Semantics of Step 1 - (For: Ron)

[neuro equipoise]

On -Sat, Jan 31, 2004, 8:25pm (EST+5)
In Topic Titled : "Having a Rough Day..."

can@the.spam (Ron) wrote:

> Perhaps this is what the 'unmanageable' bit of
> step one means: not that you're sleeping in a
> gutter, but simply that you have problems that you
> shouldn't and wouldn't if you didn't drink the way
> you do.

> Although I still feel like I'm struggling with AA's
> step one, maybe I owned that step a while ago,
> and am simply getting hung up on semantics.

> In any case, I didn't do a damn thing about my
> drinking until I realized it was a problem. If I stop
> thinking it's a problem (not hard to do, I'm afraid),
> then I'm in trouble.

Here is my creative attempt concerning your semantics *snag* of step 1.

You have the model type brain which revvs more like a race car, and part
# -"Basal Ganglia XTC" needs a recall because it is malfuctioning,
resulting in poor brake performance and handling around curves.

While it's a thrill a minute being in that race car, you do realize that
there's no way to make a pit stop until you completely run out of fuel,
because the brakes don't work. It's tough driving that race car too,
and until part # - "Basal Ganglia XTC" gets fixed by the manufacturer,
all you can do is change the fuel mixture so that car drives a lot
slower, handles better, and you'll have to use your mind to create a
"work-around" for those defective brakes.

Maybe a small anchor, or a parachute rig on the tail like on a
'dragster', it has to be something powerful and *greater* than trying to
stop that race car by just dragging your leg out the door.

People here have to be their own mechanic solving this brake problem
"work-around". Everyone's race car engine is a bit different, so the
tweaking requires your own creativity since you are really rebuilding
your own brain.

> > Although I still feel like I'm struggling with AA's
> > step one, maybe I owned that step a while ago,
> > and am simply getting hung up on semantics.
>


actually tripping over *the semantics* is a frequent problem for
some, around the discussion tables of AA.
in AA meetings, F2F or online, that i attend, there is always
somebody expounding on the difference and definitions of the
verbiage in the steps.

"A VERY SIMPLE PROGRAM FOR VERY COMPLICATED PEOPLE"

[Blue Moon]

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 09:14:34 -0500 (EST), NeuroEquipoise@webtv.net
(neuro equipoise) wrote:

>People here have to be their own mechanic solving this brake problem
>"work-around". Everyone's race car engine is a bit different, so the
>tweaking requires your own creativity since you are really rebuilding
>your own brain.

Don't need to have my own creativity for this. The mechanic doesn't
need creativity, in fact that can be disastrous. He just needs to
follow the instructions in the book. He doesn't need to know how the
brakes work, or what they're made of, or anything. Same for an
alcoholic - he or she just needs to do what those who've recovered
have done. "The tremendous fact for every one of us is that we have
discovered a common solution. We have a way out on which we can
absolutely agree, and upon which we can join in brotherly and
harmonious action. This is the great news this book carries to those
who suffer from alcoholism." Alcoholics Anonymous p.17

Step 1 doesn't need any semantics. It means exactly what it says.
Semantics come from those who don't really understand what it says.
They are many, including many of those in AA.

--
Blue Moon

[Blue Moon]

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 08:44:56 -0600, " <rosie>"
<readandpostTAKETHISOUT@hotmail.com> wrote:

>actually tripping over *the semantics* is a frequent problem for
>some, around the discussion tables of AA.
>in AA meetings, F2F or online, that i attend, there is always
>somebody expounding on the difference and definitions of the
>verbiage in the steps.

In my experience, this usually manifests itself among those attending
12x12 "Step" meetings.

--
Blue Moon

[neuro equipoise]

On -Sun, Feb 1, 2004, 4:34pm (EST+5) mfoco@hotmail.com (Blue*Moon)
wrote:

>> On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 09:14:34 -0500 (EST),
>> NeuroEquipoise@webtv.net (neuro equipoise)
>> wrote:

>> People here have to be their own mechanic
>> solving this brake problem "work-around".
>> Everyone's race car engine is a bit different, so
>> the tweaking requires your own creativity since
>> you are really rebuilding your own brain.

> Don't need to have my own creativity for this. The
> mechanic doesn't need creativity, in fact that can
> be disastrous.

The conversations between Ron and myself also concerned the semantics of
the word 'spirituality', and that semantic snag affected other things
for him. My words about his needing his own "creativity" was more about
"creativity" being one's 'spirit', and all "mechanics" need 'spirit'.

> He just needs to follow the instructions in the
> book.

I'll leave this section for Ron to answer.


> He doesn't need to know how the brakes work, or
> what they're made of, or anything. Same for an
> alcoholic - he or she just needs to do what those
> who've recovered have done.

He *does* need to how the brakes work, because those are the
glutamate/GABA receptors, and the more he understands how they are
affected by anxiety and certain foods, how they are affected by amino
acid supplements and by certain meds, the better he can arm himself to
succeed.

The last ten years of brain research using computer imaging has revealed
more about the brain than could have been imagined.

Every person's brain is *unique*. Every person's alcoholism is *unique*
too, because it depends on genetics, other substance abuse, diet,
general health, age, sex, anxiety levels, financial status, health of
other organs like the thyroid, testosterone levels, pituitary health,
quality of relationships, neighborhood stress levels, climate, sunshine
amount, exercise levels, etc.

Every person needs their own strong vision of what "spirit" is, because
each person's "spirit" is unique.

> In my experience, this usually manifests itself among those
attending
> 12x12 "Step" meetings.
>
> --
> Blue Moon



ime, that is true also.
i still love "STEP" meetings though.....................i learn so
much, even from those who trip over *the semantics* !

rosie

[Ron]

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 12:49:51 -0500 (EST),
neuro equipoise <NeuroEquipoise@webtv.net> wrote:

> The conversations between Ron and myself also concerned the semantics of
> the word 'spirituality', and that semantic snag affected other things
> for him. My words about his needing his own "creativity" was more about
> "creativity" being one's 'spirit', and all "mechanics" need 'spirit'.

Actually, my biggest semantic snag is over the word 'alcoholic', and AA
step one: 'We admitted we were powerless over alcohol - that our lives
had become unmanageable.'

"People quit, therefore they aren't powerless", "I'm functioning, maybe
not at my best, but nothing is unmanageable" ... yada yada yada. My
weasely little mind keeps trying to language lawyer itself out of the
predicament it's in. The facts, though, are simple:

* I drink to get drunk, and see no other reason to drink
* I drink often
* I've done this for a long time
* I hide it, lie about it, etc.
* It adversely affects me, and those around me.

Whether or not I ever come to terms with what an 'alcoholic' is, I know
I have a problem, and I need to fix it.

I don't really have any problem with the word 'spirituality'. To me,
though, it has religious overtones, and that's what I can't relate to.
It doesn't bother me at all that other people use the word. (I probably
make too much of these things - probably attributable to my
fundamentalist baptist upbringing..)

>> He doesn't need to know how the brakes work, or
>> what they're made of, or anything. Same for an
>> alcoholic - he or she just needs to do what those
>> who've recovered have done.
>
> He *does* need to how the brakes work, because those are the
> glutamate/GABA receptors, and the more he understands how they are
> affected by anxiety and certain foods, how they are affected by amino
> acid supplements and by certain meds, the better he can arm himself to
> succeed.

I appreciate everybody's perspective. I'm skeptical by nature, but I
must say that the degree to which the dietary information you've
presented correlates with my lifestyle is remarkable. There are periods
during the day when I feel positively narcoleptic, and other times when
I'm really buzzing. Both my father and his father had late-onset
diabetes. (My doctor knows this, and it hasn't registered for me -
yet.)

I don't think it's going to be as easy to change my diet, etc. as I
first thought. I'm discovering that the patterns of what and how I eat
are pretty firmly embedded. I'm making progress, though.

--
AB5DB9CC

[Robert McGregor]

"neuro equipoise" <NeuroEquipoise@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:4330-401D3C3F-62@storefull-3272.bay.webtv.net...
On -Sun, Feb 1, 2004, 4:34pm (EST+5) mfoco@hotmail.com (Blue Moon)
wrote:

>> On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 09:14:34 -0500 (EST),
>> NeuroEquipoise@webtv.net (neuro equipoise)
>>> wrote:

>>> People here have to be their own mechanic
>>> solving this brake problem "work-around".
>>> Everyone's race car engine is a bit different, so
>>> the tweaking requires your own creativity since
>>> you are really rebuilding your own brain.

>> Don't need to have my own creativity for this. The
>> mechanic doesn't need creativity, in fact that can
>> be disastrous.

>The conversations between Ron and myself also concerned the semantics of
>the word 'spirituality', and that semantic snag affected other things
>for him. My words about his needing his own "creativity" was more about
>"creativity" being one's 'spirit', and all "mechanics" need 'spirit'.

>> He just needs to follow the instructions in the
>> book.

>I'll leave this section for Ron to answer.


>> He doesn't need to know how the brakes work, or
>> what they're made of, or anything. Same for an
>> alcoholic - he or she just needs to do what those
>> who've recovered have done.

>He *does* need to how the brakes work, because those are the
>glutamate/GABA receptors, and the more he understands how they are
>affected by anxiety and certain foods, how they are affected by amino
>acid supplements and by certain meds, the better he can arm himself to
>succeed.

So your "I'll leave this section for Ron to answer" was bullshit.

>The last ten years of brain research using computer imaging has revealed
>more about the brain than could have been imagined.

Arguably, what has been revealed is miniscule; compared to what has *not*
been revealed.

>Every person's brain is *unique*. Every person's alcoholism is *unique*
>too, because it depends on genetics, other substance abuse, diet,
>general health, age, sex, anxiety levels, financial status, health of
>other organs like the thyroid, testosterone levels, pituitary health,
>quality of relationships, neighborhood stress levels, climate, sunshine
>amount, exercise levels, etc.

However your theory pertaining to Ron's "braking system" is superior to
contemporary brain research, thus not dependent on the latest available
imaging of Ron's *unique* brain?

>Every person needs their own strong vision of what "spirit" is, because
>each person's "spirit" is unique.

And the contextual "as we understood Him" denies unique individuality?

Bob :- who only needed hope, the 12 step formula, and diligence born of
desperation.
All necessary explanations arrived, and continue to arrive, with benefit of
hindsight.

