I just couldn't live with myself anymore...

[stuart]

Huh? Sounds like two different folks. Was their a true self and a false
self?

The ego is created by the mind in order that we have an identity. The ego
doesn't care if that identity is happy or sad.It just wants to exist.
The pain of our past, the anxiety of our future is what the ego tells the
mind who we are. My ego (self will) inadvertently created an alcoholic mind.
Who is the true self, the "I" who couldn't live with "myself"

We humans are very smart. A long time ago, we created this illusion that we
were separate from God. The reason was so that the wonder and nature of our
true existence would be special.

Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, we forgot we created this illusion.

Be in the now. Know who you are. The past happened, is done, and it happened
in the "now" when it happened. The future will also happen in the "now" when
it comes. Be present. Know the beautiful piece of God you really are.
Deflate the ego, let it die.

[Robert McGregor]

"stuart" <fred@outerspace.jetsons> wrote in message
news:n2Jxb.64677$oN2.23542@edtnps84...
> Huh? Sounds like two different folks. Was their a true self and a false
> self?
>
> The ego is created by the mind in order that we have an identity. The ego
> doesn't care if that identity is happy or sad.It just wants to exist.
> The pain of our past, the anxiety of our future is what the ego tells the
> mind who we are. My ego (self will) inadvertently created an alcoholic
mind.
> Who is the true self, the "I" who couldn't live with "myself"
>
> We humans are very smart. A long time ago, we created this illusion that
we
> were separate from God. The reason was so that the wonder and nature of
our
> true existence would be special.
>
> Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, we forgot we created this
illusion.
>
> Be in the now. Know who you are. The past happened, is done, and it
happened
> in the "now" when it happened. The future will also happen in the "now"
when
> it comes. Be present. Know the beautiful piece of God you really are.
> Deflate the ego, let it die.
>
>
>

Same deal as rosie.
If you want to speculate, get that "we" out of your egotistical theory.

Bob

[stuart]

"Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:bq7ms8$1vh6j6$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "stuart" <fred@outerspace.jetsons> wrote in message
> news:n2Jxb.64677$oN2.23542@edtnps84...
> > Huh? Sounds like two different folks. Was their a true self and a false
> > self?
> >
> > The ego is created by the mind in order that we have an identity. The
ego
> > doesn't care if that identity is happy or sad.It just wants to exist.
> > The pain of our past, the anxiety of our future is what the ego tells
the
> > mind who we are. My ego (self will) inadvertently created an alcoholic
> mind.
> > Who is the true self, the "I" who couldn't live with "myself"
> >
> > We humans are very smart. A long time ago, we created this illusion that
> we
> > were separate from God. The reason was so that the wonder and nature of
> our
> > true existence would be special.
> >
> > Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, we forgot we created this
> illusion.
> >
> > Be in the now. Know who you are. The past happened, is done, and it
> happened
> > in the "now" when it happened. The future will also happen in the "now"
> when
> > it comes. Be present. Know the beautiful piece of God you really are.
> > Deflate the ego, let it die.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Same deal as rosie.
> If you want to speculate, get that "we" out of your egotistical theory.
>
> Bob

You're quite right Bob. Guess I was just venting what I learned from someone
else. I shoulda cited my sources. It wasn't my theory.



>
>

[Robert McGregor]

"stuart" <fred@outerspace.jetsons> wrote in message
news:bfJxb.196039$jy.166377@clgrps13...
>
> "Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:bq7ms8$1vh6j6$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "stuart" <fred@outerspace.jetsons> wrote in message
> > news:n2Jxb.64677$oN2.23542@edtnps84...
> > > Huh? Sounds like two different folks. Was their a true self and a
false
> > > self?
> > >
> > > The ego is created by the mind in order that we have an identity. The
> ego
> > > doesn't care if that identity is happy or sad.It just wants to exist.
> > > The pain of our past, the anxiety of our future is what the ego tells
> the
> > > mind who we are. My ego (self will) inadvertently created an alcoholic
> > mind.
> > > Who is the true self, the "I" who couldn't live with "myself"
> > >
> > > We humans are very smart. A long time ago, we created this illusion
that
> > we
> > > were separate from God. The reason was so that the wonder and nature
of
> > our
> > > true existence would be special.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, we forgot we created this
> > illusion.
> > >
> > > Be in the now. Know who you are. The past happened, is done, and it
> > happened
> > > in the "now" when it happened. The future will also happen in the
"now"
> > when
> > > it comes. Be present. Know the beautiful piece of God you really are.
> > > Deflate the ego, let it die.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Same deal as rosie.
> > If you want to speculate, get that "we" out of your egotistical theory.
> >
> > Bob
>
> You're quite right Bob. Guess I was just venting what I learned from
someone
> else. I shoulda cited my sources. It wasn't my theory.
>
>
Thanks, Stuart. I was thinking for a while you could possibly repost with an
addendum to the "we's" ...... with the sole exception of egotistical Bob:)

Seriously though, when metaphysics are discussed, words can, in some
instances, be more barriers, than communicators. My use of the word "faggot"
here, is a pertinent example.

Having said that much, I do have an ego, am a recovered alcoholic, and claim
ownership of and responsibility for my recovery. As I see it, my recovery is
about bringing balance to an unbalanced person. Therefore, if I can confine
my ego toward the level of my attributes only when they have been utilised
to accomplishment, it leads me toward a degree of emotional balance I had
previously never thought possible.

Jeez Stewart, that was heavy shit;-)

Bob

[Jeff Cook]

I suspect that the refusal to be included in the collaborative "we" says as
much as does the desire to use it in the first place, and frankly I see
nothing wrong with either. If we identify ourselves as alcoholics in the
first place there is the fair presumption that we do indeed share a "common"
problem. If we're talking about the specifics of a solution to that problem
there is also a "bulk" of shared experience, that we either see ourselves as
either having in common, or being an exception too.

In evaluating all that, and working towards the ultimate goal of "sobriety,
many of us have found as the result of bitter experience, that our more
immediate success in all probability lies in movement best exemplified by
those that "have what we want". It follows that "doing what they did" might
produce like results. Hmmmm. Makes sense to me, and even as we're struggling
with whether we're the "exception to the rule", as long as the "action" of
early sobriety, comes out of that ethic, our chances of finding the "answer"
are greatly increased.

