![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 38 to 62 of 80. Go back in thread:
Posted by mama141 on November 8, 2005, at 15:53:53
In reply to Re: Very debatable » mama141, posted by SLS on November 8, 2005, at 11:09:46
I understand and respect your thoughts on individuality and differences. My concern in all of this is just how much of our ability to choose or implied loss of that ability, has been culturally imposed? ie: "I have a "disease" therefore I cant help the way I am" -- is the one end of the spectrum. How about what we pass on to our children? Or what our culture teaches them as far as self-control and personal responsibility?
Thank you for your kudos for my "self dicipline, but for me it goes WAY beyond that and that discussion really belongs on the faith board.> > When I drank I chose to drink. While I did not completely choose to be depressed, I believe that my ability to choose how I handled/reacted to that state,(depression) remained intact and therefore my responsibility.
>
> I have an enormous amount respect for you and the self-discipline it must take to remain clean. You have chosen a route of responsibility and empowerment. Not everyone has been blessed with such self-directed vigilence.
>
> One thing that I think has so far escaped our attention is the realization and acceptance that not everyone's addiction is like our own. Just as there is a spectrum of different kinds of depression, so there is for addiction. I think it is a mistake to generalize our own addiction to all others. I think we must respect peoples' failures as much as we respect peoples' successes. We just don't know the nature and extent of anyone else's hells but our own.
>
> A friend of mine, as much as I have seen him try his best over the last month, has "failed" again at abstinence from heroin. His success has been the honesty and forthrightness with which he has communicated with his significant others his addiction. He has placed himself on waiting lists for rehab, but has not yet been placed. Timing is everything. It was his choice to seek help on his own. It was not his choice to be denied immediate attention. He used. His enormous cravings, both biological and psychological, were more than he was able to manage and cope with. It is not his choice to have such cravings. His behavior to pick up and use again occurs as a direct result of unwanted drives. As he acquires more tools to work with to maintain his sobriety, I can only hope that it continues to be his choice to use them.
>
> I am not him. Neither are you. Neither is anyone else on Psycho-Babble. His addiction is unique. I am not inclined to judge the extent of his "free will" to choose by comparing my ease at maintaining sobriety to his.
>
>
> - Scott
>
>
>
Posted by SLS on November 8, 2005, at 19:57:26
In reply to Re: Very debatable » SLS, posted by mama141 on November 8, 2005, at 15:53:53
> I understand and respect your thoughts on individuality and differences. My concern in all of this is just how much of our ability to choose or implied loss of that ability, has been culturally imposed? ie: "I have a "disease" therefore I cant help the way I am"
I often hear "Now that I know that I have a disease, I can help the way I am."
I am unprepared to label sweepingly alcoholism or addiction as being diseases. However, they are what they are. We can understand and treat them without the label of disease as long as we have an accurate description.
> -- is the one end of the spectrum.
Exactly. There is quite a bit of interindividual variability in the proportion of biological versus psychological (if one can make such a distinction) components along that spectrum.
> How about what we pass on to our children?
Yes. Codependency is a learned behavior. The addict and the enabler are roles within a dysfunctional family unit that is often repeated through generations.
> Or what our culture teaches them as far as self-control and personal responsibility?
This is where I think it is important to understand the dynamics of addiction and to recognize that they are not the same for everyone. It might be the place of culture to teach self-control and personal responsibility within the context of that culture, but it cannot fashion the nature of addiction in its own idealized image. It is what it is.
What is disease?
Is addiction a disease?
Do people have a responsibility to participate in their own recovery from disease? When an addict relapses, is it at that moment that they no longer participate in their own recovery?
- Scott
Posted by AuntieMel on November 9, 2005, at 9:26:33
In reply to Re: Very debatable » SLS, posted by mama141 on November 8, 2005, at 15:53:53
I've got to disagree with a few points that have to do with the 'powerless' parts. I truly do believe that an addict needs to face that they are powerless - and that they need help. Or at least that it increases the odds of success.
I am one of the most stubborn people on the earth, and my hubby always used to tell me that if I really wanted to quit nothing would stop me. But it didn't happen until I got some help and *broke* the dependence on myself. I had a great support system at home, but I could never admit that I couldn't do it on my own.
"I have a "disease" therefore I cant help the way I am"
or another way - "I have a disease and I need to seek treatment for it"
I think that admitting powerlessness and considering it a disease actually *gives* us power - the power to ask others to help us - the power not to hate ourselves for our 'weakness' - the ability not to see what we are doing as a character flaw.
And it gives us a chance to teach our children empathy and that even their parents - as much as we love them - are human with human flaws. I think it can be used to show them that they should be wary of falling into the same trap.
I think admitting that you have a disease can show our children another aspect of personal responsibility - admitting that our behavior was self destructive and that it is important to set things right (make amends.)
"for me it goes WAY beyond that and that discussion really belongs on the faith board."
Isn't that another way of saying you got help??
Does the help need to be AA? I don't think so - I got a lot more help from the IOP I went to than AA. BUT - I also went to AA while I was in IOP and for a good while afterwards. Does it have all the answers? It didn't for me. But it does teach one thing that I believe helps the newly sober: Quit thinking and just do it. There is one AA slogan that a newly sober person needs to take to heart - "my best thinking got me here" - and I think that is why following the steps works for so many, that it's a way of getting them to quit thinking.
Because addicts are amazing thinkers. We have to be in order to maintain our addictions and survive. One of my IOP counselors always said that the recovered addicts are the next CEOs of the world because we are so clever.
Posted by SLS on November 10, 2005, at 9:24:17
In reply to Re: powerlessness » mama141, posted by AuntieMel on November 9, 2005, at 9:26:33
Hi.
> I truly do believe that an addict needs to face that they are powerless - and that they need help. Or at least that it increases the odds of success.
I agree. For some people, the resolution of their addictive behavior only becomes possible once they assume a posture of powerlessness over it. This is not necessary for all addicts, but for many, this admission of powerlessness is the most powerful choice they can make to defeat the addiction. Likewise, the disease model of addiction enhances some people's chances of regaining control over something that they are otherwise powerless to manage on their own. It works. 12-step programs work. Non 12-step also programs work. As diverse as is human personality and the composition of each addiction, so, too, is the diversity of treatments necessary to care for so many unique individuals.
For some, admitting powerlessness over addiction might begin by admitting to the inability to exercise control over it in the moment. Momentary powerlessness does not necessarily indicate perpetual impotency. However, as powerless moments accumulate despite the desire to break the addiction, there begins to develop a trend. The trend is simply that the addict has not yet found a way to exercise control over the addiction independently. Some people define themselves by their independence and self-reliance. This often seems juxtaposed to a recognition of powerlessness. However, we are not omnipotent. It is the refusal to admit this that often gets in the way of change. Indeed, it is through the admission of one's history of perpetual failure that momentary powerlessness can be transformed into perpetual empowerment and the possibility of success. It is a powerful individual whom uses his independence to ask for help.
It took you only two sentences to say what I needed two paragraphs to express. That leaves you being the brilliant one.
:-)
- Scott
Posted by AuntieMel on November 10, 2005, at 11:49:25
In reply to Re: powerlessness » AuntieMel, posted by SLS on November 10, 2005, at 9:24:17
Not so brilliant. It only took two sentances, but it took a whole lot of years before I could say it.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 14, 2005, at 12:00:53
In reply to Re: This was a rhetorical question everyone » alexandra_k, posted by mama141 on November 7, 2005, at 8:53:29
> We spent one term at university in Dunedin -- it was a great time, wonderful folks and terrific food. (I seem to remember being a bit chilly some of the time however.)
I haven't been down south since I was a little kid. Yeah, I've heard it gets pretty cold down there.
> We've not really spent much time on the North Island yet.
:-)
THats where I'm from. Its warmer the further up you go...> Our oldest son has worked with Native Americans (he's a doc) and he says he has little doubt that there is a "genetic predisposition" of some type, but he says just what you did. He refers to it as "cultural depression".
Yeah. The nature / nurture debate has been settled. I'm not sure how many people know this... But the debate really has been settled once and for all. And the answer it BOTH. And there it is. If you try and argue that it all comes down to nature it is just too easy to find counter-examples, and if you try and argue that it all comes down to nurture it is just too easy to find counter-examples.
The difficulty... Lies in detailing just what the inherited as opposed to environmental componant is... But then... That is probably fairly idiosyncratic across individuals...
Posted by alexandra_k on November 14, 2005, at 12:29:09
In reply to Re: This was a rhetorical question everyone » alexandra_k, posted by SLS on November 7, 2005, at 8:58:13
> More and more evidence is accumulating that genetics represent a contributory factor in the expression of alcoholism.