[neuro equipoise]

On - Mon, Feb 2, 2004, 6:49am (EST+15) robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au
(Robert*McGregor)
wrote:

>>> He just needs to follow the instructions in the
>>> book.

>> I'll leave this section for Ron to answer.

> So your "I'll leave this section for Ron to answer"
> was bullshit.

I think you *misunderstood* my writing. All I said was that I was
leaving that section of your quote for Ron to answer about whether he
chooses to follow instuctions in a book. It was not for me to answer.
I then went on to the other sections...



<next section>

> Arguably, what has been revealed is miniscule;
> compared to what has *not* been revealed.

Neuro-biology researchers don't consider it miniscule, when compared to
what they did know.


> However your theory pertaining to Ron's "braking
> system" is superior to contemporary brain
> research, thus not dependent on the latest
> available imaging of Ron's *unique* brain?

It's not my theory. Neuro-biologists know that certain inhibitory
receptors are malfunctioning, and not everyone is affected to the same
degree. Damage in other parts of the frontal lobes affects the capacity
for a person to "avoid-harming" and the degree to which this part is
affected also affects sobriety. Each brain is unique. Prenatal
nutrition has an effect, the age the person starts drinking matters as
well, there are a lot of variables which affect damage in other areas.

> And the contextual "as we understood Him"
> denies unique individuality?

No it does not. That's why I didn't understand why you seemed to be
against my use of the word "creativity" when I spoke of "spirituality".
English is not my first language, and I do see that we have
communication mis-firings. Not everyone reading this message board is
going to speak English the same way or come from the same culture.

I try to express myself clearly.

[neuro equipoise]

On - Sun, Feb 1, 2004, 8:38pm (EST+5) can@the.spam (Ron) wrote:

> I appreciate everybody's perspective. I'm skeptical
> by nature,

Do you know that whether a person is skeptical or gullible depends on
the quantity of dopamine receptors?

> but I must say that the degree to which the dietary
> information you've presented correlates with my
> lifestyle is remarkable.

The alcohol cravings and sugar/carbo cravings are related because the
body processes them all as "sugar".

> There are periods during the day when I feel
> positively narcoleptic, and other times when I'm
> really buzzing.

The narcolepsy is related to your serotonin levels.

The more sugar a person eats, the more that serotonin receptors are shut
down too. Alcohol also affects serotonin.


> I don't think it's going to be as easy to change my
> diet, etc. as I first thought. I'm discovering that the
> patterns of what and how I eat are pretty firmly
> embedded. I'm making progress, though.

Habits are formed by repetition.

New habits work the same way : )

[Blue Moon]

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 12:49:51 -0500 (EST), NeuroEquipoise@webtv.net
(neuro equipoise) wrote:

>The conversations between Ron and myself also concerned the semantics of
>the word 'spirituality', and that semantic snag affected other things
>for him.

Step 1 has nothing to do with spirituality.

>> He doesn't need to know how the brakes work, or
>> what they're made of, or anything. Same for an
>> alcoholic - he or she just needs to do what those
>> who've recovered have done.
>
>He *does* need to how the brakes work, because those are the
>glutamate/GABA receptors, and the more he understands how they are
>affected by anxiety and certain foods, how they are affected by amino
>acid supplements and by certain meds, the better he can arm himself to
>succeed.

I accept that knowledge can be useful, and diet is important (perhaps
more so than the average alcoholic would realise). But knowledge and
diet alone are absolutely irrelevant to recovery from alcoholism.
Recovery is all about action.

"Thus started one more journey to the asylum for Jim. Here was the
threat of commitment, the loss of family and position, to say nothing
of that intense mental and physical suffering which drinking always
caused him. He had much knowledge about himself as an alcoholic. Yet
all reasons for not drinking were easily pushed aside in favor of the
foolish idea that he could take whiskey if only he mixed it with milk!

Whatever the precise definition of the word may be, we call this plain
insanity. How can such a lack of proportion, of the ability to think
straight, be called anything else?
" Alcoholics Anonymous pp. 36-37

You are coming at this perspective from one who assumes that an
alcoholic is thinking rationally. Yet you admit you don't understand
that alcoholic psyche. Alcohol warps the perception, so rational
thinking is never all there in a relapsing alcoholic. I had much
knowledge about my alcoholic condition, am classified as "very
intelligent", and am "strong-willed". Yet these things did not
prevent the emotional need for alcohol. Knowing that it might be
something to do with carbohydrates would just get forgotten amidst
that need.

In a business meeting at a bar it once took me just 30 minutes one
evening to effectively forget I'd even decided not to drink. This had
nothing to do with simply processing sugars either. I had 2 rounds of
cola, more than enough sugar for the metabolism to get its teeth into.
It wasn't anything to do with physical withdrawal either, I hadn't
taken a drink for almost 3 months. What the sugars alone did not meet
was an emotional need for alcohol.

>Every person's brain is *unique*. Every person's alcoholism is *unique*
>too, because it depends on genetics, other substance abuse, diet,
>general health, age, sex, anxiety levels, financial status, health of
>other organs like the thyroid, testosterone levels, pituitary health,
>quality of relationships, neighborhood stress levels, climate, sunshine
>amount, exercise levels, etc.

So isn't it odd that such a "unique" alcoholism is assured of recovery
from following the same directions?

And describing someone as "unique" is actually a potentially very
dangerous tactic for an alcoholic, because one of the most common
perceptions among alcoholics is "my case is different". We have seen
this clearly manifest itself in this forum, and I've seen it in every
slipper I've come across. So confirming to an alcoholic that he is
"different" can actually confirm an untruth in his own mind that the
actions which *I* took will not work in *his* case. So he won't even
take them, yet will continue to wonder why his own will-power
continues to elude.

So he'll endure an ongoing regime of changing diet, changing
environment, changing pills and changing psychiatrists. All but the
one thing that worked for me because these Steps seem to make no sense
and my problem is not really alcohol.

It may surprise you to know that this discussion was already done to
death by the 1930s. Science has managed to change absolutely nothing
in this regard since then.

"Despite all we can say, many who are real alcoholics are not going to
believe they are in that class. By every form of self-deception and
experimentation, they will try to prove themselves exceptions to the
rule, therefore nonalcoholic. If anyone who is showing inability to
control his drinking can do the right- about-face and drink like a
gentleman, our hats are off to him. Heaven knows, we have tried hard
enough and long enough to drink like other people!

Here are some of the methods we have tried: Drinking beer only,
limiting the number of drinks, never drinking alone, never drinking in
the morning, drinking only at home, never having it in the house,
never drinking during business hours, drinking only at parties,
switching from scotch to brandy, drinking only natural wines, agreeing
to resign if ever drunk on the job, taking a trip, not taking a trip,
swearing off forever (with and without a solemn oath), taking more
physical exercise, reading inspirational books, going to health farms
and sanitariums, accepting voluntary commitment to asylums - we could
increase the list ad infinitum.
" Alcoholics Anonymous p. 31

--
Blue Moon

[Robert McGregor]

"neuro equipoise" <NeuroEquipoise@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:14516-401D7064-19@storefull-3277.bay.webtv.net...
On - Mon, Feb 2, 2004, 6:49am (EST+15) robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au
(Robert McGregor)
wrote:

>>> He just needs to follow the instructions in the
>>> book.

>> I'll leave this section for Ron to answer.

> So your "I'll leave this section for Ron to answer"
> was bullshit.

>>>>>>I think you *misunderstood* my writing. All I said was that I
was
leaving that section of your quote for Ron to answer about whether he
chooses to follow instuctions in a book. It was not for me to answer.
I then went on to the other sections...>>>>

And added even more complications to the semantics of step one.


<next section>

> Arguably, what has been revealed is miniscule;
> compared to what has *not* been revealed.

>>>>>Neuro-biology researchers don't consider it miniscule, when
compared to
what they did know. >>>>>>

How many Neuro-biology researchers are you speaking for, and how often
have those researchers previously reached wrong conclusions?

> However your theory pertaining to Ron's "braking
> system" is superior to contemporary brain
> research, thus not dependent on the latest
> available imaging of Ron's *unique* brain?

>>>>>>>It's not my theory. Neuro-biologists know that certain
inhibitory
receptors are malfunctioning, and not everyone is affected to the same
degree. Damage in other parts of the frontal lobes affects the
capacity
for a person to "avoid-harming" and the degree to which this part is
affected also affects sobriety. Each brain is unique. Prenatal
nutrition has an effect, the age the person starts drinking matters as
well, there are a lot of variables which affect damage in other
areas.>>>>>>>

Awareness that mental and emotional malfunction affects recovery from
alcoholism is at least as old as AA. Are you now contradicting the
long term proven AA awareness by saying that Neuro-biology is a more
effective starting point than self honesty?
http://silkworth.net/bb/howitworks.html

> And the contextual "as we understood Him"
> denies unique individuality?

>>>>>No it does not. That's why I didn't understand why you seemed to
be
against my use of the word "creativity" when I spoke of
"spirituality".>>>>>>>

Believing "spirituality" to be bullshit in any other context than
holistic, it was merely your "scientific" dogma I objected to.

The 12 steps are a formula that was consensually agreed or accepted by
about 60 alcoholics who had been *hopeless* drunks themselves. More
than half a century later, those same steps are still working for
individuals as unique as Blue moon and I.

Apparently there was no way those early AAers could agree on Bill
Wilson's dogma, (it accompanied the steps in the "Big Book,") just as,
regardless of rosie's neurotic references to some sort of plotting
against her, Blue and I have a track record of disagreement in this
forum. Nevertheless, using an identical formula, we each recovered
*despite* our unique differences.

My own opinion is that hopelesness is an almost essential
pre-requisite to effective application of the steps. The desolation of
hopelesness seems to be the ultimate motivator for acceptance of the
otherwise deeply resented change absolutely neccessary for recovery
from alcoholism.

>>>>English is not my first language, and I do see that we have
communication mis-firings. Not everyone reading this message board is
going to speak English the same way or come from the same culture.
>>>>

Thanks for the enlightenment!

>>>>I try to express myself clearly. >>>>

As do I, when I try;-)

Sometimes however, rules 62, and 63, apply! They're rules pertinent to
research, imo.

Bob

[neuro equipoise]

On - Mon, Feb 2, 2004, 12:41am (EST+5) From: mfoco@hotmail.com
(Blue*Moon) wrote:

>> On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 12:49:51 -0500 (EST),
>> NeuroEquipoise@webtv.net (neuro equipoise)
>> wrote:

>> The conversations between Ron and myself also
>> concerned the semantics of the word 'spirituality',
>> and that semantic snag affected other things for
>> him.

