|
Date: Mon, February 6, 2012 2:29 pm (answered 6 March 2012) Hi, Always keep going back to your great site. Have you ever read Bateson's article on alcoholism? jpmgoncalves.home.sapo.pt/textos/the_cybernetics_of_self.doc [Local copy here: the_cybernetics_of_self.doc] Also I did some research into AA. Apparently the people who publish the big book are a rehab in New York state for the very rich. I found this through Company House in UK which has registers of accounts. However check it out as I don't have the relevant report to hand. Frank
Hello Frank,
Thank you for the document. That paper is another example of
"Pseudo-intellectual Bull".
That is a style of propaganda that sounds very educated and academic, with lots of big words and
citations of other propaganda, but it's all bullshit.
The author starts off by Assuming The Major Premise.
He wrongly assumes that A.A. actually works to make alcoholics quit drinking, which it doesn't.
His opening sentence is untrue:
Then the author goes on and on, talking about how we will need a new science, "a new epistomology", to explain the magical, mystical, unexplainable way that A.A. works. But since A.A. does not work, it's all bullshit. That is just as dumb as declaring that we cannot understand the mysterious way in which Cinderella's Fairy Godmother cures poverty, so we need a whole new science to explain the magic. All of the rest of his paper is irrelevant. He goes on an on about "philosophers" and "cybernetics and systems theory", which just goes to show that this paper really is Pseudo-Intellectual Bull. Then he reveals that he is a true believer in the cult:
My debt to AA will be evident throughout — also, I hope, my respect for that organization and especially for the extraordinary wisdom of its cofounders, Bill W. and Dr. Bob. That explains why he is writing this nonsense.
Then he gives us some more strange lunacy about
That is flat-out crazy. Being sober does not lead to drinking. A sober lifestyle doesn't lead back to alcoholism. Then he really loses it:
3. An alternative hypothesis would suggest that when sober, the alcoholic is somehow more sane than the people around him, and that this situation is intolerable. Alcoholics who aren't drinking are more sane than normal people? So extremely sane that they cannot stand to be the only sane guy in an insane land? This guy is living in La-La Land. I know that I read that plot in a few science fiction stories. For starters, there is H. G. Wells' The Country of the Blind. This author is also, of course, introducing the standard cult characteristic of The cult and its members are special. He continues to declare that alcoholics are special, and extra-sensitive:
I think that Bernard Smith, the non alcoholic legal representative of AA, came close to the mark when he said, "the [AA] member was never enslaved by alcohol. Alcohol simply served as an escape from personal enslavement to the false ideals of a materialistic society."1 It is not a matter of revolt against insane ideals around him but of escaping from his own insane premises, which are continually reinforced by the surrounding society. It is possible, however, that the alcoholic is in some way more vulnerable or sensitive than the normal to the fact that his insane (but conventional) premises lead to unsatisfying results. What rubbish. Then the author declares that he is going to ignore reality, so that he can go off on a flight of fancy:
There are, of course, many instances in which people resort to alcohol and even to extreme intoxication as an anesthetic giving release from ordinary grief, resentment, or physical pain. It might be argued that the anesthetic action of alcohol provides a sufficient converse matching for our theoretical purposes. I shall, however, specifically exclude these cases from consideration as being not relevant to the problem of addictive or repetitive alcoholism; and this in spite of the undoubted fact that "grief," "resentment," and "frustration" are commonly used by addicted alcoholics as excuses for drinking. Well of course sick alcoholics drink to kill the pain. But this author is going to ignore that so that he can expound his favorite "theory of alcoholism". Then this guy just goes on and on with the most ridiculous nonsense:
The friends and relatives of the alcoholic commonly urge him to be "strong," and to "resist temptation." What they mean by this is not very clear, but it is significant that the alcoholic himself — while sober — commonly agrees with their view of his "problem." What they mean isn't very clear? It's very clear to me: "Don't drink so much alcohol. Resist temptation." Then the author gives us more standard cult dogma: The alcoholic is powerless over alcohol:
He believes that he could be, or, at least, ought to be "the captain of his soul."1 But it is a cliché of alcoholism that after "that first drink," the motivation to stop drinking is zero. Typically the whole matter is phrased overtly as a battle between "self" and "John Barleycorn." Covertly the alcoholic may be planning or even secretly laying in supplies for the next binge, but it is almost impossible (in the hospital setting) to get the sober alcoholic to plan his next binge in an overt manner. He cannot, seemingly, be the "captain" of his soul and overtly will or command his own drunkenness. The "captain" can only command sobriety — and then not be obeyed. Again, we get the stereotype of "the alcoholic" who just cannot quit drinking. But the truth is that more than half of them do, and without any cult involvement, or "support group", or "help". Then the author gets into the really vicious cult indoctrination:
This step is usually regarded as a "surrender" and many alcoholics are either unable to achieve it or achieve it only briefly during the period of remorse following a binge. AA does not regard these cases as promising: they have not yet "hit bottom"; their despair is inadequate and after a more or less brief spell of sobriety they will again attempt to use "selfcontrol" to fight the "temptation." They will not or cannot accept the premise that, drunk or sober, the total personality of an alcoholic is an alcoholic personality which cannot conceivably fight alcoholism. As an AA leaflet puts it, "trying to use will power is like trying to lift yourself by your bootstraps." So you have to "hit bottom", and despair of your life, and surrender to the cult. You are not "promising" (as a new cult recruit) until you are broken down and defeated and remorseful. And will power is supposedly useless. Of course that is totally untrue. Will power is a life-saver. Then we get more cult religion lunacy:
Implicit in the combination of these two steps is an extraordinary — and I believe correct — idea: the experience of defeat not only serves to convince the alcoholic that change is necessary; it is the first step in that change. To be defeated by the bottle and to know it is the first "spiritual experience." The myth of self-power is thereby broken by the demonstration of a greater power. Most people think that a spiritual experience is something like seeing God or an Angel, or seeing your own immortality, or getting a glimpse into the Cosmic Workings of the Universe. But in A.A., collapsing from alcohol poisoning is a "spiritual experience". And there is no "myth of self-power". Again and again, the cult wants to break you down and make you powerless. Then the author goes off into La-La Land again and argues that sobriety — or at least, sobriety without Alcoholics Anonymous — is a kind of insanity:
In sum, I shall argue that the "sobriety" of the alcoholic is characterized by an unusually disastrous variant of the Cartesian dualism, the division between Mind and Matter, or, in this case, between conscious will, or "self," and the remainder of the personality. Bill W.'s stroke of genius was to break up with the first "step" the structuring of this dualism. And of course Bill Wilson was supposedly a genius when he copied the practices of the old Oxford Group cult. Then the author wastes a couple of pages with drivel about "What is the world? What is thinking?", which has nothing to do with just not drinking any more alcohol. Then the author gives us more A.A. cult dogma, talking about "Alcoholic Pride". His definition of "pride" is totally goofy, and doesn't match the definition in the dictionary at all:
I shall therefore proceed to examine the "pride" which is characteristic of alcoholics to show that this principle of their behavior is derived from the strange dualistic epistemology characteristic of Occidental civilization. A convenient way of describing such principles as "pride," "dependency," "fatalism," and so forth, is to examine the principle as if it were a result of deutero-learning1 and to ask what contexts of learning might understandably inculcate this principle. This is again a bunch of baloney, and he is again pushing the A.A. stereotype of "the alcoholic". Some alcoholics do relapse by thinking that they can "just have one now", and "I have it under control now, so I can drink a little bit," but that is not a universal description of sober alcoholics, and sober alcoholics do not all backslide and relapse because they have "pride" in their ability to stay sober. Again, the author is just trying to postulate that alcoholics cannot get themselves sober, and they all have faulty thinking, and they cannot live without Alcoholics Anonymous. Then the author tries to claim that A.A. has the fix for the problem:
AA does its best to insist that this change in contextual structure shall never occur. They restructure the whole context by asserting over and over again that "Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic." There is a huge difference between needing to abstain from drinking alcohol for the rest of your life, and needing to spend the rest of your life in a cult. Then the author again gives us the A.A. stereotype of "the alcoholic", declaring that their thinking is crazy because they have "pride":
(4) The challenge component of alcoholic "pride" is linked with risk-taking. The principle might be put in words: "I can do something where success is improbable and failure would be disastrous." Then the author goes on for another couple of pages of nonsense that have nothing to do with not drinking alcohol, jabbering about things like "Pride and Symmetry":
That drivel has nothing to do with reality. The author goes on for four more pages of that gibberish about "alcoholic pride". It really sounds like he forgot to take his medications. Then we get something concrete again: "Hitting Bottom". The author thinks that "hitting bottom" is a good thing that will lead alcoholics to Alcoholics Anonymous because people who are sick, weak, and vulnerable from "hitting bottom" are easier to manipulate:
Then we get some really rich stuff: the theology of Alcoholics Anonymous. This is obviously more "Pseudo-intellectual Bull".
