here.
> As Nell Wing said Bill's greatest ability was that of a "synthesizer".
> special use.
> I would also point out that just because AA says ......"xyz"..... or Bill
> said ..."abc".... doesn't necessarily make it so.
(serenitylodge at mac.com)
Date: Mon Dec 28, 2009
It seems to me that the alleged "influence" of religion, especially Western
Christian influence, we read about upon AA is more of re-write of history by
those fanatics that would have it to be so. When in fact, AA was, in my
readings, more inclined to stay away from such dogmatic influences. Since
Christianity is the dominant religion here in the USA, it seeks to take the
credit for AA by coloring anything that has to do with "spirituality", as
"theirs".
A good historian of AA history should be able to realize this misguided, but
increasing attempt to hijack the Fellowship. And that is, I hope, one thing
this list needs to avoid, "religiously".
Thank you Les, and others here, for towing the line between what is
speculation
and what is truth.
Jon Markle/MA
Retired Therapist & SA Counseling
Dual Diagnosis/COD speciality
HS Practitioner, Advisor & Case Consultations
Raleigh, NC
9/9/82
- - - -
Original message from: Jon Markle
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Subject: Re: Huxley on Bill W. as social architect
Back in the day, so to speak, perhaps there is some basis to reason and
conclude that are mostly accurate, about no difference between "religion"
and "spiritual". But, I have my sincere doubts about such an observation,
having had some passing study of our colorful history (in AA) through this
group.
Historical facts can be cited by anyone to justify and support just about
any idea. But, that does not make it so.
However, today, it cannot be said that "religion" and "spiritual" are one in
the same. They are most decidedly NOT. And this is the world . . . the NOW .
. . that interests me most. We have resources and understanding today that
the drunks did not have back then. Dare I say, better? "More will be
revealed". Living in the past world will not help us grow. We must learn
from their mistakes. If religion offered us the answer we sought to have the
desire to drink removed, we would not need AA. Fact is, it didn't work.
And there's the crux. No one (I hope) wants religious interference in AA, I
think. That would indeed kill us all, I'm afraid. And attempts to justify
such moves, by citing "history" . . . real and imagined, are very damaging,
I think. And make AA into a thing that becomes both scary and
non-productive. Just like church could not get me sober, neither could an AA
meeting that sounds like church.
Jon Markle
Raleigh
9/9/82
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++Message 6193. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Religion and AA
From: J. Lobdell . . . . . . . . . . . . 12/28/2009 7:24:00 PM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I'm not sure that the AAHistoryLovers provides the proper platform for an
editorial saying "historical facts can be cited by anyone to justify and
support
just about any idea" -- followed by comments about the present state of the
religious/spiritual dichotomy (or non-dichotomy).
Comments on current affairs in AA aren't really our meat, though an argument
--
not simply dismissive comments -- on the possible false uses of history may
be.
One question, of course, is what is meant by "religion" or "religious" -- on
that depend most of the useful things we could say about the dichotomy --
always
provided we have an agreed-upon definition of "spiritual" -- but I'm not
clear
that we do. My own view fwiw is that by "spiritual" we mean pretty much what
was meant by "religious" back in the Washingtonian days, and by "religious"
pretty much what they meant by "Gospel" -- so that this isn't a new thing.
As to "justifying" religious interference in AA, I may have missed the
reference
point -- I have no idea what is being talked about. Of course, the
corporation
is incorporated under the laws of the State of New York and is considered by
that State as an religious body, so (I believe) that testimony cannot be
compelled from members on what was said in a closed meeting (there was a
court
case not too long ago) -- being considered a "religious" body has certain
advantages, I suppose.
I understand that Jon M. (if that is our correspondent's name) wants to keep
AA
out of "Church" hands, doesn't want organized religion in. Neither do I. If
he
wants to correspond on the question with me individually, I would more than
welcome it: I suspect we agree on quite a lot. But is this the proper venue?
- - - -
This is responding to Jon Markle's message
Re: Huxley on Bill W. as social architect
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++Message 6194. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Religion and AA
From: jenny andrews . . . . . . . . . . . . 12/29/2009 8:50:00 AM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
"Sensitivity to both the non-religious within the fellowship and the
professionally religious outside of it led Alcoholics Anonymous to resist
identification as an expression of religion. The plea within was for
'open-mindedness'. It infused AA from Dr Bob Smith's stress on 'tolerance'
to
the final substantive paragraph of the Big Book's appendix, 'Spiritual
Experience': 'We find that no one need have difficulty with the spirituality
of
the program. Willingness, honesty and open-mindednness are the essentials of
recovery. But these are indispensable'."
(From chapter eight [The context of the history of religious ideas], Not
God: a
history of Alcoholics Anonymous; Ernest Kurtz; Hazelden; 1991.)
It is confusing to conflate spirituality with religion; substitute religion
for
spirituality in the BB appendix quotation to see the difference.
Willingness,
honesty and open-mindedness are universal values not confined to religion.
Semantically spiritual also stands against material; recovery results from a
spiritual awakening; it is not a commodity.
(See Kurtz, Twelve Step Programs, in "Spirituality and the Secular Quest"
[World
Spirituality series]; editor, Peter H. Van Ness; SCM Press; 1996.)
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++Message 6195. . . . . . . . . . . . What psychological or mental
diagnosis?
From: jaynebirch55 . . . . . . . . . . . . 12/29/2009 3:48:00 PM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Hi there,
Jayne from Barking Big Book study. Hope you
had a fantastic christmas and wishing you the
happiest of new years.
I was wondering if you could help me with any
of the following.