I never denied that. Thats what I meant when I said that there was indeed a heritability componant with respect to addictive behaviours. (I'd prefer to stick with 'drinking behaviours' or 'addictive behaviours' terminology because that leaves the CAUSE of the behaviour (ie the relative contributions of nature / nurture open to debate rather than building in the ASSUMPTION that nature is the most significant component).
>I have never stated or inferred that genes were the sole determinant in the evolution of alcoholism in any given individual or sociological group.
Right. That is just as well because if you were to claim that then that would be false. I mean... Surely there has to be the environmental componant of the substance being AVAILABLE in the persons environment at the very least ;-)
>... twin studies have shown that alcoholism is heritable.
Twin studies have shown that addictive behaviour HAS A HERITABLE COMPONANT. There is a difference. It might sound picky but it is the difference between having the heritable componant thus HAVING to display the addictive behaviour, versus having the heritable componant thus BEING MORE LIKELY to display the addictive behaviour. If you are the person with that heritable componant... That is a very big difference indeed...
> Native Americans also have a genetic predisposition towards diabetes. On average, Native Americans are more than twice as likely to have diabetes as non-Hispanic whites of similar age. One tribe in Arizona has the highest rate of diabetes in the world. About 50% of these adults between the ages of 30 and 64 have diabetes.Right then. Do you want to talk about the contribution of the environment there too? Tell me about their diet and their exercise... Once again... Heritable componant...
> Any focus on the predisposition of one population over another towards disease is important to identify. It serves to understand and treat disease; prevention being the goal. I could identify such conditions for populations all over the world. Why is bipolar disorder so prevalent in Amish populations? Diseases are not racist. Only people are.
My issue is that the main focus on differences between different ethnic / racial / cultural groups seems to be to focus on biological differences. One fairly good example of this is intelligence. The bell curve. That was a study on how intelligence seemed to be heritable. It ended up 'ranking' the 'inherited intelligence' for different ethnic groups. There is nothing wrong with such a study. The danger comes in focusing on biology so much that environmental factors aren't investigated or aren't emphasised, or are simply passed over.
The data in itself isn't racist. You are right about that. The difficulty comes when we appreciate that people interpret the data and people discuss the significance of their findings. The bell curve... Was used as justification for providing less education to african-american kids. They were thought to be innately less intelligent than white kids. The bell curve study showed that to be so... Or so it was thought. That is just one example of the dangers that come from the over-focus on biology to the point where environmental factors are passed over. I do believe... It took some guy from Wellington (New Zealand) to dispense with the bell curve conclusions...
;-)The utility of focusing more on biology than providing a more balanced treatment of the contribution of various kinds of environmental factors may actually turn out to be something that hinders our understanding and ability to understand and treat various things. What good does it do me to know that I have inherited a disposition (because there is a heritable COMPONANT it is not determined exclusively by biology)? That is something that is outside my power to change. I can't change my biology. I can however... Change my behaviour. And my environment can be changed. Other people can help me with that. And I can take things into my own hands too. I mean... If you want to stop drinking too much a good first step would probably be to rearrange your environment so there isn't any alchohol in the house...
Or maybe you think we will be able to screen embryos for this heritability componant? Remember... It just increases the liklihood... And I would say... It increases the liklihood most significantly when certain environmental factors are met.
> For some people, it is an insatiable craving for the chemical itself that drives their decision making process. The cravings are libidinal, not cerebral.Right.
> Sorrows have nothing to do with it.
?
They don't tend to make the cravings worse?
I remember hearing this. HALT. Don't get Hungry, Angry, Lonely, or Tired. Those were supposed to be things that... made the 'libidinal cravings' worse. Made one less likely to resist them in the face of knowledge of the long term harm. Trouble with this analysis is that... Those things just are part of the human condition and I don't know how helpful it would be to try and arrange things so you never felt those feelings. I don't think that would be possible. What may well be possible, however, is that the knowledge that the cravings get worse under those circumstances (and knowledge that the cravings will pass) well, that might be what helps give you the strength to resist them...> What differences must lie between the two people who choose different ways to address the same sorrows?
> Is it genetic?
> I guess it ain't that simple.
Yeah. Not nature OR nuture...
Nature AND nurture...And there it is.
:-)
Posted by alexandra_k on November 14, 2005, at 13:40:55
In reply to Re: Very debatable » SLS, posted by mama141 on November 8, 2005, at 15:53:53
> My concern in all of this is just how much of our ability to choose or implied loss of that ability, has been culturally imposed? ie: "I have a "disease" therefore I cant help the way I am" -- is the one end of the spectrum. How about what we pass on to our children? Or what our culture teaches them as far as self-control and personal responsibility?
Yes indeed. With respect to considering schizophrenia a disease (a chronic disease at that) what are we doing to a person when we give them that label? What we are doing is making a very negative judgement about the likely course their life is going to take. And if they manage to get better... Well... Then we put that down to 'misdiagnosis'. So... Schizophrenia is chronic by definition because if someone gets better we say they 'never really were' schizophrenic.
And the same with addictive behaviours. If someone manages to stop or cut back on drinking without AA attendance then we say 'they aren't an alchoholic because an alchoholic couldn't do that'.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 14, 2005, at 13:47:38
In reply to Re: Very debatable » mama141, posted by SLS on November 8, 2005, at 19:57:26
> I am unprepared to label sweepingly alcoholism or addiction as being diseases. However, they are what they are. We can understand and treat them without the label of disease as long as we have an accurate description.
My difficulty with the AA model is that it ASSUMES that addictive behaviours ARE a disease. And so what that does is it promotes the idea that we do not need an unbiased investigation into the nature of addictive behaviours. (What I mean by an unbiased investigation is an investigation where both genetic and environmental factors are considered). To say that addictive behaviours ARE A DISEASE is to promote the idea that the nature of addictive behaviours has been discovered and all sorted out already, and that it has been discovered that addictive behaviours are the result of a DISEASE process. The AA party line is that the DISEASE is CHRONIC and that AA attendance and surrender to god is the ONLY WAY to achieve TOTAL ABSTINENCE which is considered to be the ONE AND ONLY GOAL that it is legitimate to have.
So the problem is... If we accept this model of addictive behaviours then why would we bother investigating the nature of addictive behaviours? We think we already know... So why would we bother?
Posted by mama141 on November 16, 2005, at 15:33:47
In reply to Re: Very debatable » SLS, posted by alexandra_k on November 14, 2005, at 13:47:38
Oh yeah!! In fact when I began to ask just these
very questions in AA a number of years ago I was informed that I was in "denial"! (Thats when I began to have my doubts about the all-sacred "program" of AA.
This brings us to another trap -- there has only been one known "behavioral condition" in history supposedly identifiable in this fashion --(by denial) -- Witchcraft ---
In Salem, Mass in the 17th century during the "Witch Trials", the "positive" indicator that the individual was a "witch" was her denying that she was a witch!!
We may think that to be archeic and silly, but isn't that just how AA sees things!? Mama
-----------------------------
> > I am unprepared to label sweepingly alcoholism or addiction as being diseases. However, they are what they are. We can understand and treat them without the label of disease as long as we have an accurate description.
>
> My difficulty with the AA model is that it ASSUMES that addictive behaviours ARE a disease. And so what that does is it promotes the idea that we do not need an unbiased investigation into the nature of addictive behaviours. (What I mean by an unbiased investigation is an investigation where both genetic and environmental factors are considered). To say that addictive behaviours ARE A DISEASE is to promote the idea that the nature of addictive behaviours has been discovered and all sorted out already, and that it has been discovered that addictive behaviours are the result of a DISEASE process. The AA party line is that the DISEASE is CHRONIC and that AA attendance and surrender to god is the ONLY WAY to achieve TOTAL ABSTINENCE which is considered to be the ONE AND ONLY GOAL that it is legitimate to have.
>
> So the problem is... If we accept this model of addictive behaviours then why would we bother investigating the nature of addictive behaviours? We think we already know... So why would we bother?
>
>
Posted by alexandra_k on November 16, 2005, at 23:28:56
In reply to Re: Very debatable, posted by mama141 on November 16, 2005, at 15:33:47
and sometimes... sexual abuse.
and sometimes... homosexuality.
and sometimes... a females expressed desire to not have sex.denial.
hmm.
