Alcoholism Recovery - To Sheenah/JB

Author

To Sheenah/JB

Ted L.

2005-04-02, 4:31 pm

While I don't understand all the dynamics, I do understand some of the
confusion. I took a peek and see you have been a long-time regular of that
"other" newsgroup -- alt.recovery.addiction.alcoholism. I also see that
most of the time you've gone by the handle "JB" and under that guise have
been in ARAA more than I thought.

And I am reassessing...

--
Ted L.

Benedictus, qui venit in nomine Domini.

Sheenah

2005-04-02, 4:31 pm

"Ted L." <TedL719nospamplease@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d2f5ut$rvc$1@domitilla.aioe.org...
> While I don't understand all the dynamics, I do understand some of the
> confusion. I took a peek and see you have been a long-time regular of
that
> "other" newsgroup -- alt.recovery.addiction.alcoholism. I also see
that
> most of the time you've gone by the handle "JB" and under that guise
have
> been in ARAA more than I thought.
>
> And I am reassessing...

OK. However, please note that the JB who posted prior to 13th June 2003
was not me. Prior to June 2003, I posted only a few messages on
alt.recovery.addiction.alcoholism in 2002 using the name Sheenah. It is
up to you whether or not you believe that I am telling you the truth. I
know that I am.

I will also say that I am aware that how I conduct myself these days is
often not how I used to conduct myself and that this change is due to
lessons I have learnt as a result of feedback from folk on both ARAA's
and elsewhere.

FWIW, I do not mind how you chose to judge me. Should you choose to
criticise me then perhaps I will think it worthwhile listening to what
you say and take what you have to say on board and maybe as a result
have cause to thank you. Should this happen, you will join the other
folk who have helped me get to where I now am in recovery..

Sheenah

Sheenah

2005-04-02, 4:31 pm

"Sheenah" <JBcatRB@coldman.com> wrote in message
news:d2f7qi$qlf$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Ted L." <TedL719nospamplease@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:d2f5ut$rvc$1@domitilla.aioe.org...

For info:

My first post on alt.recovery.addiction.alcoholism as JB was this one:

From: "catsruleok" <catsrul...@bigfoot.com> -Local: Fri, Jun 13 2003
3:49 am
Subject: Hello, I'm very pleased to meet you
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original |
Report Abuse

My internet name is JB. I hope you don't mind if I don't tell you my
real name. .

I have had an unhealthy relationship with alcohol for many years and
finally admitted to being an
alcoholic in the early 1990's. After several years of abstinence, I
thought it would be OK to take
just one drink. It was a bad mistake because now, I'm again hooked..

Since January, things have got progressively worse. As a result of
drinking too much every night, I
have no longer been feeling physically well nor mentally strong. I have
also begun to lose interest
in life and to hope that one morning I will not wake up.

The reason why I am still here is because on Monday a little voice
inside me said "hold on girl,
you're depressed and if you carry on drinking you're going to get even
more depressed. If you want
to stop feeling like this go and get some help. Get some help now".

So, that day, I searched the net and found both this group and AA. On
Tuesday, I didn't have a
drink. On Wednesday, I went to my doctor and told him, through floods
of tears, about my
dependency. He was very sympathetic. He advised that I try cutting
down. I had to reject his
suggestion because I know that if I take one drink I don't stop until I
have drunk enough to make
me fall asleep. So, I said I wanted to go cold turkey and he has given
me meds to help me through.
He wants to see me again in a fortnight

I have not had a drink since Tuesday despite being sorely tempted.
Today, for the first time in
ages I have no headaches. Also, my concentration has improved and I
feel happier.

I know that the journey I have started is going to be hard at times and
I'm glad to have this group
and AA with me.

Thanks for reading

JB

the[vbcol=seagreen]
of[vbcol=seagreen]
> that
> that
> have
>
> OK. However, please note that the JB who posted prior to 13th June
2003
> was not me. Prior to June 2003, I posted only a few messages on
> alt.recovery.addiction.alcoholism in 2002 using the name Sheenah. It
is
> up to you whether or not you believe that I am telling you the truth.
I
> know that I am.
>
> I will also say that I am aware that how I conduct myself these days
is
> often not how I used to conduct myself and that this change is due to
> lessons I have learnt as a result of feedback from folk on both ARAA's
> and elsewhere.
>
> FWIW, I do not mind how you chose to judge me. Should you choose to
> criticise me then perhaps I will think it worthwhile listening to what
> you say and take what you have to say on board and maybe as a result
> have cause to thank you. Should this happen, you will join the other
> folk who have helped me get to where I now am in recovery..
>
> Sheenah
>
>
>

Ted L.

2005-04-02, 4:31 pm

"Sheenah" <JBcatRB@coldman.com> wrote in message
news:d2f7qi$qlf$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> OK. However, please note that the JB who posted prior to 13th June 2003
> was not me. Prior to June 2003, I posted only a few messages on
> alt.recovery.addiction.alcoholism in 2002 using the name Sheenah. It is
> up to you whether or not you believe that I am telling you the truth. I
> know that I am.

I don't have any particular reason not to believe you, so why wouldn't I?

> I will also say that I am aware that how I conduct myself these days is
> often not how I used to conduct myself and that this change is due to
> lessons I have learnt as a result of feedback from folk on both ARAA's
> and elsewhere.
>
> FWIW, I do not mind how you chose to judge me. Should you choose to
> criticise me then perhaps I will think it worthwhile listening to what
> you say and take what you have to say on board and maybe as a result
> have cause to thank you. Should this happen, you will join the other
> folk who have helped me get to where I now am in recovery..
>

I said I was reassessing. I didn't say I was reassessing you (other than
what I already did by learning a little about you.)

--
Ted L.

Benedictus, qui venit in nomine Domini.

Ted L.

2005-04-02, 4:31 pm

"Sheenah" <JBcatRB@coldman.com> wrote in message
news:d2f8n6$8ua$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Thanks for reading
>

Thanks for posting. Congratluations on listening to the still, small voice.
That was then. How is it now?
How old are you? How long where you married? Was your husband's death a
surprise? How have you dealt with that tragedy? You could tell me to go
Google your previous posts, but I bet it'll help for you to go over it again
yourself.

--
Ted L.

Benedictus, qui venit in nomine Domini.

Sheenah

2005-04-02, 4:31 pm

"Ted L." <TedL719nospamplease@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d2f8pp$tue$1@domitilla.aioe.org...
>
> "Sheenah" <JBcatRB@coldman.com> wrote in message
> news:d2f7qi$qlf$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
2003[vbcol=seagreen]
It is[vbcol=seagreen]
truth. I[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I don't have any particular reason not to believe you, so why wouldn't
I?

I have no reason for thinking that you would not believe me.

<snip>
> I said I was reassessing. I didn't say I was reassessing you (other
than
> what I already did by learning a little about you.)

OK.

Sheenah

Tommy

2005-04-02, 4:31 pm

In news:d2fa4u$hhr$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk,
Sheenah <> was heard piping ``(*^(\)
> "Ted L." <>> I said I was reassessing. I didn't say I was reassessing you
(other than
>
> OK.
>
> Sheenah

Sheenah, thats Teds Idea of foreplay - run girl, run like blazes :-))
Cheers
Tommy

Sheenah

2005-04-02, 4:31 pm

"Ted L." <TedL719nospamplease@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d2f955$u42$1@domitilla.aioe.org...
> "Sheenah" <JBcatRB@coldman.com> wrote in message
> news:d2f8n6$8ua$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Thanks for posting. Congratluations on listening to the still, small
voice.
> That was then. How is it now?

I find life easier to deal with when I am making use of the lessons I
have learnt in AA and from other sources.

> How old are you?

47

How long were you married?