Chapter 5, How it works, "usually men and women
who are constitutionally incapable of being
honest with themselves." Have you any further
information on this, such as was it a particular
mental illness Bill was refering to?
Also in chapter 8, page 114 "Sometimes there
are cases where alcoholism is complicated by
other disorders" and "unless the doctor thinks
his mental condition to abnormal or dangerous."
Do you have any details as to what these might
been or what Bill may have been refering to?
Were they thinking of precise mental conditions,
and were there specific psychological terms
which were used at that time to refer to people
with these problems?
I look forward to your reply
God bless
Jayne x x x x
- - - -
From the moderator:
Or in the case of inability to be honest with
ourselves, was this more of a philosophical
issue? I am thinking of the existentialist
philosophers of that period. Jean-Paul Sartre's
concept of mauvaise foi (literally "bad faith")
meant an attempt to manipulate other people
by a kind of deception and lying to them about
what you really wanted, which ended up with you
simultaneously believing your own lies, while
also, at some other deep level, KNOWING that
you were lying.
So mauvaise foi becomes always, inevitably,
"self-deception" and refusal to be honest with
yourself.
In the attempt to control others, you end up
losing your own freedom. You are torn in two
inside. And you end up plunged into what the
existentialist philosophers called ressentiment.
In Heidegger and Nietzsche, likewise, we have
to lie to ourselves and "live a lie" in one way
or another, in order to maintain our inauthentic
existence, and flee from the power of real life
and freedom, and avoid honestly living life on
life's terms.
There is a deeply existentialist flavor to the
Big Book, probably arising from the Zeitgeist
(the spirit of the times), the deeply shaking
experience of the First World War, and so on.
You can see it affecting the Oxford Group also,
in Philip Leon's The Philosophy of Courage:
http://stepstudy.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/philosophyofcourage.pdf
Glenn C.
South Bend, Indiana, US
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++Message 6196. . . . . . . . . . . . Religion and AA
From: Tom Hickcox . . . . . . . . . . . . 12/29/2009 11:20:00 PM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Jon Markle wrote:
>Back in the day, so to speak, perhaps there is some basis to reason
>and conclude that are mostly accurate, about no difference between
>"religion" and "spiritual". But, I have my sincere doubts about
>such an observation, having had some passing study of our colorful
>history (in AA) through this group.
- - - -
I was looking at a copy of an old pamphlet out of Washington of the
four classes for new alcoholics and this comes Discussion No. 2, The
Spiritual Phase, which includes Steps 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, and is part
of the discussion of Step 3:
"3. RELIGION is a word we do not use in A.A. We refer to a member's
relation to God as the SPIRITUAL. A religion is a FORM of worship,
not worship itself."
This is probably the view in the '40s.
Tommy H in Baton Rouge
- - - -
From the moderator: this careful distinction
between religion and spirituality (the same
distinction that is so often made in modern AA)
was being made in AA as least as early as 1944,
as we can tell from the date on Bobbie Burger's
letter below.
This particular pamphlet (which was referred
to as the Tablemate, the Table Leader's Guide,
the Washington D.C. Pamphlet, or the Detroit
Pamphlet) was reprinted and used by early AA
groups all across the United States, from the
east coast to the west coast, and everywhere
in between.
So is it "orthodox" for AA people to continue
to make the common distinction between religion
and spirituality? If everybody in AA, all over
the country, was doing it back in the 1940's,
then it's certainly an acceptable part of the
AA historical tradition.
Wally P. says that "in the Fall of 1944, a copy of the Washington, DC
pamphlet
reached Barry C[ollins] -- one of the AA pioneers in Minneapolis. He wrote a
letter to the New York headquarters requesting permission to distribute the
pamphlet. We talk about 'Conference Approved Literature' today; but this is
the
way the Fellowship operated back then. This is a letter from Bobbie
B[urger],
Bill W.'s secretary, printed on 'Alcoholic Foundation' stationary."
November 11, 1944
Dear Barry:
. . . The Washington D.C. pamphlet and the new Cleveland "Sponsorship"
pamphlet
and a host of others are all local projects. We do not actually approve or
disapprove of these local pieces; by that I mean that the Foundation feels
each
Group is entitled to write up its own "can opener" and let it stand on its
own
merits. All of them have good points and very few have caused any
controversy.
But as in all things of a local nature, we keep hands off, either pro or
con. I
think there must be at least 25 local pamphlets now being used and I've yet
to
see one that hasn't had some good points. I think it is up to each
individual
Group whether it wants to use and buy these pamphlets from the Group that
puts
them out.
Sincerely, Bobbie (Margaret R. Burger)
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++Message 6197. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Recovery rates -- lets look at
the DETAILS, and at a few more ea
From: Marlo Daugherty . . . . . . . . . . . . 1/2/2010 5:43:00 AM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
As someone told me on a different subject, "Don't get so hung up in the
words
that you miss the point of the story." Here's the way I see the "statistics"
in
the Foreword to the 2nd Edition: "Of alcoholics who came to A.A. and really
tried, 50% got sober at once and remained that way. . ." OK. That means that
if you are an alcoholic (as opposed to something else) and you come to A.A.
and
really try, you've got a 50-50 chance of never drinking again. Can't argue
with
that!
evergreen78
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++Message 6198. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Recovery rates -- lets look at
the DETAILS, and at a few more early examples
From: jax760 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1/1/2010 10:22:00 PM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
My mistake .... the nine is a seven on the
document, the error was mine
Total members who have never taken a drink since joining -- 19
Number who have had only one slip since joining-- 7
Total successful 26
Dostları ilə paylaş: