or better than what the person originally believed to even start the process of recovery. Recovery in AA is stated as recovery from a seemingly hopeless state of mind. There is so much more to this higher power thing, and it can only happen over time to get better. Its black and white to me. Do you want a full spiritual life that is not void or empty or do you want to die a dry drunk, limited by the four walls of your own mind. AA offers a choice. anywho, this is how I see it. Norm, have you ever been some place up high and looked down? Like the empire state building....did you notice how small the people look? God says, who is man that I should be mindful of him? Good question, huh? If you play, you pay. There is nothing that goes over the devils back that doesn't buckle under his belly. Oh yeah. MY arms are too short to box with God, how long are yours?
>Norm, suppose the magic was the Devil, do you think the devil as a higher >power would work? The higher power has got to be something good or better >than what the person originally believed to even start the process of >recovery.
I want to pick a nit here, Nancy. (I take it you are the real Nancy and not your evil alter ego.)
I think in most cases recovery can start as soon as the alcoholic comes to believe there is *something* outside himself that is greater than himself. During the process of recovery his conception of the higher power can (and almost certainly will) change drastically.
I started this letter with "LOL", because I immediatly thought of the poster that said he got AVRT and sobriety in 30 minutes. I have no doubt that he did, but this is so untypical that I had to laugh at the thought that others would think this was that easy. It ain't. It took us years to get into the pattern of compulsive drinking, and we ain't gonna snap our fingers and be all well again. +++++++++++++++++++==
Hi, I'm probably that poster. Gee, I *expected* it to be typical so.........
That 30 or so minutes was amazing. I went through grief, fear, insecurity, determination, belief, exhaltation, liberation (not nec. in that order)
The result wasn't necessarily that I was 'cured for life', but that an 'AVRT experience' occured and I realized that I had the ability and responsibilty to choose whether or not to use again, and that I had the tools to recognize my addiction for what it was. ergo, the recovery event took place, I am recovered.
Perhaps the 'novelty' will wear off and I'll use again? Prepared for that too. Just got my RR cure book yesterday and will greedily consume it again and again and short of voodoo I'll probably do whatever excersises it suggests. That starts to wane? I'll go to a center. I don't anticipate any of that. I'm very busy figuring out how to live like a normal person who simply doesn't drink or do drugs, and doing quite well, thank you. Maybe I'm the exception but immediate and lasting recovery was what I expected, and I do believe that's what I got.
Regards, BP ++++++++++++++++++++
Us RRers sometimes make it sound a lot easier than it really is, probably because we forget how we struggled in the beginning. After a year, it gets very easy, almost automatic, and I guess that's the way we tend to come across, but the reality is that we put a lot of work into it, before it got easy. Sincerely; Bob
I honestly don't remember who said that, so I wasn't trying to pull any shady stuff. I know what you mean, "AVRT experience" ! I had a similar experience, and it was pretty awesome. I was trying to kill myself with booze because I was sick of seeing my life go down the alcoholic drain. 15 days into it, I hit on a water-glass of vodka, and as the warmth began to spread, I had the damndest thought;"Hey, I don't have to kill myself to get rid of that alcoholic ---all I have to do is kill HIM ! Whoa ! Friggin' bells went off, and things began to click in my head ! I got up, got dressed, and hauled my butt down to de-tox, and had my little withdrawal seizure, got that out of the way, ad then started going to RR meetings and really got into that AVRT stuff, and it has been easy as pie ever since. That ol' AV hides under many disguises, and I think I've just about discovered them all. Yessir, it has been a real voyage of discovery for me. I think that what we both went through is what the BB says about "Finding untapped inner resources", in appendix 2. Learning that I did have the capability to actually overcome my urges was really enlightening, and empowering.
On Fri, 24 Jul 1998 15:10:59 +1000, Wozza <wozza@&nospam%ecn.net.au> wrote:
>Anthony wrote: <snip>
>> I'm actually getting fed up with threads about "rational" recovery. >> Let's try a thread about Irrational Recovery. Did anyone get sober by >> waving a rubber chicken in the air? Who wants to start?
>> Anthony
>AA arose out of the opinion of some at the time that for the alcoholic >to recover a whole "psychic change" was necessary.
AA arose out of a lot of things. If you read the literature and some AA history, it arose more out of experimentation than anything else, and a degree of lucky coincidence.
>The steps were developed as a means to achieve that entire psychic >change.
Wrong. God is the only means possible to achieve that psychic change, the steps are just one route to him, no matter how fervently certain AA's might believe otherwise. Or, are you so blinkered as to believe that Mother Theresa couldn't possibly have had any genuine religious experience because she didn't undertake a formal working of AA's twelve steps? There are AA's that fall into that sort of mindset, you know. They're generally the same sort of people who fall for that Christian "there's no route to the father except through me" twaddle.
>I don't see how it is possible that a rational mind could decide that it >needs an entire psychic change.
You clearly haven't known many rational people then.
>The rational mind would not admit there is a psyche (greek: soul).
I know several aetheistic, rational people, recovering in AA. Two at my home group, one with 8 years and one with double digit (20 years plus) sobriety. They admit the existence of the subconscious mind, and admit the need for an entire reshaping and retraining of it. This works for them and both of them have excellent, solid, quality sobriety.
>But if the soul is a subset of the mind, then a rational mind would see >no reason to change itself.
Untrue, but this may be your prejudice. See above.
>If all this is true it means that AA is completely irrational. But I >live with that happily, as I don't accept there has to be a rational >explanation for everything.
God got, kept and keeps me sober. However, God is aware that he is inaccessible to a number of people, for a variety of reasons and as a result of a variety of experiences. To those, he presents himself in other ways.
|