My husband and I lived together for 22 years. We were married for just
over 12 years. He was very severely disabled and also much older than
I. He caught polio while working for Shell in Indonesia in 1962 when he
was 30. It affected every part of his body. He was not expected to
survive. After being flown back to England and spending time in a
London hospital he had regained sufficient muscle strength to be able to
survive without an iron lung and to be able to sit up and with the aid
of mobilty arm supports to use his arms and hands. His polio resulted in
him becoming a wheelchair-bound quadraplegic who in later life came to
depend 24/7 on assisted breathing apparatus in order to stay alive.
Despite his disabilities, Peter held down a full time job and for more
than 40 years was one of England's foremost campaigners for measures
that would significantly improve severely disabled peoples' lives.
Recently I heard that the Report of a Committee that he chaired in the
early 1980's on discrimination against disabled people had a significant
influence on disability issues movements in the countries around the
world - including the USA.

Peter and I got together after his first wife died through an
advertisement he had placed in a magazine for a live-in housekeeper,
personal care assistant and chauffeur. I was then 25 and had no
experience of the type of work he wanted done.

Peter was IMO, a most remarkable gentleman. (FWIW, talking about him
has caused me to again start crying).

Was your husband's death a
> surprise?

Yes. However, as he had been in failing health for some time, it was
not unexpected. He was alive at 2.00 am on the23rd Jan when I went to
bed. Eight hours later, when I woke up, saw the time and said "Peter,
come on, it's time we got moving", I discovered he was dead. I admit to
that being a hell of a shock.

> How have you dealt with that tragedy?

Intially, I went to more AA meetings, shared about it on NG's that I
belong to and with family, friends, my Sponsor and some folk who tok the
trouble to contact me; threw myself into the work that had to be done as
a consequence of his death and made use of the lessons I had learnt in
AA, from Peter and other folk. Nowadays, I do not have the desire to
share as much about my loss nor to go to more than my Home AA group's
weekly meeting. However, I find the work I do in AA both f2f and
on-line and other work I am doing and also the other opportunities that
have come my way since Peter died good reasons to think life good enough
to not want to risk losing which I could if I again started drinking.

When I have my wobblies (ie my bouts of crying). I am able to accept
that these bouts are normal for someone who has lost someone they dearly
loved and that one day I will liekly be free of them.

Finally, I find it helpful to dela only with what life has in store for
me during the day in hand. When "life's" plans for my day are the same
as mine, then it;s likely to be an easy day. When our plans differ,
provided I again use the lessons I have learnt in AA and elsewhere, then
I may end that day thinking that it's been an OK -kinda day.

You could tell me to go
> Google your previous posts, but I bet it'll help for you to go over it
again
> yourself.
>
You were right :^) Thank you.

Best regards

Sheenah

..
>
> Benedictus, qui venit in nomine Domini.
>
>

Ted L.

2005-04-02, 4:31 pm

"Sheenah" <JBcatRB@coldman.com> wrote in message
news:d2fdta$5bi$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> You were right :^) Thank you.
>

No, thank *you*. What a moving story. Hang around, OK? I think you have
much to teach us all.

--
Ted L.

Benedictus, qui venit in nomine Domini.

Sheenah

2005-04-02, 4:31 pm

"Ted L." <TedL719nospamplease@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d2hbs0$ged$1@domitilla.aioe.org...
> "Sheenah" <JBcatRB@coldman.com> wrote in message
> news:d2fdta$5bi$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> No, thank *you*. What a moving story. Hang around, OK?

Maybe.

Ted F.

2005-04-02, 4:31 pm

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 16:27:43 -0600, "Ted L."
<TedL719nospamplease@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Sheenah" <JBcatRB@coldman.com> wrote in message
>news:d2f8n6$8ua$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>Thanks for posting. Congratluations on listening to the still, small voice.
>That was then. How is it now?
>How old are you? How long where you married? Was your husband's death a
>surprise? How have you dealt with that tragedy? You could tell me to go
>Google your previous posts, but I bet it'll help for you to go over it again
>yourself.

What's this, twenty questions?
Make that 21 :-)

Ted F.

Mark Warner

2005-04-02, 4:31 pm

Ted F. wrote:
> "Ted L." wrote:
>
> What's this, twenty questions?
> Make that 21 :-)

Ted L.'s cruising chicks again...

--
Mark Warner
lose .inhibitions when replying

Paul

2005-04-05, 5:12 pm

"Sheenah" <JBcatRB@coldman.com> wrote:
>
>"Sheenah" <JBcatRB@coldman.com> wrote in message
>news:d2f7qi$qlf$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>For info:
>
>My first post on alt.recovery.addiction.alcoholism as JB was this one:
>
>From: "catsruleok" <catsrul...@bigfoot.com> -Local: Fri, Jun 13 2003
>3:49 am
>Subject: Hello, I'm very pleased to meet you
>Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original |
>Report Abuse
>
>My internet name is JB. I hope you don't mind if I don't tell you my
>real name. .
>
>I have had an unhealthy relationship with alcohol for many years and
>finally admitted to being an
>alcoholic in the early 1990's. After several years of abstinence, I
>thought it would be OK to take
>just one drink. It was a bad mistake because now, I'm again hooked..
>
>Since January, things have got progressively worse. As a result of
>drinking too much every night, I
>have no longer been feeling physically well nor mentally strong. I have
>also begun to lose interest
>in life and to hope that one morning I will not wake up.
>
>The reason why I am still here is because on Monday a little voice
>inside me said "hold on girl,
>you're depressed and if you carry on drinking you're going to get even
>more depressed. If you want
>to stop feeling like this go and get some help. Get some help now".
>
>So, that day, I searched the net and found both this group and AA. On
>Tuesday, I didn't have a
>drink. On Wednesday, I went to my doctor and told him, through floods
>of tears, about my
>dependency. He was very sympathetic. He advised that I try cutting
>down. I had to reject his
>suggestion because I know that if I take one drink I don't stop until I
>have drunk enough to make
>me fall asleep. So, I said I wanted to go cold turkey and he has given
>me meds to help me through.
>He wants to see me again in a fortnight
>
>I have not had a drink since Tuesday despite being sorely tempted.
>Today, for the first time in
>ages I have no headaches. Also, my concentration has improved and I
>feel happier.
>
>I know that the journey I have started is going to be hard at times and
>I'm glad to have this group
>and AA with me.
>
>Thanks for reading
>
>JB
>
>
>the
>of
>2003
>is
>I
>is
>
>

May I suggest you look at Rational Recovery (rational.org). Click on the link
"Recover Now".

I also recommend the book by Jack Trimpey, "Rational Recovery: The New Cure for
Substance Addiction".

I urge you to stay away from AA and the Recovery Group Movement.

You can solve your problem for good in a matter of days.

Sheenah

2005-04-05, 5:12 pm

"Paul" <paul@vortex.org> wrote in message
news:bzZ3e.3978$1x4.2599@fe07.lga...
> May I suggest you look at Rational Recovery (rational.org). Click on
the link
> "Recover Now".
>
> I also recommend the book by Jack Trimpey, "Rational Recovery: The New
Cure for
> Substance Addiction".
>
> I urge you to stay away from AA and the Recovery Group Movement.
>
> You can solve your problem for good in a matter of days.

Paul,

Have you found that RR has helped you to not drink ?

If so, what is the longest period of time that it has enabled you to not
do so ?

Sheenah

Paul

2005-04-05, 5:12 pm

Gail

2005-04-05, 5:12 pm

I wish you would stick around, Paul. I hear the AA people say that AA isn't
the only way but then, I see the same people not accepting another way when
it is brought forward. Confusing, isn't it?
Gail

--
**********************************
Whenever you raise the possibility that things aren't so simple and aren't
so straightforward, people who think they don't have a belief system, who
think they're grounded in fact, start to get angry.
( Vicky Woodward )

"Paul" <paul@vortex.org> wrote in message news:BS_3e.436$%i5.21@fe04.lga...
>
>
> Rational Recovery (RR) was the key to understanding why I drank and
> permitted
> me to stop forever.
>
> I solved the problem two years ago and I cannot image ever drinking again.
> Once
> I understood why I drank and then made the committment to never drink
> again,
> the problem was solved for all time. It was easy.
>
> You asked what was the longest time it has enabled me to not drink. Since
> I
> will never drink again, it is the same as asking me how long I will live.
> (And
> that will be a long time, I hope.)
>
> Prior to knowing about RR I went through much of the pain I see expressed
> in
> this forum. Fortunately, I never got into trouble with the law nor had the
> most
> extreme consequences of alcohol abuse. I surveyed the approaches to
> treating
> the problem. I strongly rejected AA as utter nonsense and fortunately I
> don't
> have the scars of years of suffering with that disgusting organization. My
> logical mind did the rejecting.
>
> Maybe I don't belong in this forum, because it seems to be a festering
> ground
> for AA crap. Sorry if I offend but I would have expected better from
> people.
>

Paul

2005-04-05, 5:12 pm

>Paul,
>
>Have you found that RR has helped you to not drink ?
>
>If so, what is the longest period of time that it has enabled you to not
>do so ?
>
>Sheenah
>
>

Rational Recovery (RR) was the key to understanding why I drank and permitted
me to stop forever.

I solved the problem two years ago and I cannot image ever drinking again. Once
I understood why I drank and then made the committment to never drink again,
the problem was solved for all time. It was easy.

You asked what was the longest time it has enabled me to not drink. Since I
will never drink again, it is the same as asking me how long I will live. (And
that will be a long time, I hope.)

Prior to knowing about RR I went through much of the pain I see expressed in
this forum. Fortunately, I never got into trouble with the law nor had the most
extreme consequences of alcohol abuse. I surveyed the approaches to treating
the problem. I strongly rejected AA as utter nonsense and fortunately I don't
have the scars of years of suffering with that disgusting organization. My
logical mind did the rejecting.

Maybe I don't belong in this forum, because it seems to be a festering ground
for AA crap. Sorry if I offend but I would have expected better from people. I
find the blind acceptance of AA truly incredible. It's a religion replete with
sin and guilt, confession and repentance, helplessness, and proselytizing
(fundamental Christianity brewed from the Oxford Movement).

The simple and elegant ideas in Rational Recovery explained everything and
provided the solution to alcohol problems. In a nutshell: We drink for
pleasure. The pleasure center is in the mid-brain (sometimes called the
mammalian brain), which is the primitive part of the brain. It is physically
separate from the neocortex which is that part of the brain that houses our
personality (the part that is the real you). When you pick up a glass of
alcohol, it is not your pleasure center but your neocortex that makes that
decision. You will always have a pleasure center but it is a very simple
process to recognize when its "addictive voice" is heard. You simply use your
thinking brain to dismiss this voice. No person is powerless against alcohol.
Even someone who goes to AA and professes powerless is ignoring the fact that
he is exercising his own power to solve his alcohol problem. Unfortunately the
AA philosophy sees this as a lifelong process of "recovery". Hey, if you don't
drink, you ARE recovered. Get it?

Unfortunately, there is a whole industry built around the disease model of
alcohol addiction. It would be devastating the industry to suddenly have the
cash flow stop when there is noone left to "treat." There is not one shred of
evidence that alcohol addiction is a disease.

Although there is statistical evidence that there is some hereditary influence,
even that is suspect since there are environmental factors that may be in
effect. Also, simply because ones pleasure center is more sensitive to certain
hormones does not give one a disease and the sensitivity falls within the
normal range for our species. There will never be found a gene for "alcoholism"
because none exists.

I think the rational.org website ("Recover Now" link) would be a very good
place to start, the book by Jack Trimpey (Rational Recovery: the New Cure for
Substance Addiction) would be a worthwhile read and may be all one needs to
make the Big Plan to quit for good. RR does offer a 4-day crash course at their
site in California, and for some that may be the best choice since it offers
the direct contact with the author of the ideas. Cost is about $1700 I believe.
If you add up all the cost of alcohol for a couple years or compare it with
the multi-thousands of dollars for the "Rehab" path, that money is cheap. And
you can go home totally free of alcohol problems.

As an aside, I spent the $1700. Well worth it. The web site is free, and so is
the book if your local library has it. The book costs about $15. There's a
DVD/Video tape set that goes through one of those $1700 courses. I believe it
costs about $400-$450.

Paul

2005-04-05, 5:12 pm

Paul

2005-04-05, 5:12 pm

"Gail" <zserenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I wish you would stick around, Paul. I hear the AA people say that AA isn't
>the only way but then, I see the same people not accepting another way when
>it is brought forward. Confusing, isn't it?
>Gail

It's not confusing at all. Comments that run counter to AA are a threat to
them. That is why they are unaccepting of anything other than what they have
been taught. It's a natural defensive measure. Even many professionals and
professed experts feel threatened and I have to believe the economic impact of
the loss of clientele "in rehab" lends a definite bias if not hostility against
any non-AA expressions.

I still find it incredible that AA is practically the only game in town, given
its poor success rate (5% success after 5 years by its own survey). In most
endeavors that would be considered real failure.

I have a great interest in seeing the simple yet elegant ideas of Rational
Recovery attain the critical mass necessary to become the true alternative to
AA. On what path that may lead me I don't know yet. Although I did attend one
AA meeting more than a decade ago, I rejected their view by reading the
literature (including the Big Book). From an intellectual viewpoint, the AA
approach is repulsive. Although I don't wish to offend any strongly religious
person, AA is clearly a religion closely akin to Christian Fundamentalism (with
sin, guilt, confession, repentance, proselytizing (spreading the word)); in
fact, its origins lie in the Oxford Group Movement which was fundamentalist. To
say it is not religious but spiritual is bunk.

I would like to present Rational Recovery without attacking AA. If I wrote a
book on the subject I would relegate the AA dismisal to an appendix for those
who have had the misfortune to become entrapped by that organization.

Thank you for appreciating my presence, and I will probably stick around for a
while.

dan mcgown

2005-04-05, 5:12 pm

> I would like to present Rational Recovery without attacking AA. If I wrote
> a
> book on the subject I would relegate the AA dismisal to an appendix for
> those
> who have had the misfortune to become entrapped by that organization.

Your first post included: "Ignore all the AA crap. It is TOTAL bullshit."

Your second post included: "The 'Rocovery Movement' industry may want you to
think
otherwise, but they have a very great financial interest in doing so."

Before anyone had replied to any of your comments, you posted: "AA is part
of the problem."

Again, before anyone had replied to any of your posts, you said: "DO NOT
even look at AA, which is total garbage and part of the
problem, not the cure."

That was all posted by you before anyone had posted anything at all, let
alone anything hostile to you or your message.

Under the circumstances, it rings rather hollow when you say, "I would like
to present Rational Recovery without attacking AA."

If you actually wish to engage in reasoned discourse, then I suggest that
you begin with reasoned discourse.

Paul

2005-04-05, 5:12 pm

Point well made.

What do you know about Rational Recovery, so I know where to begin?

dan mcgown

2005-04-05, 5:12 pm

"Paul" <paul@vortex.org> wrote in message news:SI24e.9940$4o3.83@fe02.lga...
> Point well made.
>
> What do you know about Rational Recovery, so I know where to begin?

In all fairness, I only know what I could infer from your posts and
from the available materials on the rational.org website.
From that, it appeared to me to be somewhat similar to the approach of
the fourth step of the 12 step program. In short form, that step is where
one is supposed to be identifying the other things that are wrong with
himself or herself that messes up their life in general and sends them back
to drinking in particular.
That sounds a lot, at least it does to me, like "a simple thinking
skill that identifies the sole cause of any addiction as the voice in one's
head that says, 'Do it!'" -- except that it doesn't anticipate that there is
necessarily one sole cause.
I know that in my case I found a primary cause that, when I faced it,
relieved me of my need to drink to hide from myself. That isn't to say,
though, that there aren't other things that I have to deal with or other
excuses to drink.
For what it's worth, by the way, the Big Book doesn't say that one
needs to attend meetings. It does say that you need to work the steps and
the fellowship of the meetings can help with that.
Sometimes people do get a bad feeling at meetings attended by a large
number of people who are stuck somewhere in the first three steps and never
do manage to get past that into becoming a person who is sober and not
merely not drinking at the moment.
The old timers say "If you're not working on the fourth, you're working
on a fifth."

Sheenah

2005-04-05, 5:12 pm

"Paul" <paul@vortex.org> wrote in message
news:uF%3e.9921$dm1.2270@fe02.lga...
> Maybe I don't belong in this forum, because it seems to be a festering
ground
> for AA crap. Sorry if I offend but I would have expected better from
people. I
> find the blind acceptance of AA truly incredible. It's a religion
replete with
> sin and guilt, confession and repentance, helplessness, and
proselytizing
> (fundamental Christianity brewed from the Oxford Movement).

My understanding of AA's teachings leads me to believe that AA's view of
alcoholism being an illness that affects both the mind and body could
less likely cause those who have decided they have a drinking problem to
feel guilty about it. It also offers the possbility of recovery from
that illness.

The RR website suggests that folk who have a drinking problem are merely
"stupid": "The structural model of addiction is unique to Rational
Recovery. This simple idea helps make sense of your addiction and shows
you why you have been behaving so stupidly."
(http://www.rational.org/html_public..._structure.html)

Now, in your analyis of AA you have not mentioned that it was a Medical
doctor who suggested that alcoholsim was a condition that affected the
mind and y. His theory developed from his observations over several
years of folk who came to the hospital where he worked to receive
treatment for their drinking problem. This caused me to wonder abolut
the credentials of those who developed the RR programme. The RR website
states: "Families with an addicted member may find our viewpoints on
addiction far more sensible than the confused and often demeaning
concepts found in mainstream approaches. This is because our approach is
based upon old-fashioned values that have almost certainly been handed
down for generations in your own family. Here, you may revive your own
common sense and follow your own best judgment, rather than relying upon
advice from people whose lives are defined by chronic addiction, social
cultism, and endless recovery." (http://www.rational.org/index.html)

There, I also noted: "To quit your addiction you must first stop
drinking/using long enough to learn AVRT®* Addiction recovery is not a
group project; it is an individual responsibility. You are ultimately on
your own."

Will what I have posted encourage lively discussion ?

Sheenah

* The RR programme

rosie read n' post

2005-04-05, 5:12 pm

paul,
just for the record, i don't find comments the run counter to AA a
threat at all, nor do any of the folks i go to meetings
with.....................WHATEVER WORKS means just that!
i am glad that you have found your answer!
stick around and share, you are NOT the only person in this forum
who does not use AA as their tool of recovery.

rosie

"Paul" <paul@vortex.org> wrote in message
news:6T04e.9926$Gt2.4276@fe02.lga...
: "Gail" <zserenity6850_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
: >I wish you would stick around, Paul. I hear the AA people say
that AA isn't
: >the only way but then, I see the same people not accepting
another way when
: >it is brought forward. Confusing, isn't it?
: >Gail
:
: It's not confusing at all. Comments that run counter to AA are a
threat to
: them. That is why they are unaccepting of anything other than what
they have
: been taught. It's a natural defensive measure. Even many
professionals and
: professed experts feel threatened and I have to believe the
economic impact of
: the loss of clientele "in rehab" lends a definite bias if not
hostility against
: any non-AA expressions.
:
: I still find it incredible that AA is practically the only game in
town, given
: its poor success rate (5% success after 5 years by its own
survey). In most
: endeavors that would be considered real failure.
:
: I have a great interest in seeing the simple yet elegant ideas of
Rational
: Recovery attain the critical mass necessary to become the true
alternative to
: AA. On what path that may lead me I don't know yet. Although I did
attend one
: AA meeting more than a decade ago, I rejected their view by
reading the
: literature (including the Big Book). From an intellectual
viewpoint, the AA
: approach is repulsive. Although I don't wish to offend any
strongly religious
: person, AA is clearly a religion closely akin to Christian
Fundamentalism (with
: sin, guilt, confession, repentance, proselytizing (spreading the
word)); in
: fact, its origins lie in the Oxford Group Movement which was
fundamentalist. To
: say it is not religious but spiritual is bunk.
:
: I would like to present Rational Recovery without attacking AA. If
I wrote a
: book on the subject I would relegate the AA dismisal to an
appendix for those
: who have had the misfortune to become entrapped by that
organization.
:
: Thank you for appreciating my presence, and I will probably stick
around for a
: while.

Scott W

2005-04-05, 5:12 pm

In article <Pxa4e.2723$Nn.2399@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
readandpost@yahoo.com says...

Rosie, I lost my father a couple of years ago. Cancer
hit him fast and took him out, but, not before he
suffered immensely. There was actually more suffering
for us Before he passed away, because, the chemo
and the worrying and the 'trying to get everything
in order' for him. The hardest part of it all was
watching him suffer and knowing that neither he
or we could do a damned thing about it. I know that
losing a parent will change you in ways that are
hard to comprehend. It really hurts. Hats off to you
for keeping your grip and keeping sober thru it all.
You're a good role model for us all, Rosie.

--
"I am NOT an elephant!" --- elephant man

http://scottwitherspoon.blogspot.com/
http://www.geocities.com/woogawooga99

Sheenah

2005-04-05, 5:12 pm

"Scott W" <meanwhile.back@theranch.xxx> wrote in message
news:d2s56b$u0u$f@pita.alt.net...
> In article <Pxa4e.2723$Nn.2399@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
> readandpost@yahoo.com says...

> You're a good role model for us all, Rosie.
>
EGO's adore such opinons :^)

Sheenah

Scott W

2005-04-05, 5:12 pm

In article <d2s6l5$mbb$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, JBcatRB@coldman.com
says...
> "Scott W" <meanwhile.back@theranch.xxx> wrote in message
> news:d2s56b$u0u$f@pita.alt.net...
>
> EGO's adore such opinons :^)
>
> Sheenah
>
>
>
Well; they say that big ego and no ego cancel each other out.
;P I did WAY too much acid.
--
"I am NOT an elephant!" --- elephant man

http://scottwitherspoon.blogspot.com/
http://www.geocities.com/woogawooga99

rosie read n' post

2005-04-05, 5:12 pm

thanks scott.................we went through a similar death with my
dad too..............exhausting, isn't it?
(((scott)))

--

"Scott W" <meanwhile.back@theranch.xxx> wrote in message
news:d2s56b$u0u$f@pita.alt.net...
: In article <Pxa4e.2723$Nn.2399@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
: readandpost@yahoo.com says...
:
:
: Rosie, I lost my father a couple of years ago. Cancer
: hit him fast and took him out, but, not before he
: suffered immensely. There was actually more suffering
: for us Before he passed away, because, the chemo
: and the worrying and the 'trying to get everything
: in order' for him. The hardest part of it all was
: watching him suffer and knowing that neither he
: or we could do a damned thing about it. I know that
: losing a parent will change you in ways that are
: hard to comprehend. It really hurts. Hats off to you
: for keeping your grip and keeping sober thru it all.
: You're a good role model for us all, Rosie.
:
:
: --
: "I am NOT an elephant!" --- elephant man
:
: http://scottwitherspoon.blogspot.com/
: http://www.geocities.com/woogawooga99