Jeff

"Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:bq7oeq$1uig0m$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "stuart" <fred@outerspace.jetsons> wrote in message
> news:bfJxb.196039$jy.166377@clgrps13...
> >
> > "Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:bq7ms8$1vh6j6$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > > "stuart" <fred@outerspace.jetsons> wrote in message
> > > news:n2Jxb.64677$oN2.23542@edtnps84...
> > > > Huh? Sounds like two different folks. Was their a true self and a
> false
> > > > self?
> > > >
> > > > The ego is created by the mind in order that we have an identity.
The
> > ego
> > > > doesn't care if that identity is happy or sad.It just wants to
exist.
> > > > The pain of our past, the anxiety of our future is what the ego
tells
> > the
> > > > mind who we are. My ego (self will) inadvertently created an
alcoholic
> > > mind.
> > > > Who is the true self, the "I" who couldn't live with "myself"
> > > >
> > > > We humans are very smart. A long time ago, we created this illusion
> that
> > > we
> > > > were separate from God. The reason was so that the wonder and nature
> of
> > > our
> > > > true existence would be special.
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, we forgot we created this
> > > illusion.
> > > >
> > > > Be in the now. Know who you are. The past happened, is done, and it
> > > happened
> > > > in the "now" when it happened. The future will also happen in the
> "now"
> > > when
> > > > it comes. Be present. Know the beautiful piece of God you really
are.
> > > > Deflate the ego, let it die.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Same deal as rosie.
> > > If you want to speculate, get that "we" out of your egotistical
theory.
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> > You're quite right Bob. Guess I was just venting what I learned from
> someone
> > else. I shoulda cited my sources. It wasn't my theory.
> >
> >
> Thanks, Stuart. I was thinking for a while you could possibly repost with
an
> addendum to the "we's" ...... with the sole exception of egotistical Bob:)
>
> Seriously though, when metaphysics are discussed, words can, in some
> instances, be more barriers, than communicators. My use of the word
"faggot"
> here, is a pertinent example.
>
> Having said that much, I do have an ego, am a recovered alcoholic, and
claim
> ownership of and responsibility for my recovery. As I see it, my recovery
is
> about bringing balance to an unbalanced person. Therefore, if I can
confine
> my ego toward the level of my attributes only when they have been utilised
> to accomplishment, it leads me toward a degree of emotional balance I had
> previously never thought possible.
>
> Jeez Stewart, that was heavy shit;-)
>
> Bob
>
>

[Blue Moon]

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:52:33 GMT, "Jeff Cook" <jeffloucook@mchsi.com>
wrote:

>In evaluating all that, and working towards the ultimate goal of "sobriety,
>many of us have found as the result of bitter experience, that our more
>immediate success in all probability lies in movement best exemplified by
>those that "have what we want". It follows that "doing what they did" might
>produce like results. Hmmmm. Makes sense to me, and even as we're struggling
>with whether we're the "exception to the rule", as long as the "action" of
>early sobriety, comes out of that ethic, our chances of finding the "answer"
>are greatly increased.

The problem being that many who "want what we have" are not willing to
"do what we did", and yet they'll then insert their own perceived
wisdom, validating it with a prefix of "we".

Hence many sayings, such as "we never recover", are bullshit
assertions that others new to the scene are quite unable to
differentiate from the "do what we did" fraternity. They pick up the
lie, mangily it by making it their own perception of truth, and
reiterate it elsewhere. The entire meaning of the word "fellowship"
in the literature is lost among those who think it's some kind of
"safety in numbers" fallacy.

Of course, at the other end of the spectrum is the implied statement
"ours is the only way", which may be applied by those who "do [part
of] what we did" yet maintain a closed mind. What's even worse, is
those who don't "do what we did" yet think "this is the only way".

--
Blue Moon

[Jeff Cook]

Ya think maybe not just getting a Big Book, but READING it, not just getting
a sponsor, but USING them, and actually buying into da stepwork ethic to the
point of "action" might have something in the way of a solution? The genius
of the "program" is that as part and parcel of our "primary purpose" the
"transmission" of THE program will always supersede the transmission of
"OUR" program. If it doesn't chances are it won't much matter. Kinda falls
in the category of "Whatever I put in front of my sobriety, will be the
second thing that I lose.
Jeff
"Blue Moon" <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:32b3808727c5ba9b28bbc393b6cf27cb@news.teranew s.com...
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:52:33 GMT, "Jeff Cook" <jeffloucook@mchsi.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In evaluating all that, and working towards the ultimate goal of
"sobriety,
> >many of us have found as the result of bitter experience, that our more
> >immediate success in all probability lies in movement best exemplified by
> >those that "have what we want". It follows that "doing what they did"
might
> >produce like results. Hmmmm. Makes sense to me, and even as we're
struggling
> >with whether we're the "exception to the rule", as long as the "action"
of
> >early sobriety, comes out of that ethic, our chances of finding the
"answer"
> >are greatly increased.
>
> The problem being that many who "want what we have" are not willing to
> "do what we did", and yet they'll then insert their own perceived
> wisdom, validating it with a prefix of "we".
>
> Hence many sayings, such as "we never recover", are bullshit
> assertions that others new to the scene are quite unable to
> differentiate from the "do what we did" fraternity. They pick up the
> lie, mangily it by making it their own perception of truth, and
> reiterate it elsewhere. The entire meaning of the word "fellowship"
> in the literature is lost among those who think it's some kind of
> "safety in numbers" fallacy.
>
> Of course, at the other end of the spectrum is the implied statement
> "ours is the only way", which may be applied by those who "do [part
> of] what we did" yet maintain a closed mind. What's even worse, is
> those who don't "do what we did" yet think "this is the only way".
>
> --
> Blue Moon

[Robert McGregor]

"Jeff Cook" <jeffloucook@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:BsPxb.337965$HS4.2893360@attbi_s01...
> I suspect that the refusal to be included in the collaborative "we" says
as
> much as does the desire to use it in the first place, and frankly I see
> nothing wrong with either. If we identify ourselves as alcoholics in the
> first place there is the fair presumption that we do indeed share a
"common"
> problem.

An equally fair presumption is that we don't share a common (underlying)
problem at all

>If we're talking about the specifics of a solution to that problem
> there is also a "bulk" of shared experience, that we either see ourselves
as
> either having in common, or being an exception too.

Or see the intellectual dishonesty in what is falsely presented as being
common.
>
> In evaluating all that, and working towards the ultimate goal of
"sobriety,
> many of us have found as the result of bitter experience, that our more
> immediate success in all probability lies in movement best exemplified by
> those that "have what we want". It follows that "doing what they did"
might
> produce like results.

Given what "they did" is follow the instructions codified by Bill Wilson,
they could look forward to many years of suicidal depression?


>Hmmmm. Makes sense to me, and even as we're struggling
> with whether we're the "exception to the rule", as long as the "action" of
> early sobriety, comes out of that ethic, our chances of finding the
"answer"
> are greatly increased.
>
> Jeff

If you worry about greatly increased, what about the following?

"There were alcoholics in the hospitals of whom A.A. could touch and help
only about five percent. The doctors started giving them a dose of LSD, so
that the resistance would be broken down. And they had about fifteen percent
recoveries." Nell Wing - Pass It On p 370

Regardless, what strikes me as particularly dishonest in the AA recruitment
pitch, "If you want what we have" is the reality that what "they have" is
dependant on far more, if not infinitely more, than what "they" claim to
have done in order to get what they have.