;-)
i will say at this point... that a lot of people are helped by aa / na attendance. and that is a terrific thing. a really terrific thing indeed. i think... people should take all the help they can get (i mean... they go because they aren't doing so well by themselves). there are a lot of really terrific people who go to those meetings. and there are a lot of people with really very inspiring stories as to how they managed to turn their lives around. and sometimes... that is what one needs. and it helps. and i think that really is a very wonderful thing and i do not want to take that away from them at all.
i just...
wish their 'party line' was a little different...
more in synch with the scientific findings...
more open to alternative ways of doing things...
more open to supporting people in the way the person chooses to do things...but thats the 'party line'. fortunately there are a lot of terrific individuals who attend who are more or less attached to the 'party line' and if one is fortunate enough to find people who help, ideas that help then more power to you i say...
Posted by mama141 on November 17, 2005, at 19:18:22
In reply to Re: Very debatable, posted by alexandra_k on November 16, 2005, at 23:28:56
I am not certain that I understand your opening statements. However, I cannot disagree that for SOME people AA may be the only answer they are aware of.
For me, it took twenty five years to realize that AA was as addicting as the booze and the pills and that there was another, better way.
Mama> and sometimes... sexual abuse.
> and sometimes... homosexuality.
> and sometimes... a females expressed desire to not have sex.
>
> denial.
>
> hmm.
>
> ;-)
>
> i will say at this point... that a lot of people are helped by aa / na attendance. and that is a terrific thing. a really terrific thing indeed. i think... people should take all the help they can get (i mean... they go because they aren't doing so well by themselves). there are a lot of really terrific people who go to those meetings. and there are a lot of people with really very inspiring stories as to how they managed to turn their lives around. and sometimes... that is what one needs. and it helps. and i think that really is a very wonderful thing and i do not want to take that away from them at all.
>
> i just...
>
> wish their 'party line' was a little different...
> more in synch with the scientific findings...
> more open to alternative ways of doing things...
> more open to supporting people in the way the person chooses to do things...
>
> but thats the 'party line'. fortunately there are a lot of terrific individuals who attend who are more or less attached to the 'party line' and if one is fortunate enough to find people who help, ideas that help then more power to you i say...
Posted by alexandra_k on November 17, 2005, at 22:34:21
In reply to Re: Very debatable » alexandra_k, posted by mama141 on November 17, 2005, at 19:18:22
> I am not certain that I understand your opening statements.
Ah. I just mean that sometimes people talk about 'denial' in relation to those things too. (Doesn't really matter I'm not sure I understand myself...) I guess I was thinking about the 'methinks the lady doth protest too much' kind of thing where supposedly 'no' really means 'yes' it is just that the person is in 'denial'.
>However, I cannot disagree that for SOME people AA may be the only answer they are aware of.
Yeah. I just mean... It works for some people and I wouldn't want to take that away from them. IF it works for you then YAY!!!
> For me, it took twenty five years to realize that AA was as addicting as the booze and the pills and that there was another, better way.
Yeah. And other people find that AA / NA isn't really working for them.
And so...
I wish AA / NA wouldn't say that their way is the ONLY way because sometimes people struggle on with AA / NA when they would fare better with some of the alternative programs that are out there. And sometimes... People leave AA / NA because they figure it is not for them... And they relapse really very badly because they think that that will be INEVITABLE (just like that AA / NA people predicted). And so... I wish they would acknowledge there are other ways. And wish people luck to explore those. As part of their party line, I mean. As part of the charter stuff they read at the opening of every meeting. If they would officially acknowledge that. Becuase... It might save a lot of people out there from despairing if they find they aren't doing so well with the AA / NA approach.
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 18, 2005, at 10:35:29
In reply to Re: Very debatable » mama141, posted by alexandra_k on November 17, 2005, at 22:34:21
> I wish AA / NA wouldn't say that their way is the ONLY way because sometimes people struggle on with AA / NA when they would fare better with some of the alternative programs that are out there.
They don't say that. They say "if you want what we've got" then this is how we did it.
"You're a member if you say you are."
> And sometimes... People leave AA / NA because they figure it is not for them...
Doors work both ways. But the doors of AA/NA are always open.
> And they relapse really very badly because they think that that will be INEVITABLE (just like that AA / NA people predicted). And so...
Or anyone else with knowledge of addiction might have predicted...
And I think that the ability to provide a prognosis is part of what makes it a disease. Untreated, you can expect.....
> I wish they would acknowledge there are other ways. And wish people luck to explore those.It is implicit in all that they say. "Not affiliated with any outside organisation."
> As part of their party line, I mean. As part of the charter stuff they read at the opening of every meeting. If they would officially acknowledge that. Becuase... It might save a lot of people out there from despairing if they find they aren't doing so well with the AA / NA approach.
I bet you, that if you spoke to individual members, you'd have found different ways of dealing with addiction. There is no one AA/NA way. You personalize it, to make it work. An atheist of many years' sobriety claimed the coffee pot as his higher power. He knew the coffee pot would never let him down. For me, I put another o into god. I believed in good. I still do.
I have never been to two AA/NA meetings that were the same as any other. Similar, but never the same.
AA/NA does not cast people out, to have them suffer. To hit a new bottom, so maybe you'll get it next time.
If I may be so bold, I would ask if you are blaming them fairly for what became of you.
As to alternatives, the phone book is full of them. The internet is crammed with them.
I think the AA and derivative organizations make clear what they're about, right up front. But I never went to a meeting for the readings. I went for the people. I went because I wanted what they had. And I went because there might be someone who wanted what I had.
I won't ever forget that at the heart of any of the Anonymous groups, it was a bunch of very sick people, who got together and created wellness. Kind of like alchemy. Wealth where there had once been poverty.
My brain shut down. Mental disease active. Addiction disease in remission, 8 years, 4 months, 8 days (or something like that).
Lar
Posted by alexandra_k on November 18, 2005, at 18:06:28
In reply to Re: attraction rather than promotion » alexandra_k, posted by Larry Hoover on November 18, 2005, at 10:35:29
> > I wish AA / NA wouldn't say that their way is the ONLY way because sometimes people struggle on with AA / NA when they would fare better with some of the alternative programs that are out there.
> They don't say that.
I had a little look online. *Every* meeting of AA / NA that I have gone to in New Zealand had about 3 pages of guff that was read out at the start of every single meeting. I couldn't find those pages online... Those pages aren't read out at the *open* meetings - only the closed meetings. In those pages... Yes indeed they *did* say that. They said... That AA / NA attendance and surrender to God was the *only* way for an alchololic / drug addict to stop drinking / using.
>They say "if you want what we've got" then this is how we did it.
I don't have a problem if that is their party line.
> > And sometimes... People leave AA / NA because they figure it is not for them...Yes. And people say they have left to die of their addiction. I thought that... Was the AA / NA party line...
> > And they relapse really very badly because they think that that will be INEVITABLE (just like that AA / NA people predicted). And so...
> Or anyone else with knowledge of addiction might have predicted...The majority of people who drink too much / use too much actually get better with their own social supports than with AA / NA attendance / formal treatment. Sometimes... AA / NA attendance is how people get those social supports in their life. But there are other options for that... But not according to the AA / NA party line...
> And I think that the ability to provide a prognosis is part of what makes it a disease. Untreated, you can expect.....Imminant death. Charming. Thats just charming. And how ethical is that given what we know about 'self-fulfilling' prophecy type phenomena? Isn't that... Just creating dependency on the group?
> > I wish they would acknowledge there are other ways. And wish people luck to explore those.
> It is implicit in all that they say. "Not affiliated with any outside organisation."That bit doesn't relate to what I said. I appreciate that they are an independent organisation. My gripe is GOVERNMENT requiring people to attend AA / NA type programs without offering fully secular alternatives. There are secular alternatives with success rates that are JUST AS good - if not more so. And... The majority of people with a problem manage to get better with the social supports they manage to muster without AA / NA attendance.
> I bet you, that if you spoke to individual members, you'd have found different ways of dealing with addiction. There is no one AA/NA way.Read the literature. The literature that is endorsed by the AA / NA organisation. That literature constitutes the AA / NA 'party line'. It is that that I am talking about.
> You personalize it, to make it work. An atheist of many years' sobriety claimed the coffee pot as his higher power.
And how did step five work out for him when he had to confess his sins to his coffee pot? How on earth could he bring himself to believe that his coffee pot actually cared whether he drank alchohol again or not? How could he really believe that his coffee pot *wanted* him to be sober? Why should these beliefs be considered *requirements* on sobriety?
That is the AA / NA party line...
It is government agencies FUNDING or REQUIRING people to go to these meetings... Where the people at these meetings PROVIDE and PROMOTE this literature. Where this literature is given to loads of people looking for a little help... It is that that gets to me.