Scott W

2005-04-05, 5:12 pm

In article <bsh4e.3258$215.1353@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
readandpost@yahoo.com says...
> thanks scott.................we went through a similar death with my
> dad too..............exhausting, isn't it?
> (((scott)))
>
>
It was unreal. There's nothing in the world that
will prepare you for it and it's something that
you have to face all alone. But, I'm happy for one
thing. Before his death, I made every effort to
understand the man and make reparations concerning
all the stuff that he put us thru and all the stuff
that I put him thru growing up. My sister and brother
never got things right with him and they still hate
him for being a bad, abusive alcoholic. Sides all
of his bad ways, he was still a good man and had
a good heart and loved his family.
--
"I am NOT an elephant!" --- elephant man

http://scottwitherspoon.blogspot.com/
http://www.geocities.com/woogawooga99

rosie read n' post

2005-04-05, 5:12 pm

awwwwwwwwww scott, that really reminds me of our adventures with
dad.......................
we had four days....................just four days.
each of us ten kids got to talk, reminisce and straighten out
relationships with dad before he passed on.
his stroke took away his ability to speak, so this time, he could
not stop the free flowing emotion in the room..............lots of
healing took place and it was truly a "HP thing"

--

"Scott W" <meanwhile.back@theranch.xxx> wrote in message
news:d2s8hl$u0u$r@pita.alt.net...
: In article <bsh4e.3258$215.1353@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
: readandpost@yahoo.com says...
: > thanks scott.................we went through a similar death
with my
: > dad too..............exhausting, isn't it?
: > (((scott)))
: >
: >
: It was unreal. There's nothing in the world that
: will prepare you for it and it's something that
: you have to face all alone. But, I'm happy for one
: thing. Before his death, I made every effort to
: understand the man and make reparations concerning
: all the stuff that he put us thru and all the stuff
: that I put him thru growing up. My sister and brother
: never got things right with him and they still hate
: him for being a bad, abusive alcoholic. Sides all
: of his bad ways, he was still a good man and had
: a good heart and loved his family.
: --
: "I am NOT an elephant!" --- elephant man
:
: http://scottwitherspoon.blogspot.com/
: http://www.geocities.com/woogawooga99

Paul

2005-04-05, 5:12 pm

>
>My understanding of AA's teachings leads me to believe that AA's view of
>alcoholism being an illness that affects both the mind and body could
>less likely cause those who have decided they have a drinking problem to
>feel guilty about it. It also offers the possbility of recovery from
>that illness.

AA espouses guilt, just the opposite of what you stated. For example, the
directive to confess our sins to someone else. That is an exprssion of guilt.
The 12-steps arose from the Oxford Movement, a Christian Fundamentalist sect,
and they have all the helplessness, sin, guilt, confession, and proselytizing
that does the religion from which it stems.

I think you are also wrong about AA offering the possibility of recovery. You
are always "recovering" in AA. You are never recovered. (This is different from
someone who stops smoking. We never say that a person who no longer smokes is a
"recovering smoker". He/she is simply someone who no longer smokes. AA in
essence promotes slips because one is always recovering and never recovered.

>
>The RR website suggests that folk who have a drinking problem are merely
>"stupid": "The structural model of addiction is unique to Rational
>Recovery. This simple idea helps make sense of your addiction and shows
>you why you have been behaving so stupidly."
>(http://www.rational.org/html_public..._structure.html)
>

I can agree with you on this one to a degree. The founder of Rational Recovery
has an ax to grind with AA (not unjustified in my opinion), but I have thought
he would better advance his cause by making it stand on its own merits without
paying any attention to AA. I think RR can be successful on its own merits.

>Now, in your analyis of AA you have not mentioned that it was a Medical
>doctor who suggested that alcoholsim was a condition that affected the
>mind and y. His theory developed from his observations over several
>years of folk who came to the hospital where he worked to receive
>treatment for their drinking problem. This caused me to wonder abolut
>the credentials of those who developed the RR programme. The RR website
>states: "Families with an addicted member may find our viewpoints on
>addiction far more sensible than the confused and often demeaning
>concepts found in mainstream approaches. This is because our approach is
>based upon old-fashioned values that have almost certainly been handed
>down for generations in your own family. Here, you may revive your own
>common sense and follow your own best judgment, rather than relying upon
>advice from people whose lives are defined by chronic addiction, social
>cultism, and endless recovery." (http://www.rational.org/index.html)
>

The majority of people who have had problems with alcohol simply quit (or even
moderate consumption successfully). People who have never had an alcohol
problem may ask "Why don't you just quit?" So, in their naivete, they have the
solution that RR espouses. The perpetual weekly meetings seem unnecessary.
That's what RR espouses.

The facts about the structure of the brain and modern tools such as PET scans,
which provide real-time details about the location of brain activity, show
where the pleasure center is in the brain. (It's in the more primitive
mid-brain.) We know that the mid-brain is physically distinct from the
higher-functioning levels of the brain (the cortex), which is the part of the
brain that is the real person, you. And the cortex is also the part that
decides to pick up the glass. The mid-brain can't do anything but want
pleasure. Your "higher power" if you will (i.e. the cortex) needs to do the
will of the mid-brain in order to drink. With RR you learn to recognize this
"Addictive Voice" of the mid-brain and ignore it. Very soon, it becomes easy
and automatic.

AA arose from fundamental Christianity, and because it is a religion (despite
denials) it doesn't need proofs. Probably the best evidence of its efficacy (or
lack of it) comes from AA itself in its survey that reported a 5% success rate
after 5 years. Hardly something to be proud of, IMHO.

>There, I also noted: "To quit your addiction you must first stop
>drinking/using long enough to learn AVRT®* Addiction recovery is not a
>group project; it is an individual responsibility. You are ultimately on
>your own."
>

Of course, if you've just finished a 6-pack it would be a bad time to go the RR
website to do their crash course, or read the Rational Recovery book. Once your
head is clear a person can begin. The concepts in RR are elegant in their
simplicity. Some of the greatest concepts in history are simple (e.g. e=mc**2),
and in my opinion, simplicity is the mark of excellence. Only the person with
the alcohol problem can fix the way he thinks; for me, the key was learning the
structure of the brain. After that the other pieces all fit together. The
emphasis on personal responsibility is empowering.

>Will what I have posted encourage lively discussion ?
>
>Sheenah
>
>* The RR programme
>
>

Paul

2005-04-05, 5:12 pm

"dan mcgown" <dmcgown@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>"Paul" <paul@vortex.org> wrote in message news:SI24e.9940$4o3.83@fe02.lga...
>
> In all fairness, I only know what I could infer from your posts and
>from the available materials on the rational.org website.
> From that, it appeared to me to be somewhat similar to the approach of
>the fourth step of the 12 step program. In short form, that step is where
>one is supposed to be identifying the other things that are wrong with
>himself or herself that messes up their life in general and sends them back
>to drinking in particular.

That isn't it at all. The reason people drink is that it provides pleasure. In
another thread I tried to summarize Rational Recovery so I won't repeat myself
here. Once a person makes the Big Plan vowing to never drink again, the alcohol
problem is solved for all time. That doesn't mean that all ones problems go
away. But with the alcohol problem out of the way, the other problems can be
addressed, perhaps with the help of a professional who is qualified to help.
(You won't find any who can help with the alcohol problem; that's yours to
solve.) With a clear head and alcohol out of the way, other problems can be
worked on. Some were a consequence of the alcohol abuse. For example, a person
may discover that alcohol was the cause of depression rather than the other way
around; without alcohol the depression goes away.

Things don't cause a person to return to drinking. That is just an excuse the
Beast (mid-brain, pleasure center) uses to get its fix. It has to depend on the
cortex, the real you, to satisfy it lust for pleasure. (This dichotomy in the
brain is a scientific fact.)

> That sounds a lot, at least it does to me, like "a simple thinking
>skill that identifies the sole cause of any addiction as the voice in one's
>head that says, 'Do it!'" -- except that it doesn't anticipate that there is
>necessarily one sole cause.

The voice that says, "Do it!", is your mid-brain (the pleasure center). The
desire is for pleasure. There are no other causes. The "causes" you give are
merely used to get the pleasure the midbrain seeks.