Perhaps my point is best exemplified by what was posted about me here
recently, that I have "quality sobriety" I neither know nor care if sarcasm
was implicit in that statement.

Pertaining to sobriety, *all* I have is freedom from the obsession,
compulsion, and craving to drink. I fail to see how such freedom can be
graded, freedom is freedom. (relatively speaking;-)

AA claims such freedom is dependant on "spiritual condition." I can assure
you my freedom continues despite what at times could only be described as an
appalling "spiritual condition."

However, the AA "want what we have" is almost invariably presented in a
context of emotional, often even financial, health. Given new recruits to AA
arrive from all points of the emotional, mental, and financial spectrum, the
sales pitch, "If you want the best *you* can have," would be infinitely more
honest. Arguably anathema however, to the AA sponsor cult as they recruit
inside, and outside, of AA

Seems obvious to me worst examples of the AAspeak "Quality Sobriety" hook
come from the sponsor cult. Closer examination has inevitably revealed to me
the only pertinent thing about "quality sobriety" is those that claim it, on
closer investigation, demonstrably *don't* have it. Same goes for the
"spiritual" hook Given the spiritual aspect is merely an integral part of
the holistic whole in all of us, purporting to seperate spirituality from
that whole is decidedly "unspiritual."

Quality? ha ha Bob;-)

[Robert McGregor]

"Jeff Cook" <jeffloucook@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:GTSxb.343227$Tr4.1035421@attbi_s03...
> Ya think maybe not just getting a Big Book, but READING it, not just
getting
> a sponsor, but USING them, and actually buying into da stepwork ethic to
the
> point of "action" might have something in the way of a solution? The
genius
> of the "program" is that as part and parcel of our "primary purpose" the
> "transmission" of THE program will always supersede the transmission of
> "OUR" program. If it doesn't chances are it won't much matter. Kinda falls
> in the category of "Whatever I put in front of my sobriety, will be the
> second thing that I lose.
> Jeff

Can you tell us precisely what "The" simple AA program you are blathering on
about actually is?

Bob

[Jeff Cook]

Sure, the "program" is the steps. But I suspect that ya already know not
only that, but where to find it, and have a "thought" or two to go along
with it all.
Jeff.
"Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:bq912o$1v3u7n$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Jeff Cook" <jeffloucook@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> news:GTSxb.343227$Tr4.1035421@attbi_s03...
> > Ya think maybe not just getting a Big Book, but READING it, not just
> getting
> > a sponsor, but USING them, and actually buying into da stepwork ethic to
> the
> > point of "action" might have something in the way of a solution? The
> genius
> > of the "program" is that as part and parcel of our "primary purpose" the
> > "transmission" of THE program will always supersede the transmission
of
> > "OUR" program. If it doesn't chances are it won't much matter. Kinda
falls
> > in the category of "Whatever I put in front of my sobriety, will be the
> > second thing that I lose.
> > Jeff
>
> Can you tell us precisely what "The" simple AA program you are blathering
on
> about actually is?
>
> Bob
>
>

[Robert McGregor]

"Jeff Cook" <jeffloucook@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:eLUxb.344688$Tr4.1038520@attbi_s03...
> Sure, the "program" is the steps. But I suspect that ya already know not
> only that, but where to find it, and have a "thought" or two to go along
> with it all.
> Jeff.

You might be happy to know your suspicions are correct.
http://anonpress.org/bb/Page_59.htm Over the years I've discussed lots of
thoughts to go along with it all too, online and f to f, with lots of folks.
In this instance, you're an exception to the rule. Almost without exception,
people who claim to be passing on, or sharing the message, are bemused when
asked, as you were, precisely what the message is.

Bob

[Jeff Cook]

Geez, Bob, ya covered a lotta territory there, some of which I certainly
agree with some I don't , and some which simply perplexes me.

The "common" problem would in all probability be those consequences of our
"using" behavior that have been at some point linked to our use of
alcohol,(whether we believe it or not) and the subsequent "thought" that it
should in some way be moderated. I don't know about you but I've yet to see
anyone appear in da rooms because they were having a really great life, and
were "using just the way they wanted to.

And of course you're right on with the assertion that there is an equal
amount of folks that do NOT share that presumption., bounce back and forth,
vacillate, or just plain "jump ship" Got no problem with that, since it's
always our "choice"anyway.

And while I neither have the need to deify Bill Wilson, neither do I have
the need to demean what surely is his legacy. That he was both flawed,
human, and inspired has been well documented and as does any other life
provide all the experience, from which we can indeed take what we will.

I both trust and hope that the medical community continues to go out on that
"cutting edge", searching for remedies for those folks that are beyond the
reach of what recovery models that are generally available today.And
certainly even for those "answers" which might make those so affected more
"amenable" to what IS available.But then you can imagine the uproar that
would cause when word gets out that they're trying to artificially induce
that "honesty openness and willingness" that we use as the acronym for "HOW
we attempt to work the program. Be sorta like the Bill and LSD thing.

The use of the word "recruitment" kinda puzzles me too. I tend to think of
it in "program of attraction" terms, although I suppose one could make a
case for the "sign-up bonus" if ya look at it in that light.

Who is purporting to "separate" out spirituality? All I have seen is the
effort to both acknowledge, develop, and exercise previously untapped
reservoirs in, and in this case directing them towards a specific end.
Admittedly you'll find some "cowboys" out there, but let's not heave the
baby out with the bathwater, or kill the messenger.

"Sobriety", both it's content and "quality" are both pretty subjective terms
about which books can be, and have been written on as you well know, and I
certainly have no intention of doing. To be frank, I'm not even sure what
the protocol in these newsgroups are, since this is the first I've ever
posted to, and this is lookin' kinda lengthy as is.
Jeff
"Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:bq8urd$1tvk8v$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Jeff Cook" <jeffloucook@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> news:BsPxb.337965$HS4.2893360@attbi_s01...
> > I suspect that the refusal to be included in the collaborative "we" says
> as
> > much as does the desire to use it in the first place, and frankly I see
> > nothing wrong with either. If we identify ourselves as alcoholics in the
> > first place there is the fair presumption that we do indeed share a
> "common"
> > problem.
>
> An equally fair presumption is that we don't share a common (underlying)
> problem at all
>
> >If we're talking about the specifics of a solution to that problem
> > there is also a "bulk" of shared experience, that we either see
ourselves
> as
> > either having in common, or being an exception too.
>
> Or see the intellectual dishonesty in what is falsely presented as being
> common.
> >
> > In evaluating all that, and working towards the ultimate goal of
> "sobriety,
> > many of us have found as the result of bitter experience, that our more
> > immediate success in all probability lies in movement best exemplified
by
> > those that "have what we want". It follows that "doing what they did"
> might
> > produce like results.
>
> Given what "they did" is follow the instructions codified by Bill Wilson,
> they could look forward to many years of suicidal depression?
>
>
> >Hmmmm. Makes sense to me, and even as we're struggling
> > with whether we're the "exception to the rule", as long as the "action"
of
> > early sobriety, comes out of that ethic, our chances of finding the
> "answer"
> > are greatly increased.
> >
> > Jeff
>
> If you worry about greatly increased, what about the following?
>
> "There were alcoholics in the hospitals of whom A.A. could touch and help
> only about five percent. The doctors started giving them a dose of LSD, so
> that the resistance would be broken down. And they had about fifteen
percent
> recoveries." Nell Wing - Pass It On p 370
>
> Regardless, what strikes me as particularly dishonest in the AA
recruitment
> pitch, "If you want what we have" is the reality that what "they have" is
> dependant on far more, if not infinitely more, than what "they" claim to
> have done in order to get what they have.
>
> Perhaps my point is best exemplified by what was posted about me here
> recently, that I have "quality sobriety" I neither know nor care if
sarcasm
> was implicit in that statement.
>
> Pertaining to sobriety, *all* I have is freedom from the obsession,
> compulsion, and craving to drink. I fail to see how such freedom can be
> graded, freedom is freedom. (relatively speaking;-)
>
> AA claims such freedom is dependant on "spiritual condition." I can assure
> you my freedom continues despite what at times could only be described as
an
> appalling "spiritual condition."
>
> However, the AA "want what we have" is almost invariably presented in a
> context of emotional, often even financial, health. Given new recruits to
AA
> arrive from all points of the emotional, mental, and financial spectrum,
the
> sales pitch, "If you want the best *you* can have," would be infinitely
more
> honest. Arguably anathema however, to the AA sponsor cult as they recruit
> inside, and outside, of AA
>
> Seems obvious to me worst examples of the AAspeak "Quality Sobriety" hook
> come from the sponsor cult. Closer examination has inevitably revealed to
me
> the only pertinent thing about "quality sobriety" is those that claim it,
on
> closer investigation, demonstrably *don't* have it. Same goes for the
> "spiritual" hook Given the spiritual aspect is merely an integral part of
> the holistic whole in all of us, purporting to seperate spirituality from
> that whole is decidedly "unspiritual."
>
> Quality? ha ha Bob;-)
>
>
>

[JB]

"Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:bq8urd$1tvk8v$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de...
<snip>
<snip>

> Perhaps my point is best exemplified by what was posted about me
here
> recently, that I have "quality sobriety" I neither know nor care if
sarcasm
> was implicit in that statement.
>
> Pertaining to sobriety, *all* I have is freedom from the obsession,
> compulsion, and craving to drink. I fail to see how such freedom can
be
> graded, freedom is freedom. (relatively speaking;-)

Hi,

You know that I made that remark. FWIW, I struggled to find a word
that I thought best described what I think about your life. Clearly,
it was not the word you would have used. FWIW, from what you have
told us, I get the impression that you think your life as a
non-drinker is considerably better than your life was when you were
drinking. It therefore has a degree or standard of excellence that
was missing in your previous life. Hence, it has quality

You say that you don't care whether or not I was being sarcastic. It
matters to me that you know that I was not being.

Yours

JB

[Robert McGregor]

"Jeff Cook" <jeffloucook@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:wWVxb.345492$Tr4.1040262@attbi_s03...
> Geez, Bob, ya covered a lotta territory there, some of which I certainly
> agree with some I don't , and some which simply perplexes me.

hahaha, I hold to the premise that if I haven't adequately explained my
argument, I haven't adequately understood it. That said, although
endeavouring to always be honest here, I've been known to nurture the false
presumptions of others, in jest.

>
> The "common" problem would in all probability be those consequences of our
> "using" behavior that have been at some point linked to our use of
> alcohol,(whether we believe it or not) and the subsequent "thought" that
it
> should in some way be moderated.

Your choice of the word "using" in an alcoholism forum rings a bell for some
folk to leave the room. Given the word "using" is more popular amongst drug
addicts than alcoholics, my personal, and seldom disclosed opinion, is that
anyone unable to see a qualitative difference between drugs and alcohol
could not possibly be an alcoholic.

>I don't know about you but I've yet to see
> anyone appear in da rooms because they were having a really great life,
and
> were "using just the way they wanted to.

So alcohol is actually irrelevant, the hallowed halls are really for those
who lack a great life?


>
> And of course you're right on with the assertion that there is an equal
> amount of folks that do NOT share that presumption., bounce back and
forth,
> vacillate, or just plain "jump ship" Got no problem with that, since it's
> always our "choice"anyway.

I abandoned that presumption (which might be hard for any other reader to
identify, given this post is above, not below, the points of discussion)
early on, but it was my problem, and recovery, I was interested in, not
anyone else's.

>
> And while I neither have the need to deify Bill Wilson, neither do I have
> the need to demean what surely is his legacy. That he was both flawed,
> human, and inspired has been well documented and as does any other life
> provide all the experience, from which we can indeed take what we will.

Guess I support, oppose, or ignore Bill Wilson's notions, dependant on
context. Given the saintly/divine status awarded Bill by many, it's mostly
oppose

>
> I both trust and hope that the medical community continues to go out on
that
> "cutting edge", searching for remedies for those folks that are beyond the
> reach of what recovery models that are generally available today.And
> certainly even for those "answers" which might make those so affected more
> "amenable" to what IS available.But then you can imagine the uproar that
> would cause when word gets out that they're trying to artificially induce
> that "honesty openness and willingness" that we use as the acronym for
"HOW
> we attempt to work the program. Be sorta like the Bill and LSD thing.

I believe it's a shame Bill abandoned the LSD "cure." However, generally
speaking, seems it's as simple as those who want to recover enough do, those
who don't, don't.

>
> The use of the word "recruitment" kinda puzzles me too. I tend to think of
> it in "program of attraction" terms, although I suppose one could make a
> case for the "sign-up bonus" if ya look at it in that light.

I have noticed that most who presume they present attractively, present
bullshit. As to recruitment, stick around and you should see, or check our
archives @ http://blank.org/link/?q=1070088601


>
> Who is purporting to "separate" out spirituality?

Almost certain it is covered in the archives here, but am offline as I write
this.


>All I have seen is the
> effort to both acknowledge, develop, and exercise previously untapped
> reservoirs in, and in this case directing them towards a specific end.
> Admittedly you'll find some "cowboys" out there, but let's not heave the
> baby out with the bathwater, or kill the messenger.

Who is tossing baby's out, and killing messengers?

>
> "Sobriety", both it's content and "quality" are both pretty subjective
terms
> about which books can be, and have been written on as you well know, and I
> certainly have no intention of doing.



>To be frank, I'm not even sure what
> the protocol in these newsgroups are, since this is the first I've ever
> posted to, and this is lookin' kinda lengthy as is.

Welcome to this little haven of Usenet anarchy where, it seems to me, no
matter what one does, it could piss someone off:) We are not as organised as
araa next door, but as a general guide, you can see their FAQ @
http://blank.org/link/?q=1070089223 Rule 62, and Rule 63 apply here also.

IMO, to snip irrelevent stuff out of continued discussions is essential, but
that is hard to do in top posts, and someone is bound to protest, as I often
do, that someone else has snipped the crux of the discussion.



Bob

> Jeff
> "Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:bq8urd$1tvk8v$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Jeff Cook" <jeffloucook@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> > news:BsPxb.337965$HS4.2893360@attbi_s01...
> > > I suspect that the refusal to be included in the collaborative "we"
says
> > as
> > > much as does the desire to use it in the first place, and frankly I
see
> > > nothing wrong with either. If we identify ourselves as alcoholics in
the
> > > first place there is the fair presumption that we do indeed share a
> > "common"
> > > problem.
> >
> > An equally fair presumption is that we don't share a common (underlying)
> > problem at all
> >
> > >If we're talking about the specifics of a solution to that problem
> > > there is also a "bulk" of shared experience, that we either see
> ourselves
> > as
> > > either having in common, or being an exception too.
> >
> > Or see the intellectual dishonesty in what is falsely presented as being
> > common.
> > >
> > > In evaluating all that, and working towards the ultimate goal of
> > "sobriety,
> > > many of us have found as the result of bitter experience, that our
more
> > > immediate success in all probability lies in movement best exemplified
> by
> > > those that "have what we want". It follows that "doing what they did"
> > might
> > > produce like results.
> >
> > Given what "they did" is follow the instructions codified by Bill
Wilson,
> > they could look forward to many years of suicidal depression?
> >
> >
> > >Hmmmm. Makes sense to me, and even as we're struggling
> > > with whether we're the "exception to the rule", as long as the
"action"
> of
> > > early sobriety, comes out of that ethic, our chances of finding the
> > "answer"
> > > are greatly increased.
> > >
> > > Jeff
> >
> > If you worry about greatly increased, what about the following?
> >
> > "There were alcoholics in the hospitals of whom A.A. could touch and
help
> > only about five percent. The doctors started giving them a dose of LSD,
so
> > that the resistance would be broken down. And they had about fifteen
> percent
> > recoveries." Nell Wing - Pass It On p 370
> >
> > Regardless, what strikes me as particularly dishonest in the AA
> recruitment
> > pitch, "If you want what we have" is the reality that what "they have"
is
> > dependant on far more, if not infinitely more, than what "they" claim to
> > have done in order to get what they have.
> >
> > Perhaps my point is best exemplified by what was posted about me here
> > recently, that I have "quality sobriety" I neither know nor care if
> sarcasm
> > was implicit in that statement.
> >
> > Pertaining to sobriety, *all* I have is freedom from the obsession,
> > compulsion, and craving to drink. I fail to see how such freedom can be
> > graded, freedom is freedom. (relatively speaking;-)
> >
> > AA claims such freedom is dependant on "spiritual condition." I can
assure
> > you my freedom continues despite what at times could only be described
as
> an
> > appalling "spiritual condition."
> >
> > However, the AA "want what we have" is almost invariably presented in a
> > context of emotional, often even financial, health. Given new recruits
to
> AA
> > arrive from all points of the emotional, mental, and financial spectrum,
> the
> > sales pitch, "If you want the best *you* can have," would be infinitely
> more
> > honest. Arguably anathema however, to the AA sponsor cult as they
recruit
> > inside, and outside, of AA
> >
> > Seems obvious to me worst examples of the AAspeak "Quality Sobriety"
hook
> > come from the sponsor cult. Closer examination has inevitably revealed
to
> me
> > the only pertinent thing about "quality sobriety" is those that claim
it,
> on
> > closer investigation, demonstrably *don't* have it. Same goes for the
> > "spiritual" hook Given the spiritual aspect is merely an integral part
of
> > the holistic whole in all of us, purporting to seperate spirituality
from
> > that whole is decidedly "unspiritual."
> >
> > Quality? ha ha Bob;-)
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Robert McGregor]

"JB" <JBCatRB@coldman.com> wrote in message
news:bq9ijo$9g7$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:bq8urd$1tvk8v$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de...
> <snip>
> <snip>
>
> > Perhaps my point is best exemplified by what was posted about me
> here
> > recently, that I have "quality sobriety" I neither know nor care if
> sarcasm
> > was implicit in that statement.
> >
> > Pertaining to sobriety, *all* I have is freedom from the obsession,
> > compulsion, and craving to drink. I fail to see how such freedom can
> be
> > graded, freedom is freedom. (relatively speaking;-)
>
> Hi,
>
> You know that I made that remark. FWIW, I struggled to find a word
> that I thought best described what I think about your life. Clearly,
> it was not the word you would have used. FWIW, from what you have
> told us, I get the impression that you think your life as a
> non-drinker is considerably better than your life was when you were
> drinking. It therefore has a degree or standard of excellence that
> was missing in your previous life. Hence, it has quality
>
> You say that you don't care whether or not I was being sarcastic. It
> matters to me that you know that I was not being.
>
> Yours
>
> JB

Thanks for the sentiments, JB. Though, I thought you know, If I'm wanting to
take a shot at you, I'll take a shot at you:)

Were I to use the term quality sobriety the way AAspeakers do, my award
would go to a fat slob I know who literally stinks, has trouble paying his
bills, trouble retaining accommodation, and since he got sober has become a
"Praise the lord" charismatic Christian. However, when one considers from
where that guy came, the state institution for Korsakoff's sufferers (he was
suspected as having it) and where he is today, he has made infinitely more
progress in his recovery than those claiming materially determined "quality
sobriety" ; while sneering at him from their elitist podium.

Unfortunately for bandwidth, I'm gunna write more!

Regarding my life, in many ways it's a lot worse than when I was drinking.
I'm bloody older for a start! Since getting sober, I received significant
(at least to me) injuries, and, whatever the cause
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3177 of the heart
attacks a couple of years ago, I flatlined in hospital, while my computer
was still online, merrily downloading posts from you lot. Right now though,
I feel so bloody healthy I'm wondering if the stockmarket will crash before
I do, wrecking my budget, and my feeling of financial security;-)

What has changed is my capacity to both initiate and accomplish things I
only dreamed about when drinking. Right now I cannot boast of corrected
instincts, for my car has been in a panel shop for months as I try and
negotiate completion of work I *intuitively* paid for 2 years ago.
Alternatively I am able to access serenity even in that adversity, something
I have only learned through recovery.

I'm grateful for my newfound emotional stability today, but how the hell
could anyone look at a person and see if they had emotional stability, or
not. That would make it almost impossible for the AA losers who present
themselves as winners, on the strength of a flash car, girl on their arm,
and a smile on their face.

Happy now??

Bob;-)

[JB]

"Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:bq9o33$1v9jle$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de...

JB wrote:

> > You say that you don't care whether or not I was being sarcastic.
It
> > matters to me that you know that I was not being.
> >
> > Yours
> >
> > JB
>
> Thanks for the sentiments, JB. Though, I thought you know, If I'm
wanting to
> take a shot at you, I'll take a shot at you:)

I thought you had. Using the tactics of a sniper :^))
>
<snip>

> Happy now??
>
> Bob;-)
>
I think the way I feel now is best described by the words
'enlightened' and 'contented'

Best regards

JB.

[stuart]

"Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:bq9o33$1v9jle$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "JB" <JBCatRB@coldman.com> wrote in message
> news:bq9ijo$9g7$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:bq8urd$1tvk8v$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > <snip>
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Perhaps my point is best exemplified by what was posted about me
> > here
> > > recently, that I have "quality sobriety" I neither know nor care if
> > sarcasm
> > > was implicit in that statement.
> > >
> > > Pertaining to sobriety, *all* I have is freedom from the obsession,
> > > compulsion, and craving to drink. I fail to see how such freedom can
> > be
> > > graded, freedom is freedom. (relatively speaking;-)
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > You know that I made that remark. FWIW, I struggled to find a word
> > that I thought best described what I think about your life. Clearly,
> > it was not the word you would have used. FWIW, from what you have
> > told us, I get the impression that you think your life as a
> > non-drinker is considerably better than your life was when you were
> > drinking. It therefore has a degree or standard of excellence that
> > was missing in your previous life. Hence, it has quality
> >
> > You say that you don't care whether or not I was being sarcastic. It
> > matters to me that you know that I was not being.
> >
> > Yours
> >
> > JB
>
> Thanks for the sentiments, JB. Though, I thought you know, If I'm wanting
to
> take a shot at you, I'll take a shot at you:)
>
> Were I to use the term quality sobriety the way AAspeakers do, my award
> would go to a fat slob I know who literally stinks, has trouble paying his
> bills, trouble retaining accommodation, and since he got sober has become
a
> "Praise the lord" charismatic Christian. However, when one considers from
> where that guy came, the state institution for Korsakoff's sufferers (he
was
> suspected as having it) and where he is today, he has made infinitely more
> progress in his recovery than those claiming materially determined
"quality
> sobriety" ; while sneering at him from their elitist podium.
>
> Unfortunately for bandwidth, I'm gunna write more!
>
> Regarding my life, in many ways it's a lot worse than when I was drinking.
> I'm bloody older for a start! Since getting sober, I received significant
> (at least to me) injuries, and, whatever the cause
> http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3177 of the heart
> attacks a couple of years ago, I flatlined in hospital, while my computer
> was still online, merrily downloading posts from you lot. Right now
though,
> I feel so bloody healthy I'm wondering if the stockmarket will crash
before
> I do, wrecking my budget, and my feeling of financial security;-)
>
> What has changed is my capacity to both initiate and accomplish things I
> only dreamed about when drinking. Right now I cannot boast of corrected
> instincts, for my car has been in a panel shop for months as I try and
> negotiate completion of work I *intuitively* paid for 2 years ago.
> Alternatively I am able to access serenity even in that adversity,
something
> I have only learned through recovery.
>
> I'm grateful for my newfound emotional stability today, but how the hell
> could anyone look at a person and see if they had emotional stability, or
> not. That would make it almost impossible for the AA losers who present
> themselves as winners, on the strength of a flash car, girl on their arm,
> and a smile on their face.
>
> Happy now??
>
> Bob;-)


A true winner in AA doesn't need to find "losers", or define them.
>

[MYOB]

"stuart" <fred@outerspace.jetsons> wrote in
news:n2Jxb.64677$oN2.23542@edtnps84:

> Huh? Sounds like two different folks. Was their a true self and a
> false self?
>
> The ego is created by the mind in order that we have an identity. The
> ego doesn't care if that identity is happy or sad.It just wants to
> exist. The pain of our past, the anxiety of our future is what the ego
> tells the mind who we are. My ego (self will) inadvertently created an
> alcoholic mind. Who is the true self, the "I" who couldn't live with
> "myself"
>
> We humans are very smart. A long time ago, we created this illusion
> that we were separate from God. The reason was so that the wonder and
> nature of our true existence would be special.
>
> Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, we forgot we created this
> illusion.
>
> Be in the now. Know who you are. The past happened, is done, and it
> happened in the "now" when it happened. The future will also happen in
> the "now" when it comes. Be present. Know the beautiful piece of God
> you really are. Deflate the ego, let it die.
>
>
>
>

Let the ego die???? We would just be a bunch of automatons. I think that we
need to learn the proper use of the ego instead. That is, in my opinion,
how we learn "humility". As an example, it is OK to like to have nice
things and to work towards those ends. It is a bad thing to compare what
you have against what others have and to feel superior or inferior because
of it. That, I believe, is the proper use of the ego.

[stuart]

"MYOB" <myob@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94427249A327Emyobhotmailcom@216.168.3.44.. .
> "stuart" <fred@outerspace.jetsons> wrote in
> news:n2Jxb.64677$oN2.23542@edtnps84:
>
> > Huh? Sounds like two different folks. Was their a true self and a
> > false self?
> >
> > The ego is created by the mind in order that we have an identity. The
> > ego doesn't care if that identity is happy or sad.It just wants to
> > exist. The pain of our past, the anxiety of our future is what the ego
> > tells the mind who we are. My ego (self will) inadvertently created an
> > alcoholic mind. Who is the true self, the "I" who couldn't live with
> > "myself"
> >
> > We humans are very smart. A long time ago, we created this illusion
> > that we were separate from God. The reason was so that the wonder and
> > nature of our true existence would be special.
> >
> > Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, we forgot we created this
> > illusion.
> >
> > Be in the now. Know who you are. The past happened, is done, and it
> > happened in the "now" when it happened. The future will also happen in
> > the "now" when it comes. Be present. Know the beautiful piece of God
> > you really are. Deflate the ego, let it die.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Let the ego die???? We would just be a bunch of automatons.

Not at all! Take a look at "The Power of Now" by Tolle.

I think that we
> need to learn the proper use of the ego instead. That is, in my opinion,
> how we learn "humility". As an example, it is OK to like to have nice
> things and to work towards those ends. It is a bad thing to compare what
> you have against what others have and to feel superior or inferior because
> of it. That, I believe, is the proper use of the ego.

[Jeff Cook]

Actually I started using the word "using" here online when I found many,
many folks in purportedly "alcoholically oriented communities with those
"other" issues. And while, lo those many years ago I smoked a little whacky
weed, that's the extent of my "personal" experience with that one.