>He knew the coffee pot would never let him down. For me, I put another o into god. I believed in good. I still do.
"good". How do you go confessing your sins to "good"?
> AA/NA does not cast people out, to have them suffer. To hit a new bottom, so maybe you'll get it next time.Ah. So they predict that they will hit bottom if they leave the group... (creating dependency)... And of course they are delighted when people come back after one of those... Because then they are the biggest advocates for 'I tried without AA / NA / the group and failed miserably and with regular attendance I have a collection of tags!!!' And that becomes... Part of the self-fulfilling prophecies for the newbies... Charming.
> If I may be so bold, I would ask if you are blaming them fairly for what became of you.What became of me, Larry?
> As to alternatives, the phone book is full of them. The internet is crammed with them.
Yes. For people with phones and computers. It is wonderful to be living in an information age :-)
Unfortunately... The government agencies seem less keen to REQUIRE people to go to these alternatives...
> I never went to a meeting for the readings. I went for the people.Ah. So... You actually seperated yourself from their 'party line'. What I don't understand... Is why they don't scrap it or revamp it altogether.
Instead of... Promoting it like the gospel...
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 18, 2005, at 22:44:16
In reply to Re: attraction rather than promotion » Larry Hoover, posted by alexandra_k on November 18, 2005, at 18:06:28
> > > I wish AA / NA wouldn't say that their way is the ONLY way because sometimes people struggle on with AA / NA when they would fare better with some of the alternative programs that are out there.
>
> > They don't say that.
>
> I had a little look online. *Every* meeting of AA / NA that I have gone to in New Zealand had about 3 pages of guff that was read out at the start of every single meeting. I couldn't find those pages online... Those pages aren't read out at the *open* meetings - only the closed meetings. In those pages... Yes indeed they *did* say that. They said... That AA / NA attendance and surrender to God was the *only* way for an alchololic / drug addict to stop drinking / using.Those readings are all available here: http://www.12step.org/references/na_chap2.php
The readings are among the chapter headings.
I honestly believe that I was taught the 12-steps were a suggested path towards recovery.
Bill W. repeatedly said that "our hats are off to you if you can find a better way" and "If [those seeking a different cure] can do better by other means, we are glad." He certainly speaks for me, on this subject.
> >They say "if you want what we've got" then this is how we did it.
>
> I don't have a problem if that is their party line.That's the opening to "How it Works", one of the readings. I'm not sure I grasp what you mean by 'party line'.
> > > And sometimes... People leave AA / NA because they figure it is not for them...
>
> Yes. And people say they have left to die of their addiction. I thought that... Was the AA / NA party line...You're agreeing with yourself, in case you didn't catch that.
I know people leave 12-step programs, and for a variety of reasons, none of which I choose to judge. I again reiterate that I don't understand your reference to the 'party line'.
> > > And they relapse really very badly because they think that that will be INEVITABLE (just like that AA / NA people predicted). And so...
>
> > Or anyone else with knowledge of addiction might have predicted...
>
> The majority of people who drink too much / use too much actually get better with their own social supports than with AA / NA attendance / formal treatment. Sometimes... AA / NA attendance is how people get those social supports in their life. But there are other options for that... But not according to the AA / NA party line...On the one hand, you seem to grant NA/AA extraordinary credibility with respect to the inevitable relapse, yet you then argue for realistic alternatives. I admit to being confused.
> > And I think that the ability to provide a prognosis is part of what makes it a disease. Untreated, you can expect.....
>
> Imminant death. Charming. Thats just charming. And how ethical is that given what we know about 'self-fulfilling' prophecy type phenomena? Isn't that... Just creating dependency on the group?Let me give full expression to my thought. Anyone with experience in dealing with addictions treatment would know that some of the severest relapses come soon after an attempt at treatment has failed. That seems to be how people are. Not wanting that to happen to someone also seems reasonable.
> > > I wish they would acknowledge there are other ways. And wish people luck to explore those.
>
> > It is implicit in all that they say. "Not affiliated with any outside organisation."
>
> That bit doesn't relate to what I said. I appreciate that they are an independent organisation. My gripe is GOVERNMENT requiring people to attend AA / NA type programs without offering fully secular alternatives. There are secular alternatives with success rates that are JUST AS good - if not more so. And... The majority of people with a problem manage to get better with the social supports they manage to muster without AA / NA attendance.I don't agree with mandated attendance. It is wrong-headed.
I disagree, however, with the contention that there are other alternatives, just as good. There *are* alternatives, but their success is unproven, IMHO.
One of the keys to 12-step recovery is social. One of the effects of addiction is isolation. Social interaction *and* people experienced with recovery from addiction. Bonus!
> > I bet you, that if you spoke to individual members, you'd have found different ways of dealing with addiction. There is no one AA/NA way.
>
> Read the literature. The literature that is endorsed by the AA / NA organisation. That literature constitutes the AA / NA 'party line'. It is that that I am talking about.I've read the literature. I haven't come across a 'party line' as of yet.
> > You personalize it, to make it work. An atheist of many years' sobriety claimed the coffee pot as his higher power.
>
> And how did step five work out for him when he had to confess his sins to his coffee pot? How on earth could he bring himself to believe that his coffee pot actually cared whether he drank alchohol again or not? How could he really believe that his coffee pot *wanted* him to be sober?His *initial* belief was in the coffee pot. It took on a more figurative role as he recovered his faculties.
> Why should these beliefs be considered *requirements* on sobriety?
The requirement is one of spiritual growth.
> That is the AA / NA party line...
"Take what you want, and leave the rest." I still don't grasp this 'party line' thingie.
> It is government agencies FUNDING or REQUIRING people to go to these meetings...
There is no external funding. The requiring to go part is misguided.
> Where the people at these meetings PROVIDE and PROMOTE this literature. Where this literature is given to loads of people looking for a little help... It is that that gets to me.
They provide a new way of thinking.
> >He knew the coffee pot would never let him down. For me, I put another o into god. I believed in good. I still do.
>
> "good". How do you go confessing your sins to "good"?I did not confess my sins. That is a rite of Roman Catholicism.
It is also a misconstruance of the steps to exclude positive attributes from what was intended to be a complete moral inventory.
Belief systems which do not accomodate literal adherence to the 12 steps force one to make necessary changes. Given the nature of the recovery program, it was the steps which were changed.
Same thing for the Coffee Pot guy.
In any organization of people, there are literalists, and there are more pragmatic adherents.
> > AA/NA does not cast people out, to have them suffer. To hit a new bottom, so maybe you'll get it next time.
>
> Ah. So they predict that they will hit bottom if they leave the group... (creating dependency)... And of course they are delighted when people come back after one of those... Because then they are the biggest advocates for 'I tried without AA / NA / the group and failed miserably and with regular attendance I have a collection of tags!!!' And that becomes... Part of the self-fulfilling prophecies for the newbies... Charming.I know of no member of NA or AA who took delight in another person's relapse.
> > If I may be so bold, I would ask if you are blaming them fairly for what became of you.
>
> What became of me, Larry?I have no idea. This seems very personal. Very focussed.
> > As to alternatives, the phone book is full of them. The internet is crammed with them.
>
> Yes. For people with phones and computers. It is wonderful to be living in an information age :-)
>
> Unfortunately... The government agencies seem less keen to REQUIRE people to go to these alternatives...We agree that it is inappropriate to mandate attendance. If for no other reason that it violates the 3rd and 11th Traditions. Messes with the 10th, as well.
> > I never went to a meeting for the readings. I went for the people.
>
> Ah. So... You actually seperated yourself from their 'party line'. What I don't understand... Is why they don't scrap it or revamp it altogether.Take what you want, and leave the rest.
> Instead of... Promoting it like the gospel...
Promotion violates the 11th Tradition.
I am sorry your experience was so negative. I really am.
Lar
Posted by alexandra_k on November 19, 2005, at 1:35:53
In reply to Re: attraction rather than promotion » alexandra_k, posted by Larry Hoover on November 18, 2005, at 22:44:16
> Those readings are all available here: http://www.12step.org/references/na_chap2.php
The link didn't work for me (page wouldn't load properly)
:-(
> I honestly believe that I was taught the 12-steps were a suggested path towards recovery.Yes but what do those pages (and their little 'bible' say?)
> I'm not sure I grasp what you mean by 'party line'.The pages that were read at the start of the meetings and their 'bible'.
> > Yes. And people say they have left to die of their addiction. I thought that... Was the AA / NA party line...