> I know that in my case I found a primary cause that, when I faced it,
>relieved me of my need to drink to hide from myself. That isn't to say,
>though, that there aren't other things that I have to deal with or other
>excuses to drink.
> For what it's worth, by the way, the Big Book doesn't say that one
>needs to attend meetings. It does say that you need to work the steps and
>the fellowship of the meetings can help with that.

Well, I think the 12-steps are crap! You must know its origins in the Oxford
Movement. It comes replete with helplessness, sin, guilt, confession, and
proselytizing. Its incredible that people deny it is a religion. If you're into
Christian Fundamentalism you may buy into it. I know there is a better
alternative.

> Sometimes people do get a bad feeling at meetings attended by a large
>number of people who are stuck somewhere in the first three steps and never
>do manage to get past that into becoming a person who is sober and not
>merely not drinking at the moment.

Me for example. I'm forever stuck in the 1st step: the one about helplessness.
I think the first step is utter nonsense. Sorry, I will not turn off my brain.
Empower yourself.

> The old timers say "If you're not working on the fourth, you're working
>on a fifth."

AA has lots of catchy slogans. Cute.

>
>

dan mcgown

2005-04-05, 5:12 pm

I would like to point something out to you. You aren't talking to
someone who is a child nor to someone who is uneducated not to someone who
has a low IQ -- nor to someone who hasn't given any thought to the
simplistic approach that you espose.
The important thing, though, is that you *are* talking to someone who
no longer drinks, hasn't for nearly 2 years and no longer has a desire to
drink.
I don't object to your assertion that your way works for you. I do
object to your sneering assertion that your way is the only way that works.
I object even more strongly to the implicit assertion that your way
would work for me.
It didn't. I did try your simplistic little plan of just deciding that
I wouldn't listen to the desire to drink. I did drink anyway.
I tried the 12 step program and it did work for me. That was all that
I needed or need to know.
I'm glad that your way worked for you but that isn't a path that
involves me. I'm even more glad that my way works for me.
Now, would you like to discuss the issue of tolerance or does your
mindset require fundamentalist purism?

dan mcgown

2005-04-05, 5:12 pm

> That isn't it at all. The reason people drink is that it provides
> pleasure.

Well, no, not really. Different people may do the same act for differing
reasons. The reason that I drank was that it provided oblivion. I was
blotting out my consciousness. Think of it as a form of suicide.

> Things don't cause a person to return to drinking. That is just an excuse
> the
> Beast (mid-brain, pleasure center) uses to get its fix. It has to depend
> on the
> cortex, the real you, to satisfy it lust for pleasure. (This dichotomy in
> the
> brain is a scientific fact.)

That may be true for you. It may be true for some other people. I wasn't
doing it for pleasure and in fact it provided none. It is almost funny but
was prophetically telling that I used to say that I was "hitting myself in
the head with a vodka shaped brick."

> The voice that says, "Do it!", is your mid-brain (the pleasure center).
> The
> desire is for pleasure. There are no other causes.

Sorry but that sounds like a religiously based assertion to me and not a
supportable scientific principle. People do things for many reasons.

> Well, I think the 12-steps are crap!

My, now *there's* a rational critique.

>You must know its origins in the Oxford
> Movement.

What do I care about its origins? I care about whether it works. Aspirin
is based on an old folk remedy of chewing willow bark. It still works.

> Me for example. I'm forever stuck in the 1st step: the one about
> helplessness.
> I think the first step is utter nonsense. Sorry, I will not turn off my
> brain.
> Empower yourself.

I'm not asking you to turn off your brain. I'm asking you to turn on your
brain and accept that if it works for me then it works for me. Facts are
self demonstrating and don't care what anyone thinks about them. The fact
is that this way does work for me and does work for others. If it doesn't
work for you then you are right, for yourself, to use another way that does
work for you. That does not justify, however, disregarding the fact that
this way works for me.

> AA has lots of catchy slogans. Cute.

It is juvenile to sneer at a thought by describing it as a cliche, a
commonplace or a slogan. The way that a thought becomes a cliche is by
being right often enough that a lot of people have said it.

Sheenah

2005-04-05, 5:12 pm

"Paul" <paul@vortex.org> wrote in message
news:flo4e.161$jw5.143@fe08.lga...
>
of[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
from[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> AA espouses guilt, just the opposite of what you stated. For example,
the
> directive to confess our sins to someone else.

My view on Step 5 (one of AA's "confession" Steps) is that sharing the
issues that I noted when writing my inventory,- ie our Resentments,
Fears and issues relating to sex - and discussing my thoughts on how
these issues adversely affected my self-esteem, personal relations,
financial and emotional security and pride for example, has enabled me
to make decisions that have led to me developing new attitudes and
behaviours that have resulted in those Resentments, Fears and issues
relating to Sex no longer adversely affecting me. In other words,
through talking I got the chance to learn the importance of adapting
myself to life as it is and to see the consequences of my fruitless
efforts to get life to be as I wanted it to be. For an alcoholic to be
engaged in fruitless efforts to get life to be as he or she wants it to
be can, IMO, lead that person to drink. Certainly, I did.

> The 12-steps arose from the Oxford Movement, a Christian
Fundamentalist sect,
> and they have all the helplessness, sin, guilt, confession, and
proselytizing
> that does the religion from which it stems.
>
> I think you are also wrong about AA offering the possibility of
recovery. You
> are always "recovering" in AA. You are never recovered.

IMO, AA does offer the possibility of recovery from alcoholism. At this
time, I think that comes when the alcoholic is able to appreciate that
drinking is not an option for them and is able to not drink no matter
what circumstances they find themselves in.

merely[vbcol=seagreen]
shows[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I can agree with you on this one to a degree. The founder of Rational
Recovery
> has an ax to grind with AA (not unjustified in my opinion), but I have
thought
> he would better advance his cause by making it stand on its own merits
without
> paying any attention to AA. I think RR can be successful on its own
merits.

I agree. I think also that those who support RR could benefit it more
if they themselves did not engage in AA and Recovery industry bashing
but rather recognised both as being of value to some folk.

Sheenah

dan mcgown

2005-04-05, 5:12 pm

> simplistic approach that you espose.
Obviously, should be "espouse" -- whatever else may be true it's clear
that I'm not a professional typist (nor proofreader) <L>

rosie read n' post

2005-04-05, 5:12 pm

"Paul" <paul@vortex.org> wrote in message
news:flo4e.161$jw5.143@fe08.lga...

: I think you are also wrong about AA offering the possibility of
recovery. You
: are always "recovering" in AA. You are never recovered. (This is
different from
: someone who stops smoking. We never say that a person who no
longer smokes is a
: "recovering smoker". He/she is simply someone who no longer
smokes. AA in
: essence promotes slips because one is always recovering and never
recovered.
:

paul,
i find your feelings about AA interesting, and part of a common
thread heard around the world.
AA is NOT for everyone.....................obviously you are one of
those folks.
btw, i AM a recovering smoker also!

rosie read n' post

2005-04-05, 5:12 pm

"Paul" <paul@vortex.org> wrote in message
news:ZGo4e.5627$Sd1.2190@fe03.lga...

:
: That isn't it at all. The reason people drink is that it provides
pleasure.

paul,
i believe you are oversimplifying here..............imo, there are
many reasons folks drink.
again i would like to add, that WHATEVER WORKS for you is the point!

rosie read n' post

2005-04-05, 5:12 pm

: "Paul" <paul@vortex.org> wrote in message
: news:flo4e.161$jw5.143@fe08.lga...
..
: >
: > AA espouses guilt, just the opposite of what you stated. For
example,
: the
: > directive to confess our sins to someone else.
:
:

by the time i arrived at the fourth and fifth step, my whole outlook
on life and my purpose in it had changed.
my fifth step was a tool to DEFLATE that huge "guilt hammer" that i
was using on myself.
i found while discussing my inventory with another human being, that
i wasn't nearly the "shit head" i thought i was!

paul

2005-04-06, 8:32 am

"rosie read n' post" <readandpost@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>: "Paul" <paul@vortex.org> wrote in message
>: news:flo4e.161$jw5.143@fe08.lga...
>.
>: >
>: > AA espouses guilt, just the opposite of what you stated. For
>example,
>: the
>: > directive to confess our sins to someone else.
>:
>:
>
>by the time i arrived at the fourth and fifth step, my whole outlook
>on life and my purpose in it had changed.
>my fifth step was a tool to DEFLATE that huge "guilt hammer" that i
>was using on myself.
>i found while discussing my inventory with another human being, that
>i wasn't nearly the "shit head" i thought i was!
>

>
>

Let's say someone has a drinking problem but successfully stops drinking. Then
there may well be problems and personal "issues" that need solving. Take for
example, the self-esteem issue you had. Once abstinent, such an issue can be
addressed separately from the alcohol issue and even with the help of a
counselor or psychologist. (It may even have gone away, because it was a
consequence of alcohol abuse.) There are professionals who know how to help in
these matters. I submit that an AA group is UNqualified in such matters. The
others in the group have their own problems to address, in all likelihood.

Situations or what one might call "triggers" don't really cause people to
drink. The pleasure center in the midbrain will do anything to get you to pick
up a glass because it needs that fix. It just uses the excuse of a "trigger" to
get you to do that. Recognition of the addictive voice that want you to drink,
stills the voice and it is quickly put back in its place. This happens
effortlessly.

For someone trained in this methodology (and I am one), it is possible to
walked through the liquor department at Sam's Club and admire the bottles and
remember the good feelings they once gave me. Then I can quckly switch to
thinking about the bad things alcohol has caused. At that point I can easily
continue on my way to the net aisle. With this methodology I can say with
absolute certainty I will never drink again.

Last month I spent a week at an all-inclusive resort in Cancun. There was an
open-bar round the clock. I was comfortable with that even though I maybe
didn't get my money's worth.

Rather than fear alcohol I simply have made it
something I do without. I can't imagine ever drinking again.

In short, permanent abstinence solves the alcohol problem. Other problems not
caused by alcohol abuse may require further solution, perhaps with a trained
professional. The individual is the ONLY one who can solve the alcohol problem.
One can find trained professionals to help with non-alcohol related problems
that remain after abstinence is established. Finally, everyone has problems and
part of being human is solving them.

paul

2005-04-06, 8:32 am

> I wasn't
>doing it for pleasure and in fact it provided none.

Yes, but the pleasure center (amygdala in the mid-brain) doesn't think about
the bad things alcohol causes. And the first physical effect alcohol has on the
brain is to reduce inhibitions, so control is the first thing to go out the
window.

It is the higher thought center in the brain (the neocortex) that decides to
pick up a glass, and it is always a conscious event. This never just happens.
The trouble is, once alcohol enters the system this controlling function is
impaired.

A person doesn't drink to become oblivious. The mid-brain wants alcohol for
pleasure. Oblivion is a consequence of drinking. Hey, if the mid-brain can get
its fix by signalling you that you need to drink to be oblivious, then what
ever works!

>
>
>Sorry but that sounds like a religiously based assertion to me and not a
>supportable scientific principle. People do things for many reasons.

So where's the religion? Apparently you aren't familiar with the structure of
the brain. The mid-brain, sometimes called the mammalian brain, has several
components. It controls such things as your breathing, your sex drive, and your
other pleasures, and that includes the nice effect alcohol has. Even a dog has
a mid-brain. As humans, we have a much more evolved cortex that encorporates
the real you, the things that make you human. There are actually wires connect
these two distinct parts of the brain. The mid-brain does everything possible
to get what it needs. What Rational Recovery terms the "Addictive Voice" is
anything that supports drinking (or drugging) and the recognition of the
addictive voice (the Addictive Voice Recognition Technique, AVRT) can easily
quiet the cravings of the mid-brain. With the advent of PET scan technology one
can actually see the localized activity in the brain until conditions such as
the stimulation due to the presence of acohol. This is science, not religion.
This contrasts sharply with AA whose steps fit the fundamental Christianity
tenants to a tee.

>
>
>My, now *there's* a rational critique.

To call it a duck would be wrong.

>
>
>What do I care about its origins?

I thought to underscore the fact that we are talking about a religion here.

I care about whether it works.

If it works for you fine. By AA's own survey only 5% of its membership remain
abstinent after 5 years. Obviously, AA doesn't work for most people who've even
tried it. For those who are able to make the leap of faith and succeed in AA,
more power to them. They're probably stronger than I am because they had to put
up with so much c__p.

Aspirin
>is based on an old folk remedy of chewing willow bark.

Aspirin works on scientific principles. (But, who knows, maybe God gave that
sap in the woods the urge to bite the tree when his head hurt so bad.

)

It still works.

More power to aspirin!

>
>
>I'm not asking you to turn off your brain. I'm asking you to turn on your
>brain and accept that if it works for me then it works for me.

I do accept that. Sorry for not stating that. Elsewhere on another thread I did
make that statement.

Facts are
>self demonstrating and don't care what anyone thinks about them.

I don't understand "self-demonstrating." You speak of them as thought they
were animate objects.

The fact
>is that this way does work for me and does work for others. If it doesn't
>work for you then you are right, for yourself, to use another way that does
>work for you. That does not justify, however, disregarding the fact that
>this way works for me.

Answered above and elsewhere.

>
>
>It is juvenile to sneer at a thought by describing it as a cliche, a
>commonplace or a slogan. The way that a thought becomes a cliche is by
>being right often enough that a lot of people have said it.

A thought becomes a cliche also when it is absolutely wrong. A thought can take
on the cloak of truth even though it is false. It just needs to be repeated
often enough. The glaring counterexample to what you've written is the ideology
of Nazi Germany, cliche-ridden and evil.

Generally cliches are diluted speech. They sound good but carry little weight.
That's why I said "cute." My aversion to cliches may stem from my high school
English teacher who taught me a lot about good writing (not that I always apply
it)

Robert McGregor

2005-04-06, 8:32 am

"Paul" <paul@vortex.org> wrote in message
news:flo4e.161$jw5.143@fe08.lga...
> I think you are also wrong about AA offering the possibility of
> recovery. You
> are always "recovering" in AA. You are never recovered. (This is
> different from
> someone who stops smoking. We never say that a person who no longer
> smokes is a
> "recovering smoker". He/she is simply someone who no longer smokes.
> AA in
> essence promotes slips because one is always recovering and never
> recovered.

Paul's proclivity to proselytise here is exceeded only by Paul's
ignorance, here.

http://tinyurl.com/3okbl

Bob

Sheenah

2005-04-08, 9:34 pm

"paul" <paul@vortex.org> wrote in message
news:%cI4e.1474$1k2.1144@fe04.lga...

> The trouble is, once alcohol enters the system this controlling
function is
> impaired.

This same opinion forms the basis of AA's view of why alcoholics who
want
to recover from alcoholism have to not drink:

"We know that while the alcoholic keeps away from drink...... he reacts
much like other men. We are equally positive that once he takes any
alcohol whatever into his system, something happens, both in the bodily
and mental sense, which makes it impossible for him to stop. (BB, page
22)

Paul, you have also suggested that folk drink because it gives them
pleasure. Here is the AA line:

"Men and women drink essentially because they like the effect produced
by
alcohol. The sensation is so elusive that while they admit it is
injurious they cannot after a time differentiate the true from the
false. To them their alcoholic life seems the only normal one, They
are restless, irritable and discontented unless they can again
experience the sense of ease and comfort which comes at once by taking a
few drinks" (BB, pages xxvi/xxvii)

Again note: it's view on why people drink is not widely different from
RR's view.