> Step 1 has nothing to do with spirituality.

Firstly, the original post in this thread which I titled "For Ron", was
a detour from another conversation we both had about semantics. He did
also mention a stumbling block with the words of Step 1.

I started this thread as a "attempt" to reach his creative imagination,
using the race car with no brakes.

Concerning your words above, I choose to disagree, because to me
spirituality is part of *everything*.


> I accept that knowledge can be useful, and diet is
> important (perhaps more so than the average
> alcoholic would realise). But knowledge and diet
> alone are absolutely irrelevant to recovery from
> alcoholism. Recovery is all about action.

Attention to optimal nutrition is also action. Educating oneself is
also action.

I choose to disagree with your choice of the words "absolutely
irrelevant" because the word "absolutely" signals cognitive distortive
thinking, like black and white thinking.


> You are coming at this perspective from one who
> assumes that an alcoholic is thinking rationally.

I am aware of addictive thinking, about cognitive distortions,
impulsivity, the inability to see the big picture, the creation of
confabulations, sense of "but nothing I've tried *really* works, and
I've tried everything. I'm a special case"

Studying neuro-biology for some years, I know what substances do. I
know a person needs a healthy brain and certain receptors functioning in
order to be "rational" I've also studied brain-based learning methods,
and know that there are different learning styles dependant on
hemisphere.


> Yet you admit you don't understand that alcoholic
> psyche.

I said that I don't understand what craving feels like, since I have
different chemistry. I *imagine* it as a large smouldering coal inside
the brain which flares up during anxiety or blood sugar plunges, or
dopamine fluctuations.

I've seen plenty of alcoholics in action, and I've helped two stop.

> In a business meeting at a bar it once took me
> just 30 minutes one evening to effectively forget
> I'd even decided not to drink. This had nothing to
> do with simply processing sugars either. I had 2
> rounds of cola, more than enough sugar for the
> metabolism to get its teeth into.

I don't understand your line of reasoning concerning these words: "more
than enough sugar for the metabolism to get its teeth into"

Cola with caffeine carries an extra punch, and it wouldn't take long for
your insulin levels to completely *wipe out* your blood sugar...leaving
you open for a glucose *craving* while you were sitting in a bar. The
brain get starved for glucose during a hypoglycemic plunge, and it will
*demand* glucose, and it *does* affect your "rational grip" when it
does.

> Knowing that it might be something to do with
> carbohydrates would just get forgotten amidst that
> need.

As I've mentoined, conversations with Ron included other topics,
including the hypoglycemia. I am aware that blood sugar plunges can
*trigger* cravings for the next drink, and I have tried to explain the
dangers of that to Ron.


> Science has managed to change absolutely
> nothing in this regard since then.

I disagree once again, because you are using the words "absolutely
nothing" which I see as a marker of cognitive distortion, "alcoholic
thinking".

Just over a decade ago, science used to think that the brain can't
repair itself. The brain does have plasticity. New things are always
being discovered.
The brain is capable of creating heathy new cells every moment.

[Ron]

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 12:33:18 +1000,
Robert McGregor <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> Awareness that mental and emotional malfunction affects recovery from
> alcoholism is at least as old as AA. Are you now contradicting the
> long term proven AA awareness by saying that Neuro-biology is a more
> effective starting point than self honesty?

Are you saying that Neuro-biology is incompatible with the AA approach?

--
AB5DB9CC

[Robert McGregor]

"Ron" <can@the.spam> wrote in message
news:IbjTb.206260$xy6.1057406@attbi_s02...
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 12:33:18 +1000,
> Robert McGregor <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Awareness that mental and emotional malfunction affects recovery
from
> > alcoholism is at least as old as AA. Are you now contradicting the
> > long term proven AA awareness by saying that Neuro-biology is a
more
> > effective starting point than self honesty?
>
> Are you saying that Neuro-biology is incompatible with the AA
approach?
>
> --
> AB5DB9CC

No.

Bob

[Ron]

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 00:41:08 GMT, Blue Moon <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I accept that knowledge can be useful, and diet is important (perhaps
> more so than the average alcoholic would realise). But knowledge and
> diet alone are absolutely irrelevant to recovery from alcoholism.
> Recovery is all about action.

I understand and agree with what you're saying. Sure, I'd like an easy
way out - eat some granola, and be all set. I'm not naive, though. I'm
still doing AA. I don't think any of the points being made contradict
AA. The machinations of cognition *can't* be incompatible with AA,
unless we revert to a flat-earth soulist philosophy of mind. If
anything, AA at some point may need some revision. (I'm certainly not
proposing any such revisions right now, or likely ever.)

(BTW - the Pats won! Whoo!)

Anyway... I'm working the steps ... on my own ... sans god. I'm not a
dope, but as far as my diet is concerned, I am. Somewhat ironically, I
think part of my problem is a very outwardly healthy-looking metabolism.
For my whole life, I've spent nary an iota of time thinking about what I
stuff in my mouth. It just doesn't matter. Or more accurately, it
doesn't show. It matters a good deal...

> So isn't it odd that such a "unique" alcoholism is assured of recovery
> from following the same directions?

Isn't 'assured' a little strong? The only thing I'm sure of is that I'd
like to have a drink. I'm sure it's a bad idea. Except for those rare
occasions when I don't, which is where the danger lies..

--
AB5DB9CC

[neuro equipoise]

On - Mon, Feb 2, 2004, 12:33pm (EST+15) robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au
(Robert*McGregor)
wrote:


>>> Arguably, what has been revealed is miniscule;
>>> compared to what has *not* been revealed.

>> Neuro-biology researchers don't consider it
>> miniscule, when compared to what they did
>> know.

> How many Neuro-biology researchers are you
> speaking for, and how often have those
> researchers previously reached wrong
> conclusions?

I speak for myself. I am referring to *all* the neuro-biology research,
such as stem cell research making neurons, such as brain scans seeing a
brain *as* it is performing a specific action. Addiction research on
the brain etc...


> Awareness that mental and emotional malfunction
> affects recovery from alcoholism is at least as old
> as AA. Are you now contradicting the long term
> proven AA awareness by saying that
> Neuro-biology is a more effective starting point
> than self honesty?
> http://silkworth.net/bb/howitworks.htm

I'll start with a quote from the link you just referred me to:

"There are those, too, who suffer from grave emotional and mental
disorders, but many of them do recover if they have the capacity to be
honest"

You are asking me if neuro-biology is a more effective starting point
than self honesty. It depends on how damaged the brain is. We are
living in a different world, where so many new substances like certain
street drugs didn't even exist in Bill's day. There is a greater use of
neuro-toxins in people, and multi-substance abuse is more common. Some
damage is pretty severe.

I know about the neuro-biology of spirituality, but some psychiatric
illnesses can't be fixed with just self-honesty. Benign pituitary tumors
are also common and they can shut down oxytocin production and disrupt
endocrine hormones. Without oxytocin there can be no feeling of love or
bonding or even *caring* until the tumor is removed.


> it was merely your "scientific" dogma I objected
> to.

What "dogma" exactly?

In closing, I do recall reading about Bill W saying that new discoveries
in science and future knowledge would be or should be an evolving part
of the AA fellowship.

[Ron]

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 21:35:26 -0500 (EST),
neuro equipoise <NeuroEquipoise@webtv.net> wrote:

> I said that I don't understand what craving feels like, since I have
> different chemistry. I *imagine* it as a large smouldering coal inside
> the brain which flares up during anxiety or blood sugar plunges, or
> dopamine fluctuations.

That's one bit of research wisely left to others... ;)

--
AB5DB9CC

[Robert McGregor]

"neuro equipoise" <NeuroEquipoise@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:10449-401DCD59-105@storefull-3278.bay.webtv.net...
On - Mon, Feb 2, 2004, 12:33pm (EST+15) robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au
(Robert McGregor)
wrote:


>>> Arguably, what has been revealed is miniscule;
>>> compared to what has *not* been revealed.

>> Neuro-biology researchers don't consider it
>> miniscule, when compared to what they did
>> know.

> How many Neuro-biology researchers are you
> speaking for, and how often have those
> researchers previously reached wrong
> conclusions?

>>>>>>>>>I speak for myself. I am referring to *all* the
neuro-biology research,
such as stem cell research making neurons, such as brain scans seeing
a
brain *as* it is performing a specific action. Addiction research on
the brain etc...>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Granting you the unlikely access to *all* the research, how often have
you reached wrong conclusions?


> Awareness that mental and emotional malfunction
> affects recovery from alcoholism is at least as old
> as AA. Are you now contradicting the long term
> proven AA awareness by saying that
> Neuro-biology is a more effective starting point
> than self honesty?
> http://silkworth.net/bb/howitworks.htm

>>>>I'll start with a quote from the link you just referred me to:

"There are those, too, who suffer from grave emotional and mental
disorders, but many of them do recover if they have the capacity to be
honest">>>>>

That's why I chose the link.

>>>>>You are asking me if neuro-biology is a more effective starting
point
than self honesty. It depends on how damaged the brain is. >>>>>

Really, and at what measurement of damage is neuro-biology supposed to
be superior?




>>>>We are
living in a different world, where so many new substances like certain
street drugs didn't even exist in Bill's day. There is a greater use
of
neuro-toxins in people, and multi-substance abuse is more common.
Some
damage is pretty severe.>>>>>

What's new?

>>>>I know about the neuro-biology of spirituality, but some
psychiatric
illnesses can't be fixed with just self-honesty. Benign pituitary
tumors
are also common and they can shut down oxytocin production and disrupt
endocrine hormones. Without oxytocin there can be no feeling of love
or
bonding or even *caring* until the tumor is removed.>>>>

Who has claimed just self honesty is a cure.

> it was merely your "scientific" dogma I objected
> to.

What "dogma" exactly?

Your use of absolutes similar to those for which you just reprimanded
BlueMoon.

>>>>>In closing, I do recall reading about Bill W saying that new
discoveries
in science and future knowledge would be or should be an evolving part
of the AA fellowship.>>>>>

People, not knowledge, constitute a fellowship (of which,
incidentally,
I am precluded.) Meanwhile, there is difference between theory,
discovery, and efficacy.

Bob

[neuro equipoise]

On - Mon, Feb 2, 2004, 2:53pm (EST+15) robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au
(Robert*McGregor)
wrote:

> Granting you the unlikely access to *all* the
> research, how often have you reached wrong
> conclusions?