(1) There is a Power greater than the self. Cybernetics would go somewhat further and recognize that the "self" as ordinarily understood is only a small part of a much larger trial-and-error system which does the thinking, acting, and deciding. Then the author goes back to La-La Land, and jabbers incomprehensible nonsense for pages:
Then he spends another page in La-La Land, and I shall ignore the nonsense. Then this is a little bit interesting: After having spent too many pages selling the standard A.A. stereotype of "the alcoholic", the author now says that he didn't mean to apply it to all alcoholics:
And he denies what he pushed earlier:
(2) It is not asserted that the way of Alcoholics Anonymous is the only way to live correctly or that their theology is the only correct derivation from the epistemology of cybernetics and systems theory. Then we get more high-falutin' nonsense:
(3) It is not asserted that all transactions between human beings ought to be complementary, though it is clear that the relation between the individual and the larger system of which he is a part must necessarily be so. Relations between persons will (I hope) always be complex.
That is
fear-mongering:
"Oh! We are going to go extinct! Our world is going to end!" Thanks for the paper. That is really a classic piece of pro-A.A. propaganda.
About the publishing of the Big Book: I don't know about any expensive treatment center in the woods of New York
that publishes A.A. books.
The closest thing that I know of is "High Watch", a rehab farm in upstate New York that
was owned by Bill Wilson. The story is here: Perhaps you are thinking about the famous treatment center called Hazelden, in Center City, Minnesota. They are not only a famous, very expensive, 12-Step spin-dry facility, they are also the biggest publisher of 12-Step books in the world (even more than A.A., by far), and they are also the biggest distributor of A.A.W.S.-published "council-approved" literature and books. (If you go to the bibliography and search for "Hazelden", you will find a lot of their books.) I'd appreciate anything you find on the New York facility, just to figure things out. Have a good day now. == Orange
Date: Wed, March 7, 2012 4:12 pm Thanks for a great reply! The scary thing is that the idiot Bateson is regarded as a sort of guru amongst the Cybernetics people probably second to Stafford Beer. I like Cybernetics and my main aim is keep it away from the cult nonsense of people like Bateson. I'll see if I can dig up that reference bout the clinic or maybe it's the one you mentioned. Thanks again. Frank 
Date: Wed, March 7, 2012 1:32 pm (answered 8 March 2012)
About
Tuesday, 6 March 2012 In October of 1949, a few months after the release of George Orwell's dystopian masterpiece, Nineteen Eighty-Four, he received a fascinating letter from fellow author Aldous Huxley — a man who, 17 years previous, had seen his own nightmarish vision of society published, in the form of Brave New World. What begins as a letter of praise soon becomes a brief comparison of the two novels, and an explanation as to why Huxley believes his own, earlier work to be a more realistic prediction. Fantastic. Trivia: In 1917, long before he wrote this letter, Aldous Huxley briefly taught Orwell French at Eton. (Source: Letters of Aldous Huxley; Image: George Orwell (via) & Aldous Huxley (via).)
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the letter. Now that is indeed very interesting, especially since
some A.A. true believers keep on repeating
Bill Wilson's bragging that Aldous Huxley said
that Bill was the greatest social architect of the 20th Century.