Sheenah

Mark Warner

2005-04-08, 9:34 pm

Ted F. wrote:
> "Ted L." wrote:
>
> What's this, twenty questions?
> Make that 21 :-)

Ted L.'s cruising chicks again...

--
Mark Warner
lose .inhibitions when replying

paul

2005-04-08, 9:34 pm

That's interesting. Thanks for pointing that out.

Sheenah

2005-04-08, 9:34 pm

"paul" <paul@vortex.org> wrote in message
news:4O15e.1935$3t5.659@fe04.lga...
> That's interesting. Thanks for pointing that out.

You probably know that AAer's are encouraged to believe that a Higher
Power can restore them to sanity. In other words, a power that is
greater than themselves, can help them see why drinking is not
something that they can do.

Although in our Big Book, the word "God" is widely used, our BB also
suggests that each AA chooses the God of their understanding (ie
something or someone of something that they think could help them see
the truth about their drinking.)

Those who follow RR's programme as well as though who follow AA's
programme, in the belief that either will help them overcome their
drinking problem, is admitting that they need help to over come their
problem and therefore have a need for a Power that's greater than
themselves Some might decide to make the RR prograame their Higher
Power (HP) Others, the AA's programme. Others may chose something
different.

From the above, maybe you see yet further similarities between RR and
AA.

Best regards

Sheenah

hting that kdingdningswho hc AAere is if you hard s,suseBh
Airdagh in our BB theyenable evs ,can helkp them see leves, e (ienaityr
(ie wstore sgedAlso, we AAer's are encouraged to believe that a wer are
Maybe, also Another thought I'll
>

paul

2005-04-08, 9:34 pm

"Sheenah" <JBcatRB@coldman.com> wrote:
>
>"paul" <paul@vortex.org> wrote in message
>news:4O15e.1935$3t5.659@fe04.lga...
>
>You probably know that AAer's are encouraged to believe that a Higher
>Power can restore them to sanity. In other words, a power that is
>greater than themselves, can help them see why drinking is not
>something that they can do.

Rational Recovery rejects all the "Higher Power" line. Completely. It is the
individual with the problem who is the sole person able to solve his/her
problem. Our brains have a primitive section called the mid-brain, sometimes
called the mammalian brain. This is where the pleasure center is located. (The
ONLY reason we drink is for pleasure.) The more developed part of the brain,
the neocortex, is the real you. Conscious thought and personality are located
there. It is the part that decides to pick up the glass, not the mid-brain
which does everything possible to control the neocortex to get its fix. I
suppose you could call the neocortex the "Higher Power", since it is the part
that determines whether or not one drinks. But since that "Higher Power" is
really YOU, it's a stretch. I guess there is no real need to use the term
"Higher Power" which arises from the fundamental Christian origins of the AA
movement.
>
>Although in our Big Book, the word "God" is widely used, our BB also
>suggests that each AA chooses the God of their understanding (ie
>something or someone of something that they think could help them see
>the truth about their drinking.)

I have read several places that someone could make his car keys his Higher
Power, if he doesn't want to use "God." I think this pretty well disembowels
the phrase.

>
>Those who follow RR's programme as well as though who follow AA's
>programme, in the belief that either will help them overcome their
>drinking problem, is admitting that they need help to over come their
>problem and therefore have a need for a Power that's greater than
>themselves Some might decide to make the RR prograame their Higher
>Power (HP) Others, the AA's programme. Others may chose something
>different.
>

RR doesn't have a "program." The nice aspect of the Rational Recovery approach
is that once one spends the short time learning the basics and makes the Big
Plan never to drink again, there is nothing more to do. Just recognizing the
"Addictive Voice," of that mid-brain seeking its fix, is enough to quiet the
beast. Someone can end the problem with alcohol forever in a very short time.

Early on, RR did borrow the "support group" idea, but it was discarded at some
point. I think what may have happened is that the group's founder, Jack
Trimpey, saw Rational Recovery being taken over by ex-AA'ers and he had lost
control. When he got control back he also simplified its ideas. (He apologizes
for his book "The Small Book".) As far as I know his most recent book is
"Rational Recovery: the New Cure for Substance Addiction".

>From the above, maybe you see yet further similarities between RR and
>AA.
>

I would be interested in hearing further suggestions regarding the
similiarities between Rational Recovery and AA.

Sheenah

2005-04-08, 9:34 pm

"paul" <paul@vortex.org> wrote in message
news:ipn5e.7761$OQ3.3208@fe03.lga...
>
> RR doesn't have a "program." The nice aspect of the Rational Recovery
approach
> is that once one spends the short time learning the basics and makes
the Big
> Plan never to drink again, there is nothing more to do

That sounds to me like a programme. On this occasion, I'm interpreting
the word "programme" as meaning structured learning/ following a set of
suggestions/ following a plan. If you disagree with my point of view, I
shan't mind.
..
.. Just recognizing the
> "Addictive Voice," of that mid-brain seeking its fix, is enough to
quiet the
> beast. Someone can end the problem with alcohol forever in a very
short time.

Surely, only when someone is dead can they be absolutely sure that they
will never again do anything that they have said in life that they will
never again do.

Sheenah.

Sheenah

2005-04-08, 9:34 pm

Sheenah

2005-04-08, 9:34 pm

paul

2005-04-11, 5:06 pm

>
>Surely, only when someone is dead can they be absolutely sure that they
>will never again do anything that they have said in life that they will
>never again do.
>
>Sheenah.

Sheenah, what you have written is what Rational Recovery calls the "Addictive
Voice". In RR you are taught to recognize these expressions which are really
motivated by your midbrain, which wants to have its fix.

Also, your logic is somewhat flawed, because you are taking the specific vow to
never drink again and generalizing it to cover all cases where a person might
swear never to something. You are arguing from the specific to the general.

Since the midbrain has no sense of time, and is willing to wait as long as
there is the promise of satisfying the desire for a fix, it may work for some
to say one will drink on one's 100th birthday. For most who have learned the
simple method of Rational Recovery, this isn't necessary. The key is
recognizing the addictive voice, and the very recognition quiets the beast.
Remember, it is you who is in control, not the primitive pleasure center in the
midbrain. This all become very easy after a short period of time.

Mias

2005-04-11, 5:06 pm

"Paul" <paul@vortex.org> wrote in message news:BS_3e.436$%i5.21@fe04.lga...
> You asked what was the longest time it has enabled me to not drink. Since
> I
> will never drink again, it is the same as asking me how long I will live.
> (And
> that will be a long time, I hope.)
Dear Paul - whatever way you have of keeping away from alcohol is fine by
me. Cutting down other methods that have worked for millions and still work
is however NOT ok in my book. Will you kindly refrain from doing that? There
is quite a few remarks I could make about other methods but it would perhaps
be from ignorance and might endanger somebodies sobriety for whom it works.
Now why on earth should I do that? I wish the world to be a better place for
all. I do not need to sell anything to anybody for if it is not vissible in
me it just ain't there. Simple as that.
Kind regards
Mias

Paul

2005-04-11, 5:06 pm

Point well made.

What do you know about Rational Recovery, so I know where to begin?

Robert McGregor

2005-04-11, 5:06 pm

"Sheenah" <JBcatRB@coldman.com> wrote in message
news:d33gjs$gp$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>our BB also
> suggests that each AA chooses the God of their understanding (ie
> something or someone of something that they think could help them
> see
> the truth about their drinking.)
>

Sheenah, given your foray into substantiation, can you substantiate
that claim, at all?

Bob

Sheenah

2005-04-11, 5:06 pm

Scott W

2005-04-11, 5:06 pm

Sheenah

2005-04-11, 5:06 pm

rosie read n' post

2005-04-11, 5:06 pm

Scott W

2005-04-11, 5:06 pm

Scott W

2005-04-11, 5:06 pm

dan mcgown

2005-04-11, 5:06 pm

dan mcgown

2005-04-11, 5:06 pm

rosie read n' post

2005-04-11, 5:06 pm