I did not claim to have access to *all* the research. The point I made
was that the contributions to knowledge were not considered 'miniscule'
as you claimed.


>> I'll start with a quote from the link you just
>> referred me to:

>> "There are those, too, who suffer from grave
>> emotional and mental disorders, but many of
>> them do recover if they have the capacity to be
>> honest"

> That's why I chose the link.

I extracted the quote for those reading along, who didn't choose to open
your link.

>> You are asking me if neuro-biology is a more
>> effective starting point than self honesty. It
>> depends on how damaged the brain is.

> Really, and at what measurement of damage is
> neuro-biology supposed to be superior?

Neuro-biology is an effective starting point in endocrine hormone levels
testing. The health of adrenals, thyroid, pituitary, affect anxiety
levels, and as alcohol and sugar lower dopamine and serotonin receptor
levels, *more* alcohol is then needed to *jolt* the pleasure pathways
and positive neurotransmitter communication will be stopped or
interrupted. More anxiety equals more craving.

Being able to believe in a "higher power" or "spirituality" depends on
having enough dopamine receptors. Being able to "care" depends on
pituitary oxytocin which also depends on dopamine receptors being
available. A person who drinks because they can't feel "love" or
because they feel "dead inside" should have a thorough endocrine exam,
and whether they think they are being honest with themselves or to AA
isn't going to fix a pituitary tumor or thyroid disorder if they didn't
know they had one.

If a body is depleted of amino acids, the brain will not have the
chemicals with which to make neuro-transmitters. If depletion is
severe, then meds can bridge the gap by blocking reuptake.


>>> it was merely your "scientific" dogma I objected
>>> to.

>> What "dogma" exactly?

> Your use of absolutes similar to those for which
> you just reprimanded BlueMoon.

You mean my stating that the legumes were vegetables, and that I see
spirituality as being part of everything, including step 1? My
inclusivity is not the same thing as negative distortions used in
addictive thinking. Whether you are aware of it or not, a non-alcoholic
person in this forum very much realizes that communication here is
'different'. Strong words like "reprimanded" are negative
magnifications and they are not healthful to those reading here.

[Moonraker]

"neuro equipoise" <NeuroEquipoise@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:4330-401E72B5-180@storefull-3272.bay.webtv.net...

>being able to believe in a "higher power" or "spirituality" depends on
having enough dopamine receptors. <

Are you saying that atheists are chemically imbalanced?

>Being able to "care" depends on pituitary oxytocin which also depends on
dopamine receptors being
available. A person who drinks because they can't feel "love" or because
they feel "dead inside" should have a thorough endocrine exam,<

What "receptors" are missing in a homosexual's brain?

>and whether they think they are being honest with themselves or to AA
isn't going to fix a pituitary tumor or thyroid disorder if they didn't
know they had one. <

Lemmee guess? You aren't an alcoholic, are you?

[Robert McGregor]

"neuro equipoise" <NeuroEquipoise@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:4330-401E72B5-180@storefull-3272.bay.webtv.net...
On - Mon, Feb 2, 2004, 2:53pm (EST+15) robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au
(Robert McGregor)
wrote:

> Granting you the unlikely access to *all* the
> research, how often have you reached wrong
> conclusions?

>>>>>I did not claim to have access to *all* the research. The point
I made
was that the contributions to knowledge were not considered
'miniscule'
as you claimed.>>>>>

So your claim "I am referring to *all* the neuro-biology research,"
was bullshit, while the question re wrong conclusions remains
unanswered.


>> I'll start with a quote from the link you just
>> referred me to:

>> "There are those, too, who suffer from grave
>> emotional and mental disorders, but many of
>> them do recover if they have the capacity to be
>> honest"

> That's why I chose the link.

>>>>>>>>I extracted the quote for those reading along, who didn't
choose to open
your link. >>>>>>>>

>> You are asking me if neuro-biology is a more
>> effective starting point than self honesty. It
>> depends on how damaged the brain is.

> Really, and at what measurement of damage is
> neuro-biology supposed to be superior?

>>>Neuro-biology is an effective starting point in endocrine hormone
levels
testing. The health of adrenals, thyroid, pituitary, affect anxiety
levels, and as alcohol and sugar lower dopamine and serotonin receptor
levels, *more* alcohol is then needed to *jolt* the pleasure pathways
and positive neurotransmitter communication will be stopped or
interrupted.


More anxiety equals more craving.>>>>

Bullshit

>>>>Being able to believe in a "higher power" or "spirituality"
depends on
having enough dopamine receptors. >>>>>>>

Recovery from alcoholism is not dependent on being able to believe in
a higher power.


>>>>>>>Being able to "care" depends on
pituitary oxytocin which also depends on dopamine receptors being
available. A person who drinks because they can't feel "love" or
because they feel "dead inside" should have a thorough endocrine exam,
and whether they think they are being honest with themselves or to AA
isn't going to fix a pituitary tumor or thyroid disorder if they
didn't
know they had one. >>>>>>>

And who diagnosed such people as being alcoholic?

>>>>>If a body is depleted of amino acids, the brain will not have the
chemicals with which to make neuro-transmitters. If depletion is
severe, then meds can bridge the gap by blocking reuptake. >>>>

Meds can, or meds will, or, you are guessing?




>>> it was merely your "scientific" dogma I objected
>>> to.

>> What "dogma" exactly?

> Your use of absolutes similar to those for which
> you just reprimanded BlueMoon.

>>>>You mean my stating that the legumes were vegetables, and that I
see
spirituality as being part of everything, including step 1? >>>>>>

No, I mean what I said


>>>>>My
inclusivity is not the same thing as negative distortions used in
addictive thinking. Whether you are aware of it or not, a
non-alcoholic
person in this forum very much realizes that communication here is
'different'. Strong words like "reprimanded" are negative
magnifications and they are not healthful to those reading here.>>>>>

So you proclaim absolutes as to what words are healthful, or not,
here. OK.

Of course communication here is "different." How else could it be.
AAspeak has been around for longer than I have, although I probably
could have chosen a more apt word than "reprimanded." Stiff shit,
tough tittie, or however you choose to read it!

Bob

[Bobby L.]

"Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:bvkggt$so5on$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Ron" <can@the.spam> wrote in message
> news:IbjTb.206260$xy6.1057406@attbi_s02...
> > On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 12:33:18 +1000,
> > Robert McGregor <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > > Awareness that mental and emotional malfunction affects recovery
> from
> > > alcoholism is at least as old as AA. Are you now contradicting the
> > > long term proven AA awareness by saying that Neuro-biology is a
> more
> > > effective starting point than self honesty?
> >
> > Are you saying that Neuro-biology is incompatible with the AA
> approach?
> >
> > --
> > AB5DB9CC
>
> No.
>
> Bob
>
>

No... but man who looks out two windows walks into wall.

[Bobby L.]

"Blue Moon" <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3552d3ec632abed964ed4eeb861de8cb@news.teranew s.com...
> On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 09:14:34 -0500 (EST), NeuroEquipoise@webtv.net
> (neuro equipoise) wrote:
>
> >People here have to be their own mechanic solving this brake problem
> >"work-around". Everyone's race car engine is a bit different, so the
> >tweaking requires your own creativity since you are really rebuilding
> >your own brain.
>
> Don't need to have my own creativity for this. The mechanic doesn't
> need creativity, in fact that can be disastrous. He just needs to
> follow the instructions in the book. He doesn't need to know how the
> brakes work, or what they're made of, or anything. Same for an
> alcoholic - he or she just needs to do what those who've recovered
> have done. "The tremendous fact for every one of us is that we have
> discovered a common solution. We have a way out on which we can
> absolutely agree, and upon which we can join in brotherly and
> harmonious action. This is the great news this book carries to those
> who suffer from alcoholism." Alcoholics Anonymous p.17
>
> Step 1 doesn't need any semantics. It means exactly what it says.
> Semantics come from those who don't really understand what it says.
> They are many, including many of those in AA.
>
> --
> Blue Moon


No kiddin' Blue... I was beginning to think I was the only one getting a bit
dazzled here with so much brilliance.

It's simple... If you are not powerless over alcohol and your life is not
unmanageable... Then go drink, AA is the wrong place - hell, you are not an
alcoholic. If you are powerless over alcohol, but your life is still
manageable, AA is still the wrong place. If you are not powerless over
alcohol, but you life is unmanageable, AA is still the wrong place.

If you are powerless over alcohol and your life has become unmanageable, go
to step two.

Pretty Simple... Not a lot of imagination involved.

Bobby L

[Ron]

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 19:15:43 -0500,
Bobby L. <BobbyL2000nospam@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> No... but man who looks out two windows walks into wall.

Would you care to elaborate? Are you suggesting that if I pay more
attention to my diet and go to AA at the same time that I'm going to
pick up another drink? That makes no sense to me.

--
AB5DB9CC

[Ron]

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 19:24:02 -0500,
Bobby L. <BobbyL2000nospam@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> It's simple... If you are not powerless over alcohol and your life is not
> unmanageable... Then go drink, AA is the wrong place - hell, you are not an
> alcoholic. If you are powerless over alcohol, but your life is still
> manageable, AA is still the wrong place. If you are not powerless over
> alcohol, but you life is unmanageable, AA is still the wrong place.
>
> If you are powerless over alcohol and your life has become unmanageable, go
> to step two.
>
> Pretty Simple... Not a lot of imagination involved.

No offense, but I don't find this simple. I don't know what 'powerless
over alcohol' means, and I don't know what 'life is unmanageable' means
either; so I'm all too ready to say "Well, fuck it then, because that's
not me. I haven't had a drink in two months! How can I be an
alcoholic? I never hurt anyone. I'm not jobless or homeless. I'm just
fine."

I think it's rather dangerous to oversimplify step one. If you tell me
it's crystal clear, then I'm going to say "See ya then, because it's
clearly not clear to me!" In all honesty, I am craving a drink at this
very moment like you wouldn't (well, actually you probably would ;)
believe. These episodes aren't as predictable as the cravings I
remember from smoking. They're less predictable. Sometimes it's
obvious external factors, like stress or anxiety. Right now I'm just
sitting in a chair happily blathering on, and it's a damn good thing
there's no alcohol in the house and my wife is gone with the car. There
is just one thing that would really make me feel better right now, and
that's a drink. It's absolutely idiotic to think I don't have a
problem, but that's exactly what I am thinking when my problem should be
most obvious.

I think maybe one of the most important steps is step zero: You don't
need any qualifications at all to go to AA and sit down. Robert has
reminded me of that once or twice. It's good advice. If you don't get
past step zero, then you're on your own, and probably won't even bother
arguing with anyone about step one.

I don't know if typing this shit is helping me, or just another way to
obsess.

--
AB5DB9CC

[rosie]

>.................. I don't know what 'powerless
> over alcohol' means, and I don't know what 'life is unmanageable'
means
> either;

ron,
perhaps your complicating this too much?
while reading the rest of your post, i read that your craving a
drink right now, and that your glad the house is cleared of all
alcohol, and that you wife is gone with the car................

that sounds pretty unmanagable to me...............don't you think
it is?






>................ How can I be an
> alcoholic? I never hurt anyone. I'm not jobless or homeless.
I'm just
> fine."
>

i didn't think i was hurting anyone either.........................i
also held down a job outside of the home, and was raising four kids
and keeping up with the housework.
i asked myself many times, how i could be an alcoholic, without
losing anything, or anyone........................you know what?
i was on my way!

ron,
can you or will you go to an AA meeting to get some help? you don't
need to be miserable!
is there anyone you can call?
have you read LIVING SOBER yet? (my favorite HOW TO manual)

i truly wish you well with this, i really hate to see anyone having
a rough time.
IT DOES GET BETTER, I PROMISE!

rosie




>In all honesty, I am craving a drink at this
> very moment like you wouldn't (well, actually you probably would
;)
> believe. These episodes aren't as predictable as the cravings I
> remember from smoking. They're less predictable. Sometimes it's
> obvious external factors, like stress or anxiety. Right now I'm
just
> sitting in a chair happily blathering on, and it's a damn good
thing
> there's no alcohol in the house and my wife is gone with the car.
There
> is just one thing that would really make me feel better right now,
and
> that's a drink. It's absolutely idiotic to think I don't have a
> problem, but that's exactly what I am thinking when my problem
should be
> most obvious.
>
> I think maybe one of the most important steps is step zero: You
don't
> need any qualifications at all to go to AA and sit down. Robert
has
> reminded me of that once or twice. It's good advice. If you
don't get
> past step zero, then you're on your own, and probably won't even
bother
> arguing with anyone about step one.
>
> I don't know if typing this shit is helping me, or just another
way to
> obsess.
>
> --
> AB5DB9CC

[neuro equipoise]

On - Tue, Feb 3, 2004, 2:04am (EST+5) can@the.spam (Ron) wrote:

> I don't know if typing this shit is helping me, or
> just another way to obsess.

Maybe you're feeling empty after all the excitement of yesterday, and
also having missed your regular meeting...

[Julie LaRue]

If you don't have a problem with drinking then way are have you made a
decision to waste your time on this news group?

Why would you need to stop drinking alcohol if it hasn't caused you
problems?

You said your having cravings! My father and mother-in-law will drink ONE
(sometimes only half) glass of wine with dinner and that is even rare for
them to do. They don't have a craving for a drink and never will. but I

I never drank like "earth people" (My father and mother-in-law) even when I
first started drinking. I don't know about you, but I drank for the EFFECT
and not just to have something that tasted good with dinner like NORMAL
people do.



If you don't have a problem with drinking then why would you crave a drink?



I challenge you to review your daily steps and to look for how your life was
unmanageable when you were drinking.



Did you have to stop at a store on the way home from work to buy some booze
or beer?



Ever keep something to drink stashed away just in case the store wasn't
going to be open in time on Sunday?



Lie to a friend or employer about how much you really drank?



Ever drink booze because you were thirsty? Booze doesn't help your thirst
it dehydrates your body. Next time your thirsty try drinking 12 sixteen
ounce glasses of water in a few hours time instead of beer and you will see
what I mean.



Every down and out drunk living in a homeless shelter has said exactly what
you are saying before everything fell a part for them. They hadn't lost
their job and they were not homeless and hadn't hurt anyone either at some
point in their life. Oh, by they way, they didn't LOOSE these things they
actually threw then away because drinking was more important to them.

What I'm trying to say is you can drink all you want just try to be honest
with yourself about what it costs you.

May you find the peace you desire,

Julie



never drank thaand ll they ever drink
"Ron" <can@the.spam> wrote in message
news:1lDTb.213072$na.348914@attbi_s04...
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 19:24:02 -0500,
> Bobby L. <BobbyL2000nospam@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > It's simple... If you are not powerless over alcohol and your life is
not
> > unmanageable... Then go drink, AA is the wrong place - hell, you are not
an
> > alcoholic. If you are powerless over alcohol, but your life is still
> > manageable, AA is still the wrong place. If you are not powerless over
> > alcohol, but you life is unmanageable, AA is still the wrong place.
> >
> > If you are powerless over alcohol and your life has become unmanageable,
go
> > to step two.
> >
> > Pretty Simple... Not a lot of imagination involved.
>
> No offense, but I don't find this simple. I don't know what 'powerless
> over alcohol' means, and I don't know what 'life is unmanageable' means
> either; so I'm all too ready to say "Well, fuck it then, because that's
> not me. I haven't had a drink in two months! How can I be an
> alcoholic? I never hurt anyone. I'm not jobless or homeless. I'm just
> fine."
>
> I think it's rather dangerous to oversimplify step one. If you tell me
> it's crystal clear, then I'm going to say "See ya then, because it's
> clearly not clear to me!" In all honesty, I am craving a drink at this
> very moment like you wouldn't (well, actually you probably would ;)
> believe. These episodes aren't as predictable as the cravings I
> remember from smoking. They're less predictable. Sometimes it's
> obvious external factors, like stress or anxiety. Right now I'm just
> sitting in a chair happily blathering on, and it's a damn good thing
> there's no alcohol in the house and my wife is gone with the car. There
> is just one thing that would really make me feel better right now, and
> that's a drink. It's absolutely idiotic to think I don't have a
> problem, but that's exactly what I am thinking when my problem should be
> most obvious.
>
> I think maybe one of the most important steps is step zero: You don't
> need any qualifications at all to go to AA and sit down. Robert has
> reminded me of that once or twice. It's good advice. If you don't get
> past step zero, then you're on your own, and probably won't even bother
> arguing with anyone about step one.
>
> I don't know if typing this shit is helping me, or just another way to
> obsess.
>
> --
> AB5DB9CC

[Blue Moon]

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 21:35:26 -0500 (EST), NeuroEquipoise@webtv.net
(neuro equipoise) wrote:

>> Step 1 has nothing to do with spirituality.

>Concerning your words above, I choose to disagree, because to me
>spirituality is part of *everything*.

Scientific fact, or an opinion?

Actually Step 1 has something to do with a distinct *lack* of
spirituality. This can apply even to those who are deeply religious.

>> I accept that knowledge can be useful, and diet is
>> important (perhaps more so than the average
>> alcoholic would realise). But knowledge and diet
>> alone are absolutely irrelevant to recovery from
>> alcoholism. Recovery is all about action.
>
>Attention to optimal nutrition is also action. Educating oneself is
>also action.

I said "knowledge and diet *alone* are absolutely irrelevant to
recovery from alcoholism". There are many people who eat a "healthy"
diet, have far more knowledge than they need, yet are dying from
active alcoholism. The actions necessary for mental/emotional
recovery go hand-in-hand with the actions necessary for diet. But a
healthy diet alone will not aid anyone if they're still drinking, and
needing to drink, alcoholically. Quite the opposite, in fact - booze
kills off vitamins, as I'm sure you're aware.

>> You are coming at this perspective from one who
>> assumes that an alcoholic is thinking rationally.
>
>I am aware of addictive thinking,

Yes, but do you *understand* it? I'm aware of the planet neptune, but
I won't pretend to understand it.

>> Yet you admit you don't understand that alcoholic
>> psyche.
>
>I said that I don't understand what craving feels like, since I have
>different chemistry. I *imagine* it as a large smouldering coal inside
>the brain which flares up during anxiety or blood sugar plunges, or
>dopamine fluctuations.

Frankly, you're in no position to understand the living fucking hell
of untreated alcoholism.

>I've seen plenty of alcoholics in action, and I've helped two stop.

Stop what?

>> In a business meeting at a bar it once took me
>> just 30 minutes one evening to effectively forget
>> I'd even decided not to drink. This had nothing to
>> do with simply processing sugars either. I had 2
>> rounds of cola, more than enough sugar for the
>> metabolism to get its teeth into.
>
>I don't understand your line of reasoning concerning these words: "more
>than enough sugar for the metabolism to get its teeth into"
>
>Cola with caffeine carries an extra punch, and it wouldn't take long for
>your insulin levels to completely *wipe out* your blood sugar...leaving
>you open for a glucose *craving* while you were sitting in a bar. The
>brain get starved for glucose during a hypoglycemic plunge, and it will
>*demand* glucose, and it *does* affect your "rational grip" when it
>does.

Oh I see, so it was my fault for ordering cola rather than, perhaps,
orange juice or lemonade?

>> Science has managed to change absolutely
>> nothing in this regard since then.
>
>I disagree once again, because you are using the words "absolutely
>nothing" which I see as a marker of cognitive distortion, "alcoholic
>thinking".

I stand by my statement until I can be demonstrated as incorrect.
It's not rigid thinking, more a statement of fact.

--
Blue Moon

[Blue Moon]

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 03:54:38 GMT, Ron <can@the.spam> wrote:

>> So isn't it odd that such a "unique" alcoholism is assured of recovery
>> from following the same directions?
>
>Isn't 'assured' a little strong? The only thing I'm sure of is that I'd
>like to have a drink. I'm sure it's a bad idea. Except for those rare
>occasions when I don't, which is where the danger lies..

"Rarely have we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our
path".

--
Blue Moon

[Blue Moon]

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 02:04:45 GMT, Ron <can@the.spam> wrote:

>On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 19:24:02 -0500,
>Bobby L. <BobbyL2000nospam@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> It's simple... If you are not powerless over alcohol and your life is not
>> unmanageable... Then go drink, AA is the wrong place - hell, you are not an
>> alcoholic. If you are powerless over alcohol, but your life is still
>> manageable, AA is still the wrong place. If you are not powerless over
>> alcohol, but you life is unmanageable, AA is still the wrong place.
>>
>> If you are powerless over alcohol and your life has become unmanageable, go
>> to step two.
>>
>> Pretty Simple... Not a lot of imagination involved.
>
>No offense, but I don't find this simple. I don't know what 'powerless
>over alcohol' means, and I don't know what 'life is unmanageable' means
>either;

For the answers to these questions I refer you to the "doctor's
opinion" and chapters 2 and 3 in the big book.

It is simple. Almost elusively simple. It's just not easy (in fact,
I found it incredibly difficult) to get one's head around just how
elusively simple it really is. Some people can stay intelligently
drunk whilst others remain stupidly sober.

>I think it's rather dangerous to oversimplify step one. If you tell me
>it's crystal clear, then I'm going to say "See ya then, because it's
>clearly not clear to me!"

That's partly because you're listening to people who are willing to
indulge the somewhat dubious luxury of semantics without having gone
through the process themselves. This applies both here and in AA.

> In all honesty, I am craving a drink at this
>very moment like you wouldn't (well, actually you probably would ;)
>believe.

"... our lives had become unmanageable". Doesn't say "our lives had
ended up in jail 15 times" or "our lives had gained 3 DUIs", it says
"our lives had become unmanageable". The mental obsession you refer
to is the mainstay of this unmanageability. I have never been in jail
nor had a DUI, but my life definitely became emotionally unmanageable
*whilst relatively sober*. I hit "rock bottom" *without* a drink
inside.

Here's how simple Step 1 really is:

1. Cannot sustain controlled drinking
2. Cannot emotionally handle life sober

--
Blue Moon

[neuro equipoise]

Tue, Feb 3, 2004, 4:27am (EST+5) From: mfoco@hotmail.com (Blue*Moon)

>>> Step 1 has nothing to do with spirituality.

>> Concerning your words above, I choose to
>> disagree, because to me spirituality is part of
>> *everything*.

> Scientific fact, or an opinion?

Both. Neuro-theology research finds that 'spirituality' is dependent
on dopamine levels. Sceptics have less dopamine, but in studies on
neuro-theology, scepticism changes when L-dopa is administered.
Schizophrenic's hallucinations of the supernatural, their "talking with
'God' " etc are caused by their dopamine.

Dopamine is the chemical which helps us see large patterns of
connectivity, with ourselves and with the universe. It is strategically
located near pleasure centers in the brain, such as in the reward
pathway affected by addiction, and in the pituitary where 'loving' and
'nurturing' hormones are released. These nurturing hormones lower
anxiety levels, and help people feel serenity.

> Actually Step 1 has something to do with a
> distinct *lack* of spirituality. This can apply even
> to those who are deeply religious.

Agreed. The spirituality level is what determnes 'managebility' and
'power-over', and the actions and teachings of AA steps, and spiritual
traditions worldwide, slowly raise dopamine receptors. Whether you
call it religion or spirituality, rituals of sharing and caring,
self-discipline, taming the ego mind, actually are working on building a
healthy brain. The religious stories are metaphors which act on the
healing imagination. That part of the brain is where the placebo effect
resides, and where all healing begins. That area belongs to the right
hemisphere which "believes" instead of "rationalizes" because it is the
creative, intuitive lateral hemisphere. To me, spirituality or it's
lack are part of everything including step 1


> I said "knowledge and diet *alone* are absolutely
> irrelevant to recovery from alcoholism".

Yes, I understood that part of your words, and I don't see them as
"absolutely irrelevant" because nutrition builds the brain, and how we
think changes our brain pathways, changes our chemicals, curbs craving.
Nutritional studies show that when a brain is well nourished, the desire
for addictive substances diminishes greatly. It is the poor health of
the brain which is the cry for "feeling better" and some who don't know
any better, will grab the first "potent feel better" solution and start
a destructive cycle in the brain.

> There are many people who eat a "healthy" diet,
> have far more knowledge than they need, yet are
> dying from active alcoholism.

What most people consider healthful nutrition is actually junk. For
example, processed sugar and dregs of food processing, such as
hydrogenated oils, are present in almost all packaged foods, even if
they sound, "all natural".

> But a healthy diet alone will not aid anyone if
> they're still drinking, and needing to drink,
> alcoholically.

You said a healthy diet and knowledge alone are
"absolutely irrelevant" to recovery, and I chose to disagree because I
don't consider it absolutely irrelevant. My experience with helping
alcoholics who wanted no part of AA, started with optimal nutrition, and
I mean "optimal super foods" and "super supplements" They turned the
alcoholism around and maintained sobriety to this day. There were
setbacks *yes*, but the sobriety gained the upper hand when the body and
brain got healthier. I am not saying to abandon spiritual traditions
and the caring and sharing of AA, I am just saying consider
neuro-biology too since I strongly believe this would make withdrawal
and cravings easier on people who are suffering. I am not selling
anything either, but just sharing my knowledge on natural healing. I
am one person here who has never been drunk or even craved any addictive
substance mostly because my family has been involved with natural
healing for generations. What I am telling you is what I know to be
true.

> Quite the opposite, in fact - booze kills off
> vitamins, as I'm sure you're aware.

Yes, and it removes receptors, which disrupts internal communication and
neuro-harmony. Processed sugar is a legal drug too.


> Frankly, you're in no position to understand the
> living fucking hell of untreated alcoholism.

I have already mentioned here that I do not understand "craving". It's
not going to stop me from trying to help.


> Oh I see, so it was my fault for ordering cola
> rather than, perhaps, orange juice or lemonade?

It was a poor choice and growing in knowledge is your responsibility.
That's action too.


> I stand by my statement until I can be
> demonstrated as incorrect. It's not rigid thinking,
> more a statement of fact.

I chose to disagree with you, for the reasons I presented here. Since
this is a recovery forum, I feel that helping people change their
thinking style is part of the healing. Helping people see that
everything is *interrelated*, helps them build the receptors they need
to overcome 'craving-talk'.

'All or nothing' thinking, disqualifying positives, black and white
thinking, is the way to think a person into staying in their addiction.
I am not saying you have demonstrated these styles of thought, I am just
saying that these styles are abundant here, and as a non-alcoholic they
catch
my attention.

[Moonraker]

"neuro equipoise" <NeuroEquipoise@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:17718-401FA695-286@storefull-3273.bay.webtv.net...


>>My experience with helping
alcoholics who wanted no part of AA, started with optimal nutrition, and
I mean "optimal super foods" and "super supplements" They turned the
alcoholism around and maintained sobriety to this day. <<

Horseshit.

Another pointy-headed theorist.

Just like I thought. You aren't alcoholic, haven't a clue what an alkie
feels, thinks, or goes through.

Lemmee guess? before long, you'll be advocating the purchase of some
"super supplement" that, just coincidentally, can only be gotten from you?

[neuro equipoise]

On - Tue, Feb 3, 2004, 10:32am notnow@noway.nev (Moonraker) wrote

> Lemmee guess? * before long, you'll be
> advocating the purchase of some "super
> supplement" that, just coincidentally, can only be
> gotten from you?

I have no products to sell. I *did* mention that in my post as well.
Read it again.


> Just like I thought. You aren't alcoholic, haven't a
> clue what an alkie feels, thinks, or goes through.

I've already mentioned several times that I am not an alkie.

[rosie]

LOL!
didn't you know, he has trouble reading? he also suffers daily with
CONTROL ISSUES!

read and post daily, it works!
rosie

Congress has the power to censure the President -- to formally
reprimand him for his betrayal of the nation's trust. If ever there
was a time to use this function, it is now. Join the call for
Congress to censure President Bush now at:
http://www.moveon.org/censure/?id=-1555727-LwxVozqbsXUubaCq5RHn6g



"neuro equipoise" <NeuroEquipoise@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:7913-401FD084-363@storefull-3276.bay.webtv.net...
On - Tue, Feb 3, 2004, 10:32am notnow@noway.nev (Moonraker) wrote

> Lemmee guess? before long, you'll be
> advocating the purchase of some "super
> supplement" that, just coincidentally, can only be
> gotten from you?

I have no products to sell. I *did* mention that in my post as
well.
Read it again.


> Just like I thought. You aren't alcoholic, haven't a
> clue what an alkie feels, thinks, or goes through.

I've already mentioned several times that I am not an alkie.

[Moonraker]

"neuro equipoise" <NeuroEquipoise@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:7913-401FD084-363@storefull-3276.bay.webtv.net...
On - Tue, Feb 3, 2004, 10:32am notnow@noway.nev (Moonraker) wrote

> Lemmee guess? before long, you'll be
> advocating the purchase of some "super
> supplement" that, just coincidentally, can only be
> gotten from you?

I have no products to sell. I *did* mention that in my post as well.
Read it again.

YET?



> Just like I thought. You aren't alcoholic, haven't a
> clue what an alkie feels, thinks, or goes through.

I've already mentioned several times that I am not an alkie.

So why are you hanging around?

[neuro equipoise]

On - Tue, Feb 3, 2004, 12:41pm notnow@noway.nev (Moonraker) wrote:
>> I have no products to sell. I *did* mention that in
>> my post as well. Read it again.

> YET?

I'll use the word "Never".


> So why are you hanging around?

I'm just studying and tried to share something. That's all.

[Moonraker]

"neuro equipoise" <NeuroEquipoise@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:17718-401FECD7-298@storefull-3273.bay.webtv.net...
>
> > So why are you hanging around?
>
> I'm just studying and tried to share something. That's all.
>

I don't suppose it would ever occur to you that alcoholics aren't specimens
to be studied like rats in a laboratory?

You, and other non alcoholics, hanging around make as much sense as a
claustrophobic posting to a spelunking group.


BTW...yesterday, I asked you the following 2 questions:

>being able to believe in a "higher power" or "spirituality" depends on
having enough dopamine receptors. <

Are you saying that atheists are chemically imbalanced?

>Being able to "care" depends on pituitary oxytocin which also depends on
dopamine receptors being
available. A person who drinks because they can't feel "love" or because
they feel "dead inside" should have a thorough endocrine exam,<

What "receptors" are missing in a homosexual's brain?

Care to answer?

[Ron]

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:27:42 -0500, Moonraker <notnow@noway.nev> wrote:

> I don't suppose it would ever occur to you that alcoholics aren't
> specimens to be studied like rats in a laboratory?
>
> You, and other non alcoholics, hanging around make as much sense as a
> claustrophobic posting to a spelunking group.

It makes as much sense as attending a public event in town square. If
you don't like fancy book lern'n, maybe you should stop jacking into
usenet.