> You're agreeing with yourself, in case you didn't catch that.?? Getting a little lost.
If you don't attend AA / NA regularly I thought the AA / NA party line was...
That they had left to die of their addiction
That death was imminent.
I don't think they should say that.
It is not INEVITABLE that someone will relapse after stopping attending AA / NA. That is false and so they shouldn't say it. It is true that some people do, and here I do have to say that I wonder about the role of 'self-fulfilling prophecy'. The AA / NA literature *tells* them the ONLY way to remain sober is to attend and thus plants the little seed that if they stop attending relapse JUST HAS TO happen. And so is it suprising that some people do when this is what they have been taught?
> On the one hand, you seem to grant NA/AA extraordinary credibility with respect to the inevitable relapse, yet you then argue for realistic alternatives. I admit to being confused.?
I'm confused... I think the 'party line' (which I hope you get what I mean by that now...) I think the 'party line' makes it MORE LIKELY that people will relapse after stopping attending. That it is MORE LIKELY because the party line promotes the message that of course they are going to die of their addiction without attendance.
> > > And I think that the ability to provide a prognosis is part of what makes it a disease. Untreated, you can expect.....I think it is unethical to offer someone a very dim view of their future indeed. I am not my diagnosis Larry. I refuse to let what is *likely* dictate the course my life is going to take. I refuse to internalise that.
> I don't agree with mandated attendance. It is wrong-headed.How about 'emotional blackmail' attendance when the party line is that without that attendance you will INEVITABLY die of your addiction?
> I disagree, however, with the contention that there are other alternatives, just as good. There *are* alternatives, but their success is unproven, IMHO.Have you looked into token economies???
That might be worth a try.
I think... The success rates of various programs... Are about as good as each other. Though... The majority of people try via AA / NA first and when that doesn't work out for them THEN they have a go at alternatives. So in a way... AA / NA gets the 'first pick' and the other programs get the ones who failed with the AA / NA way...
> One of the keys to 12-step recovery is social. One of the effects of addiction is isolation. Social interaction *and* people experienced with recovery from addiction. Bonus!Yes. Though... You don't have to have steps and diseases and god to get a little social interaction these days do you???
> > > I bet you, that if you spoke to individual members, you'd have found different ways of dealing with addiction. There is no one AA/NA way.The PEOPLE can be teriffic.
The PARTY LINE (the literature) is what I'm objecting to...
> I've read the literature. I haven't come across a 'party line' as of yet.The Bible???
The stuff that was read at the start of the meeting?
Don't they read that at your meeting?
I thought EVERY AA / NA group meeting was supposed to read that...
That you had to to be an AA / NA meeting.
And they encourage you to take (or to purchase) the AA / NA literature.
It is SOME OF (not all of SOME OF) the stuff that is said in there that I am opposed to...
> His *initial* belief was in the coffee pot. It took on a more figurative role as he recovered his faculties.You mean... To start with he couldn't credit the idea of a higher power so they humoured him by saying 'oh, don't get hung up on that, it can be your coffee pot'. Then... By the time he got to around step 5 they had managed to bring him around to a conception of god that was an external agency that is powerful enough to save you from your addiction (and your sins) and benevolent enough to give a sh*t about your addiction and your sins?
Can anyone see where the 'religious cult' notion comes from?????> > Why should these beliefs be considered *requirements* on sobriety?
> The requirement is one of spiritual growth.
Why should 'spiritual growth' be a requirement on sobriety?
I thought... The requirements were attendance and working through the steps... And in order to work through the steps you need an external agent of a god who is beneficient and pretty darned powerful...
> > It is government agencies FUNDING or REQUIRING people to go to these meetings...
> There is no external funding.Ah. Some councellors councel from the AA / NA party line. I've been to councelling that is like that. Government funded. Councelling that is focused on discovering my higher power and doing the steps etc. That councellors salary came from the government. That councellor was teaching the AA / NA party line. That is state funded religious teaching IMO. I wanted to discuss some of the assumptions he was spouting at me but no can do. I'm in denial etc etc. My death was imminent...
> They provide a new way of thinking.
yeah. But the party line has been strangely resistant to other ways of thinking.
> I did not confess my sins. That is a rite of Roman Catholicism.That is also a rite of step 5.
What on earth does confessing your sins to god have to do with your recovery?
What on earth does confessing your sins to good have to do with your recovery?
What on earth does confessing your sins to someone from AA / NA have to do with your recovery?Of course, someone may choose to make it part of their recovery... But I don't think people should be pressured to tow the line or the consequence will be immanent death of their addiction...
Why does one *have* to do a complete moral inventory to recover from addiction? Does one have to do this to recover from schizophrenia, or depression, or any other kind of 'disease'???> In any organization of people, there are literalists, and there are more pragmatic adherents.
I have no problem with the pragmatic adherents.
I don't have a problem with the 'literalists'
I have a problem with the writings / doctrines that some people are 'literalists' about. Those writings / doctrines need to be put right...
> I know of no member of NA or AA who took delight in another person's relapse.I never said they did. I said they were delighted when they came back after a relapse and went on to become one of the biggest advocates for 'the cause'.
> > > If I may be so bold, I would ask if you are blaming them fairly for what became of you.
> > What became of me, Larry?
> I have no idea. This seems very personal. Very focussed.I object fairly strongly to 'pseudoscience' and 'religion' stepping into regions that are more properly the domain of the sciences... Don't get me wrong... If people find those helpful then more power to them. But some of their claims are false. My problem is I was at a very low point in my life... And I lapped up the literature (as I do). And... It f*cked me up pretty bad because I'm an athiest through and through and I refused to admit I was powerless (preferring the idea of 'taking responsibility'. I was not allowed to say what I thought for 3 months in treatment. I had to sit there and grit my teeth. I tried to talk to my therapist about my concerns and was told of my immanant death. I don't appreciate that. I hope thats not happening to other people out there... Thats my thought.
Just the thought that...
There are different ways...
And... Don't believe everything you hear.
The 'disease' notion, for example.
Don't let biology run out of hand
To the point where we forget about the environment
Don't let people tell you its all about some flaw in your brain a flaw in your brain that makes you defective and to blame and a biological flaw that you are powerless over.Because the environment plays a role. Social supports are really very important. Lots of people are living in very f*cked up portions of the world where life does seem pretty horrible sometimes. And when life is crap its SOOOOOOOOO much more tempting to get the hell away from the crap and feel that rush of pleasure.
> I am sorry your experience was so negative. I really am.Yeah.
I know there are great people.
Its just reading these doctrines that messed me up.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 19, 2005, at 1:50:02
In reply to Re: attraction rather than promotion, posted by alexandra_k on November 19, 2005, at 1:35:53
it loaded.
yes... thats it.
people were forever reading it out...
over and over and oversounds like maybe my experience was pretty a-typical then.
i really think people should do whatever works for them.
really.
i just...
well. its not the way for me.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 19, 2005, at 3:28:03
In reply to Re: attraction rather than promotion, posted by alexandra_k on November 19, 2005, at 1:50:02
>It is SOME OF (not all of SOME OF) the stuff that is said in there that I am opposed to...
and i shouldn't have said that...
i don't think i should say i'm opposed to an ideal???
it is just a common expression for me i suppose.you know... in reading the stuff... i see how it ain't that bad...
just like the bible really...
a lot of the 'problems' are in the interpretation
or in the taking it too literally
but then... how are they supposed to write it?
i'm guessing they aren't really writing it to teach a philosopher about the nature of addiction...it is just that i am an athiest.
thats probably the biggest thing for me.
i don't see what god has to do with it.
i don't see that god has to have anything to do with it.
and so...
its not the way for me.but for a while there...
because of all the stuff on how your doctor couldn't help you and your social supports couldn't help you etc etc and that is why you are here...
well...
i started to think that it was my last hope...
and indeed they say they are there for people when they have exhausted their options.but then when it didn't seem to be working for me...
i did despair.
and i got very afraid about how it was my last hope
and it wasn't working for me.
and much as i really struggled with it...
really struggled very hard indeed...
i couldn't bring myself to want to admit i was powerless
i couldn't bring myself to believe in a higher power
i couldn't believe in the steps
i just couldn't do it that way...
and i was so very afraid because i thought i had exhausted my options and what was i going to do???and what i did...
i went back to university
and because of that...
didn't have time to hang around with my contacts anymore
didn't really want to because there were other people
other social supports
and i didn't really talk to them about using
because i didn't want them to know
but i never managed to do that before...
i really struggled so very much with stopping...
promising myself
and not doing it
ugh.i also remember...
being given a hard time...
not being allowed to speak in the meetings
because i was on a low dosage of valium
for anxiety.
that was considered a drug and thus i wasn't allowed to speak at na
and... i wasn't allowed in to another treatment program because they considered ALL psychiatric medications to be drugs and thus you had to be clean for one month before they would take you and... i lost the plot a little.sigh.
doesn't matter now.sorry i went off rather.
still...
something to think about.
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 19, 2005, at 10:53:31
In reply to Re: attraction rather than promotion, posted by alexandra_k on November 19, 2005, at 1:35:53
> > Those readings are all available here: http://www.12step.org/references/na_chap2.php
>
> The link didn't work for me (page wouldn't load properly)
> :-(It worked for me, but try this:
http://www.12step.org/references/na_basic.phpThe entire text of the Basic Text. The readings you hear at meetings are the first paragraphs of different chapters. You'll recognize them by name.
> > I honestly believe that I was taught the 12-steps were a suggested path towards recovery.
>
> Yes but what do those pages (and their little 'bible' say?)I have never heard it called the bible. And, frankly, I wouldn't stand for it.
> > I'm not sure I grasp what you mean by 'party line'.
>
> The pages that were read at the start of the meetings and their 'bible'.The reason the meetings are standardized in that way is so that an NA member can go to a meeting anywhere in the world, and it will be familiar to them.
> > > Yes. And people say they have left to die of their addiction. I thought that... Was the AA / NA party line...
>
> > You're agreeing with yourself, in case you didn't catch that.
>
> ?? Getting a little lost.
> If you don't attend AA / NA regularly I thought the AA / NA party line was...
> That they had left to die of their addiction
> That death was imminent.
> I don't think they should say that.Nor do I. I guess I was slow on the uptake because that is not an NA approved message.
You may not realize this, but every word, every bit of punctuation, of every NA approved piece of literature, is voted on by a committee of trusted servants, who hold conferences for just that purpose. People fly in from around the world, to hold conferences whose sole purpose is to authorize the NA literature that is available at meetings.
It is a bottom up process, starting from individual meetings. An elected trusted servant carries a group message to an Area meeting, where a discussion and vote are held. Then on up to the Region, and so on, up to NA World.
I had a direct hand in changing some of the wording you would read today, through this process. There is not a publication that NA puts out that I haven't read, and at least subconsciously, approved.
Nowhere is that message, what you call the party line, an approved message from NA World Services. We speak of members going back out of the doors (of NA), or we say they "picked up". We generally hold a moment's silence (prayer optional) when news such as that is made known.
> It is not INEVITABLE that someone will relapse after stopping attending AA / NA. That is false and so they shouldn't say it. It is true that some people do, and here I do have to say that I wonder about the role of 'self-fulfilling prophecy'. The AA / NA literature *tells* them the ONLY way to remain sober is to attend and thus plants the little seed that if they stop attending relapse JUST HAS TO happen. And so is it suprising that some people do when this is what they have been taught?
I can't imagine any member of meetings I have attended saying any such thing. We can only offer what we have to give, what worked for us.
> > On the one hand, you seem to grant NA/AA extraordinary credibility with respect to the inevitable relapse, yet you then argue for realistic alternatives. I admit to being confused.
>
> ?
> I'm confused... I think the 'party line' (which I hope you get what I mean by that now...) I think the 'party line' makes it MORE LIKELY that people will relapse after stopping attending. That it is MORE LIKELY because the party line promotes the message that of course they are going to die of their addiction without attendance.That message is not an approved message of NA World Services. Whoever told you that was not speaking on behalf of NA, no matter what they told you. I'm so sorry.
> > > > And I think that the ability to provide a prognosis is part of what makes it a disease. Untreated, you can expect.....
>
> I think it is unethical to offer someone a very dim view of their future indeed. I am not my diagnosis Larry. I refuse to let what is *likely* dictate the course my life is going to take. I refuse to internalise that.I would never offer that up as a prediction to anyone. Yet, I would have a knowledge, from having observed a number of people in that situation. That's all I meant.
It is indeed unethical for someone to use it as a threat in the way it appears it was made to you. I have told an individual that if they didn't stop using they would die, but we were in an emergency ward at the time.
> > I don't agree with mandated attendance. It is wrong-headed.
>
> How about 'emotional blackmail' attendance when the party line is that without that attendance you will INEVITABLY die of your addiction?After saying all that I said, I remembered this line from one of the readings, "Who is an Addict". "We are people in the grip of a continuing and progressive illness whose ends are always the same: jails, institutions and death."
A bit melodramatic, but extrapolation to the endpoint of a continuum seems to lead to hyperbole. Inpatient addictions treatment is institutionalization, and I was there. It was already true, for me, and it was no hyperbole to see a risk of death, in my case. But the message was that the disease of addiction was going to get you, not that there was only one road to salvation therefrom.
> > I disagree, however, with the contention that there are other alternatives, just as good. There *are* alternatives, but their success is unproven, IMHO.
>
> Have you looked into token economies???
> That might be worth a try.I was not suggesting there are no potential alternatives. I don't know of any with equal merit. That is inevitably a biased view. I didn't need to look elsewhere.
> I think... The success rates of various programs... Are about as good as each other. Though... The majority of people try via AA / NA first and when that doesn't work out for them THEN they have a go at alternatives. So in a way... AA / NA gets the 'first pick' and the other programs get the ones who failed with the AA / NA way...
Perhaps that's true, especially now that government authorities are involved.
> > One of the keys to 12-step recovery is social. One of the effects of addiction is isolation. Social interaction *and* people experienced with recovery from addiction. Bonus!
>
> Yes. Though... You don't have to have steps and diseases and god to get a little social interaction these days do you???No. Take what you want, and leave the rest.
> > > > I bet you, that if you spoke to individual members, you'd have found different ways of dealing with addiction. There is no one AA/NA way.
>
> The PEOPLE can be teriffic.
> The PARTY LINE (the literature) is what I'm objecting to...I'm grasping that, but specifics would really help.
> > I've read the literature. I haven't come across a 'party line' as of yet.
>
> The Bible???Even calling it that is a violation of NA policy.
> The stuff that was read at the start of the meeting?
> Don't they read that at your meeting?
> I thought EVERY AA / NA group meeting was supposed to read that...
> That you had to to be an AA / NA meeting.
> And they encourage you to take (or to purchase) the AA / NA literature.
> It is SOME OF (not all of SOME OF) the stuff that is said in there that I am opposed to...I just wish you had specifics. I hope that link works for you now. It worked for me when I tried it this morning, right from this site.
> > His *initial* belief was in the coffee pot. It took on a more figurative role as he recovered his faculties.
>
> You mean... To start with he couldn't credit the idea of a higher power so they humoured him by saying 'oh, don't get hung up on that, it can be your coffee pot'. Then... By the time he got to around step 5 they had managed to bring him around to a conception of god that was an external agency that is powerful enough to save you from your addiction (and your sins) and benevolent enough to give a sh*t about your addiction and your sins?No one convinced him of anything with respect to a Higher Power. It was his perception all along. He's still an atheist. Just a clean and sober one.
Now, some are tempted to draw the conclusion that God was working through the NA group that supported him until his sobriety was internally motivated, but he happened to like my idea, and called it "good". The NA group did good.
He recast any step which mentioned Higher Power or God in a context suitable to his own moral senses, which he clarified upon doing his fourth step. On his fifth, he simply swore to tell the truth, and got on with it. God was there, or not. But good came of it.
> Can anyone see where the 'religious cult' notion comes from?????
There are groups where religion has taken improper hold of the proceedings. I have heard far too many references to Christian themes, for example, when members attempt to tell another how to work the program. When a member is speaking of their experience, strength, and hope, however, I must accept that that speaker's conception of the God of his understanding may be embodied in the Holy Trinity. It is not my place to judge.
> > > Why should these beliefs be considered *requirements* on sobriety?
>
> > The requirement is one of spiritual growth.
>
> Why should 'spiritual growth' be a requirement on sobriety?Over many years of experience, on intense reflection, it seems to be the lowest and simplest commonality in successful recovery from addictive behaviours.
That is what I meant, early on, when I was forced to make an act of faith, to accept this program of recovery. They said spiritual growth was the path to success, and I had to accept that on faith. They were correct, as it turns out.
> I thought... The requirements were attendance and working through the steps... And in order to work through the steps you need an external agent of a god who is beneficient and pretty darned powerful...
No literal external agency is required. Spiritual growth is the internal agent of success. My recovery required two decisions. One was an act of faith, "There is good in this world." The other decision was that there was this same good in me. I found my spiritual voice in those rooms.
> > > It is government agencies FUNDING or REQUIRING people to go to these meetings...
>
> > There is no external funding.
>
> Ah. Some councellors councel from the AA / NA party line. I've been to councelling that is like that. Government funded. Councelling that is focused on discovering my higher power and doing the steps etc. That councellors salary came from the government. That councellor was teaching the AA / NA party line. That is state funded religious teaching IMO. I wanted to discuss some of the assumptions he was spouting at me but no can do. I'm in denial etc etc. My death was imminent...There is no way that AA or NA can prevent this misuse of the philosophies. Yes, I went to a state-funded inpatient program, and yes, they adhered to a 12-step philosophy (more or less). I presume that individual agencies could be draconian in their approach.
However, during my stay at the inpatient program, I was strongly encouraged to attend local meetings of real AA and NA groups. That's where I paid attention.
> > They provide a new way of thinking.
>
> yeah. But the party line has been strangely resistant to other ways of thinking.You change things from within. From service work. Not many people volunteer for Literature Review.
> > I did not confess my sins. That is a rite of Roman Catholicism.
>
> That is also a rite of step 5.No. I required no absolution. I did no penance.
> What on earth does confessing your sins to god have to do with your recovery?
Not to god. In front of god. It's intended to promote sincerity.
> What on earth does confessing your sins to good have to do with your recovery?
It shows you're normal. Many (most?) addicts see themselves as terminally unique. That nobody could understand the special ways that they became so messed up. It gives you a chance to understand what is truly meant by humility.
> What on earth does confessing your sins to someone from AA / NA have to do with your recovery?
Just another human being. No requirement for membership in a program. It often ends up being someone in the program, though.
> Of course, someone may choose to make it part of their recovery... But I don't think people should be pressured to tow the line or the consequence will be immanent death of their addiction...
You do things at your own pace. As you see fit. You do them in any order. Or not.
> Why does one *have* to do a complete moral inventory to recover from addiction? Does one have to do this to recover from schizophrenia, or depression, or any other kind of 'disease'???An addict is a human doing. An inventory restores you to a human being.
I use concepts from my 12-step work in coping with depression and chronic fatigue, all the time.
> > In any organization of people, there are literalists, and there are more pragmatic adherents.
>
> I have no problem with the pragmatic adherents.
> I don't have a problem with the 'literalists'
> I have a problem with the writings / doctrines that some people are 'literalists' about. Those writings / doctrines need to be put right...Again, specifics would be useful.
> > I know of no member of NA or AA who took delight in another person's relapse.
>
> I never said they did. I said they were delighted when they came back after a relapse and went on to become one of the biggest advocates for 'the cause'.No. Members like that tend to be embarassments. "We are not interested in what or how much you used or who your connections were, what you have done in the past, how much or how little you have, but only in what you want to do about your problem and how we can help."
> > > > If I may be so bold, I would ask if you are blaming them fairly for what became of you.
>
> > > What became of me, Larry?
>
> > I have no idea. This seems very personal. Very focussed.
>
> I object fairly strongly to 'pseudoscience' and 'religion' stepping into regions that are more properly the domain of the sciences... Don't get me wrong... If people find those helpful then more power to them. But some of their claims are false. My problem is I was at a very low point in my life... And I lapped up the literature (as I do).> And... It f*cked me up pretty bad because I'm an athiest through and through and I refused to admit I was powerless (preferring the idea of 'taking responsibility'. I was not allowed to say what I thought for 3 months in treatment.
There are readings, approved by NA World Service, to accomodate an atheist in the program. What you describe is abuse, plain and simple.
> I had to sit there and grit my teeth. I tried to talk to my therapist about my concerns and was told of my immanant death. I don't appreciate that. I hope thats not happening to other people out there... Thats my thought.
I am so sorry.
> Just the thought that...
> There are different ways...
> And... Don't believe everything you hear.
> The 'disease' notion, for example.To accept that word, I went to its root. It originally meant "not at peace". I was "not at peace" with my use of substances.
Next!
> Don't let biology run out of hand
> To the point where we forget about the environment
> Don't let people tell you its all about some flaw in your brain a flaw in your brain that makes you defective and to blame and a biological flaw that you are powerless over.That's not the NA message. The NA message is one of recovery.
> Because the environment plays a role. Social supports are really very important. Lots of people are living in very f*cked up portions of the world where life does seem pretty horrible sometimes. And when life is crap its SOOOOOOOOO much more tempting to get the hell away from the crap and feel that rush of pleasure.Agreed.
> > I am sorry your experience was so negative. I really am.
>
> Yeah.
>
> I know there are great people.
> Its just reading these doctrines that messed me up.Ya. I hear you.
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 19, 2005, at 10:55:07
In reply to Re: attraction rather than promotion, posted by alexandra_k on November 19, 2005, at 1:50:02
> it loaded.
> yes... thats it.
> people were forever reading it out...
> over and over and over
>
> sounds like maybe my experience was pretty a-typical then.God, I hope so. I'm truly sorry you have this story to tell.
> i really think people should do whatever works for them.
>
> really.
>
> i just...
>
> well. its not the way for me.How are you today?
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 19, 2005, at 11:28:27
In reply to Re: attraction rather than promotion, posted by alexandra_k on November 19, 2005, at 3:28:03
> >It is SOME OF (not all of SOME OF) the stuff that is said in there that I am opposed to...
>
> and i shouldn't have said that...
> i don't think i should say i'm opposed to an ideal???
> it is just a common expression for me i suppose.
>
> you know... in reading the stuff... i see how it ain't that bad...
> just like the bible really...
> a lot of the 'problems' are in the interpretation
> or in the taking it too literally
> but then... how are they supposed to write it?
> i'm guessing they aren't really writing it to teach a philosopher about the nature of addiction...It's a true and difficult challenge to write what needs to be written. To anticipate the arguments that might come.
> it is just that i am an athiest.
> thats probably the biggest thing for me.
> i don't see what god has to do with it.Question: Do you have a spirit?
> i don't see that god has to have anything to do with it.
> and so...
> its not the way for me.It could have been. But not how it was presented to you, surely.
> but for a while there...
> because of all the stuff on how your doctor couldn't help you and your social supports couldn't help you etc etc and that is why you are here...
> well...
> i started to think that it was my last hope...
> and indeed they say they are there for people when they have exhausted their options.That's usually when people start turning to other people for help.
> but then when it didn't seem to be working for me...
> i did despair.
> and i got very afraid about how it was my last hope
> and it wasn't working for me.
> and much as i really struggled with it...
> really struggled very hard indeed...
> i couldn't bring myself to want to admit i was powerlessThat is indeed a difficult decision. But to make it does not mean to relinquish control. It's more like changing the subject. When you play the tape until the end, and realize that substance use isn't just about that first moment of altered consciousness, but also about coming to and not knowing where you are, or who is around you, or what you did. Or maybe worse, remembering the answer to all of those things.
So long as substances are part of your life, addiction is in control. So, you do something else. Stop wasting energy fighting, and use the energy in other endeavours.
> i couldn't bring myself to believe in a higher power
How about my idea of good?
> i couldn't believe in the steps
> i just couldn't do it that way...
> and i was so very afraid because i thought i had exhausted my options and what was i going to do???
>
> and what i did...
> i went back to university
> and because of that...
> didn't have time to hang around with my contacts anymore
> didn't really want to because there were other people
> other social supports
> and i didn't really talk to them about using
> because i didn't want them to know
> but i never managed to do that before...
> i really struggled so very much with stopping...
> promising myself
> and not doing it
> ugh.You did exactly what was needed. I'm sorry they made you do it alone.
> i also remember...
> being given a hard time...
> not being allowed to speak in the meetings
> because i was on a low dosage of valium
> for anxiety.
> that was considered a drug and thus i wasn't allowed to speak at naOkay, now I am pissed off. Thoroughly pissed. That is a direct violation of NA policy. Using medication as prescribed does not affect a person's clean time, and does not prevent them from sharing at meetings. Such individuals are encouraged to enhance their interactions at meetings, to maintain their connection with the process of recovery.
Here is the official NA policy.
From: http://www.na.org/basic.htm
NA as a whole has no opinion on outside issues, including prescribed medications. Use of psychiatric medication and other medically indicated drugs prescribed by a physician and taken under medical supervision is not seen as compromising a person’s recovery in NA.