While I continue to attend some "closed" meetings that will brook no mention
of any other substance, and cut 'em off at knees, and the podium for such an
offense, it's my personal feeling that we may do ourselves a larger
disservice by disallowing some folks the opportunity to "compare in". I
repeat that is my "personal" opinion, and while I can voice that in MY
homegroup other groups certainly have the right and perhaps the obligation
to not mention anything in regard to the specificity of those as defined in
the BIg Book.

Online it's a completely different story it seems, and one in which AA is
just beginning to grapple with, even to the point of having second thoughts
about the forward to the fourth edition, as I imagine you're aware with your
inclusion of the invitation to the OSC. It a pretty loosey goosey world out
here online, with little in the way of personal accountability beyond what
we actually commit to. And even that is difficult to define in a virtual
world of screen names, terminated connections, and deceptions behind our
glowing little CRTs.

I'm thinkin' that's real difficult and confusing to those folks in early
recovery, and perhaps even more so for those attempting to utilize this as
their primary recovery vehicle. And there does appear to be legions of them.
I would enjoy hearing your thoughts and assessment of that, along with any
differences or similarities you see here.

I too, enjoy spirited conversation in regard to anything that our sober life
touches, and that's a pretty big ballpark. For me, it's sometimes difficult
to delineate anther's humor in this medium until there's been a certain
passage of time and body of experience, on which to base that assessment.
And that is one of the limitations of this medium. We get da words, but not
the "human" experience that they're couched in

Judging from what you've said, the "reasons" we get here in the first place
often bear little resemblance to the "why" of our continued association, and
that certainly forms some of that basis for "common" experience., and
needless to say I'm aboard with that having had dare I say a "similar"
experience. There was a time when the semantics of it all was particularly
important,and while I certainly appreciatea certain literacy, and skill of
clarification, knowing that no matter how adroit we are in that venue, we
simply can't climb into someone elses realm of actual "experience and the
interpretation thereof.We'll all work with da tools that we have.

BTW thanks for da links, and even as I started to rummage around in there, I
found that alone could be a full time job.

Jeff

"Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:bq9kec$1vn6rd$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Jeff Cook" <jeffloucook@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> news:wWVxb.345492$Tr4.1040262@attbi_s03...
> > Geez, Bob, ya covered a lotta territory there, some of which I certainly
> > agree with some I don't , and some which simply perplexes me.
>
> hahaha, I hold to the premise that if I haven't adequately explained my
> argument, I haven't adequately understood it. That said, although
> endeavouring to always be honest here, I've been known to nurture the
false
> presumptions of others, in jest.
>
> >
> > The "common" problem would in all probability be those consequences of
our
> > "using" behavior that have been at some point linked to our use of
> > alcohol,(whether we believe it or not) and the subsequent "thought" that
> it
> > should in some way be moderated.
>
> Your choice of the word "using" in an alcoholism forum rings a bell for
some
> folk to leave the room. Given the word "using" is more popular amongst
drug
> addicts than alcoholics, my personal, and seldom disclosed opinion, is tha
t
> anyone unable to see a qualitative difference between drugs and alcohol
> could not possibly be an alcoholic.
>
> >I don't know about you but I've yet to see
> > anyone appear in da rooms because they were having a really great life,
> and
> > were "using just the way they wanted to.
>
> So alcohol is actually irrelevant, the hallowed halls are really for those
> who lack a great life?
>
>
> >
> > And of course you're right on with the assertion that there is an equal
> > amount of folks that do NOT share that presumption., bounce back and
> forth,
> > vacillate, or just plain "jump ship" Got no problem with that, since
it's
> > always our "choice"anyway.
>
> I abandoned that presumption (which might be hard for any other reader to
> identify, given this post is above, not below, the points of discussion)
> early on, but it was my problem, and recovery, I was interested in, not
> anyone else's.
>
> >
> > And while I neither have the need to deify Bill Wilson, neither do I
have
> > the need to demean what surely is his legacy. That he was both flawed,
> > human, and inspired has been well documented and as does any other life
> > provide all the experience, from which we can indeed take what we will.
>
> Guess I support, oppose, or ignore Bill Wilson's notions, dependant on
> context. Given the saintly/divine status awarded Bill by many, it's mostly
> oppose
>
> >
> > I both trust and hope that the medical community continues to go out on
> that
> > "cutting edge", searching for remedies for those folks that are beyond
the
> > reach of what recovery models that are generally available today.And
> > certainly even for those "answers" which might make those so affected
more
> > "amenable" to what IS available.But then you can imagine the uproar
that
> > would cause when word gets out that they're trying to artificially
induce
> > that "honesty openness and willingness" that we use as the acronym for
> "HOW
> > we attempt to work the program. Be sorta like the Bill and LSD thing.
>
> I believe it's a shame Bill abandoned the LSD "cure." However, generally
> speaking, seems it's as simple as those who want to recover enough do,
those
> who don't, don't.
>
> >
> > The use of the word "recruitment" kinda puzzles me too. I tend to think
of
> > it in "program of attraction" terms, although I suppose one could make a
> > case for the "sign-up bonus" if ya look at it in that light.
>
> I have noticed that most who presume they present attractively, present
> bullshit. As to recruitment, stick around and you should see, or check our
> archives @ http://blank.org/link/?q=1070088601
>
>
> >
> > Who is purporting to "separate" out spirituality?
>
> Almost certain it is covered in the archives here, but am offline as I
write
> this.
>
>
> >All I have seen is the
> > effort to both acknowledge, develop, and exercise previously untapped
> > reservoirs in, and in this case directing them towards a specific end.
> > Admittedly you'll find some "cowboys" out there, but let's not heave the
> > baby out with the bathwater, or kill the messenger.
>
> Who is tossing baby's out, and killing messengers?
>
> >
> > "Sobriety", both it's content and "quality" are both pretty subjective
> terms
> > about which books can be, and have been written on as you well know, and
I
> > certainly have no intention of doing.
>
>
>
> >To be frank, I'm not even sure what
> > the protocol in these newsgroups are, since this is the first I've ever
> > posted to, and this is lookin' kinda lengthy as is.
>
> Welcome to this little haven of Usenet anarchy where, it seems to me, no
> matter what one does, it could piss someone off:) We are not as organised
as
> araa next door, but as a general guide, you can see their FAQ @
> http://blank.org/link/?q=1070089223 Rule 62, and Rule 63 apply here also.
>
> IMO, to snip irrelevent stuff out of continued discussions is essential,
but
> that is hard to do in top posts, and someone is bound to protest, as I
often
> do, that someone else has snipped the crux of the discussion.
>
>
>
> Bob
>
> > Jeff
> > "Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:bq8urd$1tvk8v$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > > "Jeff Cook" <jeffloucook@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> > > news:BsPxb.337965$HS4.2893360@attbi_s01...
> > > > I suspect that the refusal to be included in the collaborative "we"
> says
> > > as
> > > > much as does the desire to use it in the first place, and frankly I
> see
> > > > nothing wrong with either. If we identify ourselves as alcoholics in
> the
> > > > first place there is the fair presumption that we do indeed share a
> > > "common"
> > > > problem.
> > >
> > > An equally fair presumption is that we don't share a common
(underlying)
> > > problem at all
> > >
> > > >If we're talking about the specifics of a solution to that problem
> > > > there is also a "bulk" of shared experience, that we either see
> > ourselves
> > > as
> > > > either having in common, or being an exception too.
> > >
> > > Or see the intellectual dishonesty in what is falsely presented as
being
> > > common.
> > > >
> > > > In evaluating all that, and working towards the ultimate goal of
> > > "sobriety,
> > > > many of us have found as the result of bitter experience, that our
> more
> > > > immediate success in all probability lies in movement best
exemplified
> > by
> > > > those that "have what we want". It follows that "doing what they
did"
> > > might
> > > > produce like results.
> > >
> > > Given what "they did" is follow the instructions codified by Bill
> Wilson,
> > > they could look forward to many years of suicidal depression?
> > >
> > >
> > > >Hmmmm. Makes sense to me, and even as we're struggling
> > > > with whether we're the "exception to the rule", as long as the
> "action"
> > of
> > > > early sobriety, comes out of that ethic, our chances of finding the
> > > "answer"
> > > > are greatly increased.
> > > >
> > > > Jeff
> > >
> > > If you worry about greatly increased, what about the following?
> > >
> > > "There were alcoholics in the hospitals of whom A.A. could touch and
> help
> > > only about five percent. The doctors started giving them a dose of
LSD,
> so
> > > that the resistance would be broken down. And they had about fifteen
> > percent
> > > recoveries." Nell Wing - Pass It On p 370
> > >
> > > Regardless, what strikes me as particularly dishonest in the AA
> > recruitment
> > > pitch, "If you want what we have" is the reality that what "they have"
> is
> > > dependant on far more, if not infinitely more, than what "they" claim
to
> > > have done in order to get what they have.
> > >
> > > Perhaps my point is best exemplified by what was posted about me here
> > > recently, that I have "quality sobriety" I neither know nor care if
> > sarcasm
> > > was implicit in that statement.
> > >
> > > Pertaining to sobriety, *all* I have is freedom from the obsession,
> > > compulsion, and craving to drink. I fail to see how such freedom can
be
> > > graded, freedom is freedom. (relatively speaking;-)
> > >
> > > AA claims such freedom is dependant on "spiritual condition." I can
> assure
> > > you my freedom continues despite what at times could only be described
> as
> > an
> > > appalling "spiritual condition."
> > >
> > > However, the AA "want what we have" is almost invariably presented in
a
> > > context of emotional, often even financial, health. Given new recruits
> to
> > AA
> > > arrive from all points of the emotional, mental, and financial
spectrum,
> > the
> > > sales pitch, "If you want the best *you* can have," would be
infinitely
> > more
> > > honest. Arguably anathema however, to the AA sponsor cult as they
> recruit
> > > inside, and outside, of AA
> > >
> > > Seems obvious to me worst examples of the AAspeak "Quality Sobriety"
> hook
> > > come from the sponsor cult. Closer examination has inevitably revealed
> to
> > me
> > > the only pertinent thing about "quality sobriety" is those that claim
> it,
> > on
> > > closer investigation, demonstrably *don't* have it. Same goes for the
> > > "spiritual" hook Given the spiritual aspect is merely an integral part
> of
> > > the holistic whole in all of us, purporting to seperate spirituality
> from
> > > that whole is decidedly "unspiritual."
> > >
> > > Quality? ha ha Bob;-)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Jeff Cook]

Ahhhhhhh.
Jeff
"Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:bq9o33$1v9jle$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "JB" <JBCatRB@coldman.com> wrote in message
> news:bq9ijo$9g7$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:bq8urd$1tvk8v$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > <snip>
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Perhaps my point is best exemplified by what was posted about me
> > here
> > > recently, that I have "quality sobriety" I neither know nor care if
> > sarcasm
> > > was implicit in that statement.
> > >
> > > Pertaining to sobriety, *all* I have is freedom from the obsession,
> > > compulsion, and craving to drink. I fail to see how such freedom can
> > be
> > > graded, freedom is freedom. (relatively speaking;-)
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > You know that I made that remark. FWIW, I struggled to find a word
> > that I thought best described what I think about your life. Clearly,
> > it was not the word you would have used. FWIW, from what you have
> > told us, I get the impression that you think your life as a
> > non-drinker is considerably better than your life was when you were
> > drinking. It therefore has a degree or standard of excellence that
> > was missing in your previous life. Hence, it has quality
> >
> > You say that you don't care whether or not I was being sarcastic. It
> > matters to me that you know that I was not being.
> >
> > Yours
> >
> > JB
>
> Thanks for the sentiments, JB. Though, I thought you know, If I'm wanting
to
> take a shot at you, I'll take a shot at you:)
>
> Were I to use the term quality sobriety the way AAspeakers do, my award
> would go to a fat slob I know who literally stinks, has trouble paying his
> bills, trouble retaining accommodation, and since he got sober has become
a
> "Praise the lord" charismatic Christian. However, when one considers from
> where that guy came, the state institution for Korsakoff's sufferers (he
was
> suspected as having it) and where he is today, he has made infinitely more
> progress in his recovery than those claiming materially determined
"quality
> sobriety" ; while sneering at him from their elitist podium.
>
> Unfortunately for bandwidth, I'm gunna write more!
>
> Regarding my life, in many ways it's a lot worse than when I was drinking.
> I'm bloody older for a start! Since getting sober, I received significant
> (at least to me) injuries, and, whatever the cause
> http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3177 of the heart
> attacks a couple of years ago, I flatlined in hospital, while my computer
> was still online, merrily downloading posts from you lot. Right now
though,
> I feel so bloody healthy I'm wondering if the stockmarket will crash
before
> I do, wrecking my budget, and my feeling of financial security;-)
>
> What has changed is my capacity to both initiate and accomplish things I
> only dreamed about when drinking. Right now I cannot boast of corrected
> instincts, for my car has been in a panel shop for months as I try and
> negotiate completion of work I *intuitively* paid for 2 years ago.
> Alternatively I am able to access serenity even in that adversity,
something
> I have only learned through recovery.
>
> I'm grateful for my newfound emotional stability today, but how the hell
> could anyone look at a person and see if they had emotional stability, or
> not. That would make it almost impossible for the AA losers who present
> themselves as winners, on the strength of a flash car, girl on their arm,
> and a smile on their face.
>
> Happy now??
>
> Bob;-)
>
>