--
AB5DB9CC

[neuro equipoise]

On - Tue, Feb 3, 2004, 2:27pm w notnow@noway.nev (Moonraker) wrote:

>>> So why are you hanging around?

>> I'm just studying and tried to share something.
>> That's all.

> I don't suppose it would ever occur to you that
> alcoholics aren't specimens to be studied like rats
> in a laboratory?

Did it ever occur to you, that non-alkies have a whole other mind set
which you probably can't imagine right now?


> BTW...yesterday, I asked you the following 2
> questions:

>> being able to believe in a "higher power" or
>> "spirituality" depends on having enough
>> dopamine receptors.

> Are you saying that atheists are chemically
> imbalanced?

I am saying that atheists are balanced to be atheists, and that
believers are balanced to be believers. I covered this topic earlier
today in this thread too.


> What "receptors" are missing in a homosexual's
> brain?

If they drink, dopamine and serotonin receptors, and beyond that I
haven't studied the topic you ask to be able to answer your particular
question. Try the search engine.

> Care to answer?

I just did...

[Moonraker]

"neuro equipoise" <NeuroEquipoise@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:17720-40200E91-27@storefull-3273.bay.webtv.net...
> On - Tue, Feb 3, 2004, 2:27pm w notnow@noway.nev (Moonraker) wrote:

> > I don't suppose it would ever occur to you that
> > alcoholics aren't specimens to be studied like rats
> > in a laboratory?
>
> Did it ever occur to you, that non-alkies have a whole other mind set
> which you probably can't imagine right now?

And just what is it, in your infinite wisdom, that you presume I can't
imagine about a non-alkie's mindset?

Typical pointy-headed academian. Researching more and more about less and
less, until they know everything there is to know about nothing.

[neuro equipoise]

On - Tue, Feb 3, 2004, 4:55pm notnow@noway.nev (Moonraker) wrote:

> Typical pointy-headed academian. Researching
> more and more about less and less, until they
> know everything there is to know about nothing.

> And just what is it, in your infinite wisdom, that
> you presume I can't imagine about a non-alkie's
> mindset?

Having a real conversation.

[Moonraker]

"neuro equipoise" <NeuroEquipoise@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:17774-40202077-1@storefull-3276.bay.webtv.net...
> On - Tue, Feb 3, 2004, 4:55pm notnow@noway.nev (Moonraker) wrote:
>
> > Typical pointy-headed academian. Researching
> > more and more about less and less, until they
> > know everything there is to know about nothing.
>
> > And just what is it, in your infinite wisdom, that
> > you presume I can't imagine about a non-alkie's
> > mindset?
>
> Having a real conversation.

Oh. I see. So, whaddya think the Brave's chances are in the NL East
this year? Can anybody beat the Phillies?
>

[Robert McGregor]

"Moonraker" <notnow@noway.nev> wrote in message
news:hzWTb.1131$uS3.863@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> "neuro equipoise" <NeuroEquipoise@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:17774-40202077-1@storefull-3276.bay.webtv.net...
> > On - Tue, Feb 3, 2004, 4:55pm notnow@noway.nev (Moonraker) wrote:
> >
> > > Typical pointy-headed academian. Researching
> > > more and more about less and less, until they
> > > know everything there is to know about nothing.
> >
> > > And just what is it, in your infinite wisdom, that
> > > you presume I can't imagine about a non-alkie's
> > > mindset?
> >
> > Having a real conversation.
>
> Oh. I see. So, whaddya think the Brave's chances are in the NL
East
> this year? Can anybody beat the Phillies?
> >
>

Isn't that idle speculation, as distinct from conversation?

Bob;-)

[rosie]

>
> Having a real conversation.
>

LOL!
please don't judge all of us alkies by moonie, ok?

--
read and post daily, it works!
rosie

Congress has the power to censure the President -- to formally
reprimand him for his betrayal of the nation's trust. If ever there
was a time to use this function, it is now. Join the call for
Congress to censure President Bush now at:
http://www.moveon.org/censure/?id=-1555727-LwxVozqbsXUubaCq5RHn6g



"neuro equipoise" <NeuroEquipoise@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:17774-40202077-1@storefull-3276.bay.webtv.net...
> On - Tue, Feb 3, 2004, 4:55pm notnow@noway.nev (Moonraker) wrote:
>
> > Typical pointy-headed academian. Researching
> > more and more about less and less, until they
> > know everything there is to know about nothing.
>
> > And just what is it, in your infinite wisdom, that
> > you presume I can't imagine about a non-alkie's
> > mindset?
>
> Having a real conversation.
>

[Moonraker]

"Robert McGregor" <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:bvpd2t$v51vb$1@ID-49289.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Moonraker" <notnow@noway.nev> wrote in message
> news:hzWTb.1131$uS3.863@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > "neuro equipoise" <NeuroEquipoise@webtv.net> wrote in message
> > news:17774-40202077-1@storefull-3276.bay.webtv.net...
> > > On - Tue, Feb 3, 2004, 4:55pm notnow@noway.nev (Moonraker) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Typical pointy-headed academian. Researching
> > > > more and more about less and less, until they
> > > > know everything there is to know about nothing.
> > >
> > > > And just what is it, in your infinite wisdom, that
> > > > you presume I can't imagine about a non-alkie's
> > > > mindset?
> > >
> > > Having a real conversation.
> >
> > Oh. I see. So, whaddya think the Brave's chances are in the NL
> East
> > this year? Can anybody beat the Phillies?
> > >
> >
>
> Isn't that idle speculation, as distinct from conversation?
>
> Bob;-)
>

And that is different from speculating about SSRI's and amino acids and
their effect on human brains, how? ;>)

[Moonraker]

" rosie" <readandpostNOT@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bVWTb.19631$2h.10086@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> >
> > Having a real conversation.
> >
>
> LOL!
> please don't judge all of us alkies by moonie, ok?
>
And YOU would be the benchmark, eh? Ignorant twat.

[neuro equipoise]

On - Tue, Feb 3, 2004, 7:19pm
notnow@noway.nev (Moonraker) wrote:

>>>> Having a real conversation.

>>> Oh. * I see. * So, whaddya think the Brave's
>>> chances are in the NL East this year? Can
>>> anybody beat the Phillies?

>> Isn't that idle speculation, as distinct from
>> conversation?
>> Bob;-)

> And that is different from speculating about
> SSRI's and amino acids and their effect on human
> brains, how? ;>)

Having a real conversation on any topic, is about being able to pay
attention to what the other person is saying, being able to form some
positive expressions as well, not always filling in the blanks with
knee-jerk replies like, 'shit this' and 'shit that'.

It's about being able to *ask* the other person what they actually do
for a living, instead of *telling* them, or telling them how well they
do their job, when you don't even know *what* they do.

Cognitive distortions are the backbone of alkie thinking. Once a person
has jumped to a conclusion in 'instant gratification' thinking, the
brain will then only see evidence to support that conclusion, and the
result is the type of 'conversations' which go on here with many of you.

The trick is to keep an open mind, and that will allow rational thought.
That mind training will also help the brain of an alkie to realize when
inner 'craving talk' begins, and will help them to *stop* a negative
thought, and think of something creative instead.

I might be a hermaphroditic gourd for all you know, writing an alkie
recipe cookbook; or a stand-up comedian leading a class on the
psychology of alkie 'heckling'. Who knows? There is no point having
conversations if you've already decided you hate a person, because that
person is just used as your punching bag. Knowing this is a recovery
forum, I do play along to some degree. Your attacks don't bother me
either, in fact, they just help me get my research work done faster, so
*thanks*!

I don't have any opinion on the NL East.
I'm not homosexual either, in case you've been flirting the last two
days.

[rosie]

>I'm not homosexual either, in case you've been flirting the last
two
days.

not transgendered either?

:)

[Moonraker]

"neuro equipoise" <NeuroEquipoise@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:4117-40210450-12@storefull-3276.bay.webtv.net...
On - Tue, Feb 3, 2004, 7:19pm
notnow@noway.nev (Moonraker) wrote:

>>>> Having a real conversation.

>>> Oh. I see. So, whaddya think the Brave's
>>> chances are in the NL East this year? Can
>>> anybody beat the Phillies?

>> Isn't that idle speculation, as distinct from
>> conversation?
>> Bob;-)

> And that is different from speculating about
> SSRI's and amino acids and their effect on human
> brains, how? ;>)

Having a real conversation on any topic, is about being able to pay
attention to what the other person is saying, being able to form some
positive expressions as well, not always filling in the blanks with
knee-jerk replies like, 'shit this' and 'shit that'.

It's about being able to *ask* the other person what they actually do
for a living, instead of *telling* them, or telling them how well they
do their job, when you don't even know *what* they do.

Cognitive distortions are the backbone of alkie thinking. Once a person
has jumped to a conclusion in 'instant gratification' thinking, the
brain will then only see evidence to support that conclusion, and the
result is the type of 'conversations' which go on here with many of you.

The trick is to keep an open mind, and that will allow rational thought.
That mind training will also help the brain of an alkie to realize when
inner 'craving talk' begins, and will help them to *stop* a negative
thought, and think of something creative instead.

I might be a hermaphroditic gourd for all you know, writing an alkie
recipe cookbook; or a stand-up comedian leading a class on the
psychology of alkie 'heckling'. Who knows? There is no point having
conversations if you've already decided you hate a person, because that
person is just used as your punching bag. Knowing this is a recovery
forum, I do play along to some degree. Your attacks don't bother me
either, in fact, they just help me get my research work done faster, so
*thanks*!

I don't have any opinion on the NL East.
I'm not homosexual either, in case you've been flirting the last two
days.


Get over yourself.

First.....you are apparently operating from the assumption that I (or anyone
else) really "care" what you are saying. I'm frankly not at all interested
in your theories, not because of any preconceived notions about their
validity, or not. I didn't bother to read them with more than a cursory
scan. You may have revealed the whole secret to life, I dunno. And,
frankly, don't care. Given that I'm a LONG time sober, what do you have on
offer for ME? You are offering "help" to someone who just doesn't need it.

You arrived here, spouting theory and "scientific" ideas. I didn't see you
ask any questions, you just jumped down our collective throats with your
nutritional nonsense. Over the years, there have been several advocates of
the "nutritional recovery" school of thought make runs through this and
other newsgroups. What you are saying isn't original material. Hell, I
have a book on the subject on a shelf about 10 ft from where I sit.