Aldous Huxley's vision of the future was rather foreboding. There was not a
hint of Bill's Wilson's "great social architecture". There was however,
a hint of using the under-handed Oxford Group—A.A.
mind games to make people like their subservient positions in society.
Huxley foresaw authoritarian leaders using hypnosis to make the slaves love their servitude.
The trance-inducing practices of Step 11 are very close to self-hypnosis.
And the rest of the A.A. theology, where alcoholics have to "surrender to Higher Power" in Step 3,
and "follow the dictates of a Higher Power" in Step 11, teach surrender and subservience.
Then the guilt-inducing practices of Steps 4 through 9 make people believe that they really deserve
to be groveling slaves.
What a clever program for making people into slaves who like their slavery.
(And they even imagine that they are more holy and spiritual for being an obedient slave.)
Have a good day now.
== Orange
[ Link here = http://www.orange-papers.info/orange-letters293.html#Andrew_S ]
Date: Sun, March 4, 2012 1:11 am (answered 8 March 2012) An AA supporter writes in to you, AO, and says, "You are totally wrong. I would not be sober without AA. I owe my sobriety to AA." You address this and say, "Hey, you are working with the law of small numbers. You are confusing correlation and causation. You may have spontaneously gone into remission. You are supplying anecdotal evidence. You are using vague terms like "spirit" and "soul" etc."
Hello again, Andrew,
That sounds accurate. And you really are
confusing correlation and causation.
Fundamentally you are doing the same thing as AA; you are setting yourself up as an authority on addiction THAT HAS MORE INSIGHT INTO THE ADDICT'S LIFE THAN THE ADDICT HIMSELF. Yes. I understand the mechanics of brainwashing and religious conversion. Do you? You are destroying the feeling of empowerment within the addict by acting as an external authority.
Baloney. Addicts do not get a "feeling of empowerment" by being told that they are powerless over alcohol,
and insane, and sinful, and flawed, and full of defects of character, and cannot ever recover.
And it isn't me who is the "external authority". You are completely reversing reality.
It is the 12-Step religion that says that you are powerless over your problem, and you must find
a "higher power" outside yourself to make you quit your bad habits:
This is wrong for three major reasons: 1) The addict has experiential data that you are not privy too. You are relying on conclusions drawn from data other people collected and conjecture and assumptions about the addict's life. The addict is relying on a wealth of subjective insight into their own life. It is condescending and intellectually dishonest to say that you are an authority on their life without even meeting them.
What you call "experiential data" is nothing other than the old propaganda trick of
testimonials.
The snake oil salesman gets some people to tell stories of how the wonderful snake oil healed whatever ailed
them, and nobody ever gives a testimonial that says that the snake oil didn't work.
So the saleman is also
cherry-picking, and using
proof by anecdote.
"The addict" has some experiences, but no experimental data. He did not conduct a
randomized longitudinal controlled study
on a large group of alcoholics where he compared A.A. treatment to no treatment
for several years to see which works better.
No way can he declare some facts like,
"After 8 years of A.A. treatment,
5% of my patients were continuously sober, 29% were dead, and 66% were still drinking."
What "the addict" has is only his own experiences of getting indoctrinated
and made to believe that cult religion really works good.
If he quits drinking, he credits A.A., and if he doesn't quit drinking, he is pressured to blame something else,
like himself, for not "working a strong program."
That isn't experimental data. And it isn't even good "experiential data".
That is no different than famous celebrities like Tom Cruise or Kirstie Alley
raving that Scientology restored them to sanity, and made her lose 40 pounds, too.
And its just like
Lisa Marie Presley
(the daughter of Elvis) claiming that Scientology saved her from drugs.
They have the same kind of anecdotal evidence — not experimental data
— declaring the Scientology is the answer. But I don't believe that their
stories prove that Scientology has the answer to all drug and alcohol problems. Do you? Why not?
After all, they have "experiential data" that says that they went to Scientology, and gave
Scientology a truckload of money, and Scientology messed with their minds, and now they
say they are very, very happy, thanks to the interplanetary genius Lafayette Ronald Hubbard.
Who are we to disbelieve their "experiential data"?
By the way, the FDA rejects anecdotal evidence as proof of the efficacy of a medicine. Just flat-out
rejects it, because it is completely unreliable. Patients are easily fooled into believing that they
were healed by things that didn't do it.
I am reminded of
a case of medical fraud that Dr. David Duncan reported:
Some con artists were running a fake "kidney clinic" for end state renal disease cases.
They gave no real valid medical treatment. Their "operations" consisted of just cutting the patients' skin
and then suturing it back together. Nevertheless, most of their few surviving patients, and the families of the
deceased, swore that they got excellent medical treatment. Dr. Duncan said,
That is why personal "experiential data" is worthless for determining
whether a medicine or treatment actually works.
"The greatest enemy of any one of our truths may be the rest of our truths." William James. I am positive that there are people that AA has helped; if you are objective, you must admit that. It contradicts theories that you hold a strong faith in, but it is almost certainly true.
Just counting those people whom you believe A.A. helped, without looking at the harm to others, is
cherry-picking.
How did you count the numbers of people whom A.A. indoctrination harmed, and drove to relapse or suicide?
Your use of the word "faith" is inappropriate, and a reversal of reality.
I do not "hold a strong faith" in "theories". I look at the evidence,
the actual results of years of Alcoholics Anonymous indoctrination, and I count the bodies.
Fundamentally, you have appointed yourself doctor to the masses. Except that your prescription to avoid AA is given out willy-nilly to everybody without examining their medical history, current condition or how they responded to prior treatment. No, I do not claim to be the "doctor to the masses." Don't be ridiculous. I do, however, notice that I understand how cults work, and how they fool people into believing untrue things, like the fable that joining an old cult religion from the nineteen-thirties will "help" people to quit drinking alcohol. So I tell what I know. 2) Many of the major components of good mental health are subjective. If a person feels subjectively fulfilled, is full of hope and feel as if they meet life's challenges, they have met many substantial criteria of being mentally healthy. In my opinion, people who may be diagnosed as sick by the powers-that-be can transcend that. In other words, if a person with Down's Syndrome (incurable physical condition that affects the intellect) can effectively cope with the existential dilemma that life has given them, they may be mentally healthy despite their objective medical condition.
By that goofy logic, someone who is very, very happy while he gets drunk and beats up
his wife is mentally healthy, and "subjectively fulfilled". He may even be "full of hope",
and "feel as if he can meet life's challenges".
Will you label him as healthy, while "the powers-that-be" diagnose him as sick?
What about my child-raping Stepper counselor?
He was happy and subjectively fulfilled as he snorted cocaine
and screwed his step-children. "The powers-that-be" diagnosed him as more than sick; they put him
in prison. And he didn't "transcend" that "existential dilemma that life had given him".
I argue that if a person subjectively feels that AA is helping them, it is counter-productive to browbeat them into believing that they are wrong. You may actually take away something that they hold dearly.
I do not "browbeat" sober people into believing that they are wrong.
I do, however, argue with the true believers who insist that A.A. works
great and has saved millions.
Somebody's "subjective feelings" that A.A. works are not evidence that A.A. really works.
The fact that one person raves that he really loves A.A. is not evidence that A.A. is going to
make other people healthier.
And what about the people who feel like committing suicide after years of A.A. indoctrination?
What about the people who don't get sober? What about the people who have bad cases of depression
and inferiority complexes from years of confessing how bad they are?
Would you like to talk about how A.A. has "helped" them?
You don't talk about those people, but I get
letters from them
all of the time.
As an atheist who detests organized religion, I run into this problem with my own behavior constantly. I could never be a Muslim, but that doesn't mean that I should dedicating my life to converting Muslims to atheism. So? So why are you defending and promoting a cult religion? 3) Past general results do not automatically contradict past specific results. That sounds true. Averages and specific single items are different things. What if one out of a thousand people responded to AA perfectly? It would make it a shitty therapy option for the general public BUT A COHERENT OPTION FOR THAT ONE PERSON. And how do you propose to identify that one lucky person and force ONLY HIM into the Alcoholics Anonymous religion? And I agree with you: AA should never be forced on people. Personally, I don't recommend AA to people and haven't been to a meeting in months. So why are you defending A.A. with these arguments? Addicts generally need less authoritative bullshit, not more. I know that your intentions are good and that you don't mean any harm, but when you tell an addict that they have wasted their life attending AA and that everything they believe is true is actually false, you are setting yourself up as an authority in a game of "Big Me, Little You". Hey, I'm just telling the truth to some people who have been lied to for years. Why do you object to me telling the truth? Addicts need to feel as if there is something to lose. They need to feel as if they are empowered to change. Paradoxically, AA provides that to some people even though it contradicts aspects of AA theology.
Addicts have a feeling that they have something to lose: their lives.
And most addicts are not so down and out that they have already lost their jobs and marriages and children
and career and reputation and everything they own. They still have those things to lose too.
And feel that they can change?
You don't have the authority to tell someone who is happy in AA to quit. You aren't a doctor. You aren't a scientist. You don't have these people's medical records. You haven't spoken to them. You haven't proposed an alternate treatment based on their problems. You are just a busybody giving them unsolicited advice.
I do not tell people in A.A. to quit. I do, however, criticize those A.A. members who lie to
the newcomers about how well A.A. actually works, and what the real history of A.A. is,
and what A.A. really is.
And I dispute the grandiose A.A. claims of success.
And I do suggest alternative treatments that are less harmful and more realistic, and much better: The healthiest attitude is: despite the efficacy of the treatment I use, the efficacy of my counselors, and the obstacles that life gives to me I WILL BECOME HEALTHY AND FULFILLED.
Yes. That is what I did. I got myself sober in spite of a bad "treatment program" and the 12-Step nonsense.
Telling an addict, "You are stupid for believing in AA" is just another moral judgment that they don't need. It's an impediment to becoming healthy.
I don't recall ever telling an addict that he was stupid for believing in A.A.
In fact, it is Alcoholics Anonymous that tells people that they are stupid.
See:
"Us Stupid Drunks"
I actually feel some sympathy for people who have been hoodwinked and deceived by the A.A. cult.
A.A. has some powerful brainwashing techniques, and it's easy for people to get sucked in and fooled.
I recall numerous times when I told people that if they were enjoying their A.A. meetings, that it was okay.
Like here.
And definitely check out the Newcomers Rescue League
Be smart, AO. Don't set yourself up as an authority. Keep your sense of humor and your common sense and stay small as David fighting Goliath.
Well, alas, I do seem to be an authority on some things. I don't see anybody else in the world who
has researched
the Oxford Group and Moral Re-Armament
and how it morphed into A.A. like how I have.
(Dick B.
is good, but he won't look at the Nazi side of the Oxford Group. He thinks that
the Oxford Group was a gift from God; I think it is much closer to a gift from Satan.)
Then there is the issue of a cult, and
what is a cult.
Then there is addiction and recovery. I have learned a lot about how that works, too.
I'm not going to put on a display of false modesty and pretend that I don't know anything.
Fuck the Church. Fuck the State. Fuck AA. If you think you are an authority on my addictions, fuck you too. Sincerely, Andrew
You have a good day too, Andrew.
== Orange
[The next letter from Andrew_S is here.]
Date: Mon, March 5, 2012 6:20 am (answered 8 March 2012) http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-peter-ferentzy/which-intervention-is-bes_b_1318454.html
Peter Ferentzy, PhD
Thanks, Peter.
Oh, does that have a familiar sound to it. In "treatment", I also got that routine of
"You don't know anything. Your thinking is flawed. Trying to get intellectual on us now, are you?"
And I quit my bad habits and addictions in spite of them, not because of anything they did, or taught.
In fact, I quit all of my addictions and bad consumption habits except tobacco
two weeks before the treatment program started. Three weeks later, I also quit the tobacco.
Then my "counselor" advised me not to quit smoking: "Don't put too
much on your plate, or something might spill off."
That was some of the worst advice that I have ever gotten in my life. Fortunately, I ignored it.
I now have 11 years off of everything, including the tobacco, anyway.
By the way, I actually got "Brief Intervention", and it seems to have worked.
Two months before the "treatment program"
started, a good doctor who worked at the free clinic
gave me a 45-minute appointment where he questioned me about my drinking in detail, emphasizing the
bad parts, and poked and prodded and examined me,
and then summed it all up by saying, "Quit drinking or die. Choose one. I'm not going to waste
my breath repeating myself. You're a grown up boy now, and you can make your own choices. You know what
the situation is, so go do whatever you are going to do. Although I will say that it would be a shame to
see you die when you have so much love to give."
I thought that over for a month, and bought a few more cases of beer, and drank on it, and thought about
it some more, and then finally quit. And like I said, that was over 11 years ago. So chalk up one point
for Brief Intervention.
Have a good day now.
== Orange
[ Link here = http://www.orange-papers.info/orange-letters292.html#Grass_Fire ]
Date: Mon, March 5, 2012 6:48 am (answered 8 March 2012) You seem to genuflect at the altar of Harvard. It's a good thing we have Harvard to do our thinking for us huh?
Hello again, Grass Fire,
I don't really worship at the alter of Harvard, although I've cited a few studies from the Harvard Medical School.
I just have a small amount of respect for actual doctors who really finished college and medical school,
and who know something about their subject.
That beats the heck out of worshipping at the temple of Bill and Bob and Buchman, and claiming that
a bunch of quacks and religious cult true believers know more than
"these doctors and priests and ministers and psychiatrists"...
(The
Big Book, 3rd Edition, page 473.)
Have a good day now.
== Orange
Date: Tue, March 6, 2012 2:39 am (answered 8 March 2012) Hi, I"ve been in AA for 18 and a half years, overall 22 years around 12-step cults (I came into Alanon when I was 22). I have just left. I started reading your website about 2 years ago but only read a bit and was afraid as I thought I would drink if I left (the usual old story). I feel such relief to have left but also so angry that I have wasted all that time in my life doing this ridiculous shit that doesn't work. I was in a dreadful cult AA group in London for a year when I first got sober. That was so damaging, I ended up with clinical depression and it has taken me years to recover. I have had depression over and over again and I believe it was from stuffing down my feelings, especially anger. I feel like I've wasted so much of my life, trying to get better doing this stupid 12-step stuff that has only made me worse — more guilt-ridden, more fearful. My whole problem has been about shame and guilt from a violent, neglectful Catholic upbringing and lack of assertiveness and doing these bloody stupid "love everyone and look for what you've done wrong in your life" steps has been so counterproductive. I don't want to waste the next 20 years of my life being angry — I want to get on with my life — but I wish I had left many, many years ago. I'm so glad you said that getting rid of ego is a load of rubbish. I think it is too. Thank you for your great work, keep it up! Best wishes, Louise
Hello Louise,
Thank you for the letter and all of the compliments and kind thoughts.
I'm glad to hear that you are escaping from the madness.
I really know that feeling of "I wish I had quit sooner, and not wasted so many years."
Yes, I wish I had quit drinking and smoking decades sooner.
But the truth is, we can't get it together before we can get it together.
We aren't ready until we are ready.
The Zen people have a saying like, "A rose blooms in its own time."
We can't make the rose hurry up and bloom sooner.
So I have to just let the past go, and not regret the past, and try to not be angry about it,
and turn my attention to the present, and be here and now.
Have a good day now, and a good life.
== Orange
Date: Tue, March 20, 2012 2:48 pm Hey, thanks for this... I really appreciate you writing back. And the anger is passing now, and my sense of humour has returned. Hooray! I like the Zen analogy about the rose, I'll remember that. I am really enjoying my freedom, my good, functioning mind that I trust now, and the fact that I'm a worthwhile, good person, not a defective one. Have a great life too. Louise
Last updated 3 June 2015. |
More of the Family of 9