From: http://www.markelliot.com/naillness.html
NA Approved Literature "In Times of Illness"
Medication in Recovery
Narcotics Anonymous as a whole has no opinion on outside issues, including health issues. We are concerned with recovery from the disease of addiction. Although our recovery is complicated when we experience disease or injury, this does not have to lead us away from recovery.
The ultimate responsibility for making medical decisions rests with each individual. If we choose to accept it, however, a great deal of support is available to help us make these decisions. For instance, we can practice the Twelve Steps, maintain frequent contact with our sponsor, write about our feelings and motives, and share at meetings. With the support of others in Narcotics Anonymous, we find the strength we need to make healthy decisions for our own recovery.
The use of medication in recovery is often controversial. It's good to remember that the Basic Text recommends consulting professionals concerning our medical problems. When we remember that the only requirement for membership is a desire to stop using, we as members can set aside our judgment of others. Clean time is an issue for each of us to resolve individually with our sponsor and our Higher Power. An attitude of judgment on our part could cause great harm to another addict.
I personally attended NA while using oxycodone, codeine, antidepressants, and tranquilizers. I knew that some of those substances were the drugs of choice of other members. I was very careful not to mention those drugs by name, and that's one of the reasons why we use the term "drug of choice". I did not mention my use of those substances until after I stopped using them, and only in one on one conversation after the meeting. That decision was mine, and mine alone.> and... i wasn't allowed in to another treatment program because they considered ALL psychiatric medications to be drugs and thus you had to be clean for one month before they would take you and... i lost the plot a little.
That is a separate issue, and I disagree with that position entirely. Dual diagnosis (substance abuse and mental health diagnosis) treatment centres are more challenging to run, I suppose, and it's easier for them just not to bother.
> sigh.
> doesn't matter now.It matters a lot.
> sorry i went off rather.
>
> still...
>
> something to think about.I'm sorry you didn't come to my NA meetings. The ones I know. I think you'd have found what you needed to make it work.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 19, 2005, at 15:01:54
In reply to Re: attraction rather than promotion » alexandra_k, posted by Larry Hoover on November 19, 2005, at 10:53:31
> After saying all that I said, I remembered this line from one of the readings, "Who is an Addict". "We are people in the grip of a continuing and progressive illness whose ends are always the same: jails, institutions and death."
Yeah. I heard that one maybe... 3 or 4 or 5 times a day in drug treatment. We had 3 or 4 meetings per day. And group therapy was all about working through the therapists interpretation of 'the literature'. I should say that that particular program... Was closed down not too long after I went...
>> What on earth does confessing your sins to god have to do with your recovery?
> Not to god. In front of god. It's intended to promote sincerity.
Hmm. Could there be an alternative way to say that that that doesn't mention god? I mean... I considered... I had to give up my sincerety in order to do the step... By lying to myself...
> Question: Do you have a spirit?
Well now... It all depends on what you mean by 'spirit' Larry Hoover.
I am composed of cells. Trillions and trillions of cells. And cells are made up of elements, as I'm sure you know.
There isn't any non-physical soul stuff in my periodic table of elements, so if thats what you mean by spirit...
;-)
Yeah. I'm okay :-)
How are you doing?
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 20, 2005, at 12:17:31
In reply to Re: attraction rather than promotion » Larry Hoover, posted by alexandra_k on November 19, 2005, at 15:01:54
> > After saying all that I said, I remembered this line from one of the readings, "Who is an Addict". "We are people in the grip of a continuing and progressive illness whose ends are always the same: jails, institutions and death."
>
> Yeah. I heard that one maybe... 3 or 4 or 5 times a day in drug treatment. We had 3 or 4 meetings per day.Good god!
> And group therapy was all about working through the therapists interpretation of 'the literature'. I should say that that particular program... Was closed down not too long after I went...
Thank god!
> >> What on earth does confessing your sins to god have to do with your recovery?
>
> > Not to god. In front of god. It's intended to promote sincerity.
>
> Hmm. Could there be an alternative way to say that that that doesn't mention god? I mean... I considered... I had to give up my sincerety in order to do the step... By lying to myself...Of course, you have to abide by your moral self. Where there is a contradiction between the literal description of a step, and the belief system of the stepper, the literal wording must fail.
I'm sure you could come up with a phrase, that when uttered, made clear that you would only speak the truth. The step only matters, and only works what it is intended to do, if the stepper believes him/herself.
> > Question: Do you have a spirit?
>
> Well now... It all depends on what you mean by 'spirit' Larry Hoover.
>
> I am composed of cells. Trillions and trillions of cells. And cells are made up of elements, as I'm sure you know.
>
> There isn't any non-physical soul stuff in my periodic table of elements, so if thats what you mean by spirit...
>
> ;-)So, you're a sack of chemicals, performing stunts (like typing words on the Internet). And that stunt production may discontinue at some point, and you'll be buried. Something like that?
I was wondering how you would manage spiritual growth. It kind of, but not necessarily, presupposes a spirit. It all gets down to definitions, I guess.
> Yeah. I'm okay :-)
> How are you doing?I'm going through one of the hardest stretches of my life. Given that, I suppose I'm okay.
I'm not even clear yet on just what are the issues at hand. Some are abundantly clear (the pain, and the meds for it), but the existence of the pain makes it hard to sort out the rest.
Posted by alexandra_k on November 20, 2005, at 17:47:05
In reply to Re: attraction rather than promotion » alexandra_k, posted by Larry Hoover on November 20, 2005, at 12:17:31
>"Who is an Addict".
>"We are people in the grip of a continuing and progressive illness whose ends are always the same: jails, institutions and death."> Where there is a contradiction between the literal description of a step, and the belief system of the stepper, the literal wording must fail.
the trouble comes with... people being vulnerable. at an all time low, typically.you can keep on adding epicycles indefinately...
but at some point...
an alternative is thought up.
and you can keep on adding epicycles indefinately in order to cling to a problematic theory...
or you can move to an alternative.
i'm weary of epicycles.
they say these things Larry.
they are right there in the literature.
and people read that literature when they are vulnerable.
i'm weary of epicycles.
time for me to move on...> So, you're a sack of chemicals,
not just a sack of chemicals. those chemicals are combined in a variety of intricate ways to make up cells. and cells are amazingly complex with a very high degree of structural organisation. but the structural organisation doesn't stop there. cells are also combined together in a highly structured way to make something that performs a fairly remarkable task; as part of an eye or kidney, or whatever. and the brain... the structure of the brain... i do believe it is the most complicated thing in the universe Larry (really - though my officemate tells me that the internet is getting pretty close though i disagree because i don't think the internet is so very structured as the brain but its something to argue i guess).
>performing stunts (like typing words on the Internet). And that stunt production may discontinue at some point, and you'll be buried. Something like that?
my body will be. what about my consciousness? the point that when i am awake there is something that it is like to be me... whereas when i am in a dreamless sleep there is nothing that it is like to be me... that consciousness seems to be realised on (implemented on) my brain. maybe... when my brain disintegrates / ceases to function then that is it and its all over rover (which is a comforting thought to me i have to say). but maybe not... if what is important is the FUNCTIONAL ORGANISATION of my brain... well then... it would be possible in principle to capture that functional organisation on... oh... a computer program for example... materialsim doesn't rule out my conscious expereince continuing after death. at least... any version of materialism that is possibly true doesn't rule out the possibility of my conscious experience continuing after death...
> I was wondering how you would manage spiritual growth. It kind of, but not necessarily, presupposes a spirit. It all gets down to definitions, I guess.
yeah it does. what do you mean by 'spiritual growth'? is that what other people call 'personal development'? what Maslow called 'self-actualisation'? i don't see the need for a spirit... i don't see the need for reference to a spirit...
religion doesn't buy me anything that i can't get from alternative sources...
for me...
i see it as moral development i suppose.
'self actualisation' = to be a truely moral person = to be a spiritual person. of course... it is neverending... nobody is perfect... but it is something positive to work towards.i prefer my way of saying it because... i don't think it alienates either those who are believers or those who are not. whereas talk of 'god' and 'spirit' etc etc tend to alienate athiests...
with respect to the 'soul' or 'spirit' or 'mind' even (in the sense of a non-physical substance that is the seat of our free will) i suppose what i did... was i traded it in for a scientific model.see for example: "Freedom Evolves"
he introduces the project there.
the idea is that yes, science seems to be silent on what interests us the most...
and thus... lets take a look at what science has to say and try and see whether we can say something about what interests us the most...
and it seems that we can say rather a lot...
it is a fairly new field...
philosophers (and some scientists) are getting into it :-)
i love it :-)the idea is...
lets extend science
instead of ignoring it and continuing on with the epicycles...
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Substance Use | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.