You remind me of the folks who hawk magnets as pain relief. They have all
the "studies" and anecdotal references, but when push comes to shove, no
REAL double-blind scientific study can substantiate any of their snake oil
claims. Are YOU in that category? Show me some references from a REAL
medical journal, from university studies. Or not. Don't bother, I really
don't care.

Secondly, without you having any opinion on the NL East, I guess we won't
have much to discuss from this point. Buh, bye.

Oh. BTW, Unless you are a 30yr old red-headed nymphomanic with
36D's....I wasn't flirting. If you are, please post your photo.

[neuro equipoise]

On - Wed, Feb 4, 2004, 10:41am notnow@noway.nev (Moonraker) wrote:

> You may have revealed the whole secret to life, I
> dunno. And, frankly, don't care.

> Given that I'm a LONG time sober, what do you
> have on offer for ME? You are offering "help" to
> someone who just doesn't need it.

If you don't care, or don't need help, why ask what I have to offer you?
You have already decided that the answer is nothing. I wish you a long
and healthy life and hope your team wins.

> Buh, bye.

Goodbye

[neuro equipoise]

On - Wed, Feb 4, 2004, 3:21pm readandpostNOT@yahoo.com (rosie) wrote:

>> I'm not homosexual either, in case you've been
>> flirting the last two days.

> not transgendered either?
> :)

readandpostNOT are the new instructions above : )

It helps! : )

[Robert McGregor]

"neuro equipoise" <NeuroEquipoise@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:4117-40210450-12@storefull-3276.bay.webtv.net...

>>>>Cognitive distortions are the backbone of alkie thinking. Once a
person
has jumped to a conclusion in 'instant gratification' thinking, the
brain will then only see evidence to support that conclusion, and the
result is the type of 'conversations' which go on here with many of
you.>>>>>

When I started the journey back from desolation to relatively normal
interaction with non alcoholics, I was astounded to see the cognitive
distortions of 'instant gratification' thinking thriving in the
broader community.

>>>>>The trick is to keep an open mind, and that will allow rational
thought.
That mind training will also help the brain of an alkie to realize
when
inner 'craving talk' begins, and will help them to *stop* a negative
thought, and think of something creative instead.>>>>>>

Seems to me your proclamation exemplifies cognitive distortion. Far as
I know, alcoholic craving operates independent of thought, so mind
training would be as useful as tits on a bull!


Bob

[neuro equipoise]

On - Thu, Feb 5, 2004, 7:12am (EST+15) robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au
(Robert*McGregor)
wrote:

> Far as I know, alcoholic craving operates
> independent of thought, so mind training would be
> as useful as tits on a bull!

Might as well get rid of AA sponsors, meetings, and the big book then.

Thoughts produce brain chemicals. Anxious thoughts increase stress
hormones. Stress hormone elevations cause dry mouth and muscle tension
in the throat. Stress hormone elevation plunges blood sugar for the
fight or flight response, which then starts the sugar craving cycle.

Mind training lowers stress hormones.

[Robert McGregor]

"neuro equipoise" <NeuroEquipoise@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:15327-4021709C-71@storefull-3273.bay.webtv.net...
On - Thu, Feb 5, 2004, 7:12am (EST+15) robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au
(Robert McGregor)
wrote:

> Far as I know, alcoholic craving operates
> independent of thought, so mind training would be
> as useful as tits on a bull!

Might as well get rid of AA sponsors, meetings, and the big book then.

Thoughts produce brain chemicals. Anxious thoughts increase stress
hormones. Stress hormone elevations cause dry mouth and muscle
tension
in the throat. Stress hormone elevation plunges blood sugar for the
fight or flight response, which then starts the sugar craving cycle.

Mind training lowers stress hormones.

[Robert McGregor]

"neuro equipoise" <NeuroEquipoise@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:15327-4021709C-71@storefull-3273.bay.webtv.net...
On - Thu, Feb 5, 2004, 7:12am (EST+15) robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au
(Robert McGregor)
wrote:

> Far as I know, alcoholic craving operates
> independent of thought, so mind training would be
> as useful as tits on a bull!

>>>>Might as well get rid of AA sponsors, meetings, and the big book
then. >>>>

Arguably that's correct in a lot of cases.

>>>>Thoughts produce brain chemicals. Anxious thoughts increase
stress
hormones. Stress hormone elevations cause dry mouth and muscle
tension
in the throat. Stress hormone elevation plunges blood sugar for the
fight or flight response, which then starts the sugar craving cycle.

Mind training lowers stress hormones.>>>

Given that alcoholic craving operates independant of stress, far as we
both know, alcoholic craving also operates independent of thought.

Pertaining to alcoholic craving, mind training would be as useful as
tits on a bull!

Bob



Bob

[neuro equipoise]

On - Thu, Feb 5, 2004, 9:03am (EST+15) robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au
(Robert*McGregor)
wrote:

> Given that alcoholic craving operates independent
> of stress, far as we both know, alcoholic craving
> also operates independent of thought.

The mind takes in more information than we can be conscious of, because
memory begins at our senses - taste, sound, scent, tactile, visual. On
a subconscious level, a scent, a song, can trigger a painful or
stressful memory. Words like "reprimanded" or "dogma" can trigger
memories of Catholic school with nuns beating children...stress rises.

Stress hormones rise when adrenals are malfunctioning from a junk-food
diet, and imbalances in carbohydrates start blood sugar plunges.
Forgetting to buy dark green leafy vegetables and choosing to eat a
cookie instead, affects cravings because it affects the health of the
adrenals. Generations of thinking in families pass down food
traditions, and those who chose poorly passed down different genes.
Some have higher excitatory receptors as a result, and some have no idea
of what a craving is...


> Pertaining to alcoholic craving, mind training
> would be as useful as tits on a bull!

Teats on a bull would be very useful. It would double milk production
and halve methane.

[Robert McGregor]

"neuro equipoise" <NeuroEquipoise@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:15327-402189DF-75@storefull-3273.bay.webtv.net...

>>>Teats on a bull would be very useful. It would double milk
production
and halve methane.>>>>

Bye

Bob

[neuro equipoise]

On - Thu, Feb 5, 2004, 10:38am (EST+15) robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au
(Robert*McGregor)
wrote:

> Bye

Goodbye

[Ron]

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 19:10:07 -0500 (EST), neuro equipoise
<NeuroEquipoise@webtv.net> wrote:

> Generations of thinking in families pass down food traditions, and
> those who chose poorly passed down different genes.

Choices don't *create* "I like to eat crappy food" genes, of course. If
I eat a Milky Way bar every day as a kid, that will not create a Milky
Way craving gene. If there's any correlation to be had, it would work
the other way around. Some people may be genetically disposed to prefer
certain foods. Some food preferences will be healthier than others.
If, in the aggregate, a healthy food preference *correlates with
successfully raising more offspring*, then all else being equal, those
genes will spread through the gene pool faster than
unhealthy-food-choice genes.

There are a lot of assumptions being made here, though. Most people's
food choices probably won't kill them before they have kids. I.E. - the
fitness measure of a gene has no real relevance after reproducing viable
offspring. If you have kids, and your liver explodes when you're 50,
the gene has already passed on. If you have a genetic proclivity to
much castor beans, on the other hand, that gene won't fare so well.

In short, whether your parents raised you on fruit and fresh vegetables,
or fish and chips, it would be quite a stretch to attribute their food
habits or yours to genes. Not inconcievable, but improbable.

If nothing else, assuming food traditions have a phenotypical component,
many, most, or possibly all food traditions are simply too short lived
or recent to have had an opportunity to feed back into genetic
equations. Personally, I'm inclined to believe midwesterners (that's
where I'm from) are genetically inclined to bind foods together with
cream of mushroom soup; but it just ain't so.

--
AB5DB9CC

[Christine]

>(BTW - the Pats won! Whoo!)
>

Pats fan, eh? Belichick is going to be on Letterman tonight. Ha! Should be
good ...

Yippie! Everyone here in Mass. are still glowing :)

[neuro equipoise]

On -Thu, Feb 5, 2004, 1:26am (EST+5) can@the.spam (Ron) wrote:

> Choices don't *create* "I like to eat crappy food"
> genes, of course. If I eat a Milky Way bar every
> day as a kid, that will not create a Milky Way
> craving gene.

People who drink alcohol frequently, lower their dopamine and serotonin
receptors, and alcohol affects sperm and egg chemistry. People who
suffer from dysthymia are mostly born to families with alcoholism
"sensitivity" chemistry. Prenatal nutrition affects the baby's brain as
you know, and if a mother drinks alcohol or lives on high sugar diets,
that child's receptors for sugar processing are affected. The "I like
to eat crappy food" genes are receptor deficient genes. ADD and ADHD in
children is a dopamine receptor deficiency in frontal lobes. Low
dopamine receptors means higher excitability, and abundant dopamine
receptors go with lower stress hormones.

> If, in the aggregate, a healthy food preference
> *correlates with successfully raising more
> offspring*, then all else being equal, those genes
> will spread through the gene pool faster than
> unhealthy-food-choice genes.

In recent decades more and more processed sugar and junk food exists,
and depression rates are climbing. Food corprations replaced small
farms, mothers are working, and packaged and convenience foods are the
norm.

> Most people's food choices probably won't kill
> them before they have kids.

No, they won't kill them, but they do *alter* receptors. Are we all
healthier when compared to our great grandparents? I don't mean medical
care advances, I mean stamina and dealing with stress.

> In short, whether your parents raised you on fruit
> and fresh vegetables, or fish and chips, it would
> be quite a stretch to attribute their food habits or
> yours to genes. Not inconcievable, but
> improbable.

Did you consider that the cloudy environment where those fish and chips
are favorites causes that culture to self-medicate their very low
serotonin levels (lower sunlight) with the two foods great at elevating
mood and serotonin, fish and potatoes?
I recently read alcoholism studies which showed asian peoples had a gene
which made the taste of alcohol unpleasant and this protected them.
That's the way it is with me. I couldn't understand anyone liking the
stuff. I thought people forced themselves to like it, because all I got
out of it was a headache after a few sips : )

[Ron]

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 21:56:04 -0500 (EST), neuro equipoise
<NeuroEquipoise@webtv.net> wrote:

> People who drink alcohol frequently, lower their dopamine and serotonin
> receptors, and alcohol affects sperm and egg chemistry. People who
> suffer from dysthymia are mostly born to families with alcoholism
> "sensitivity" chemistry. Prenatal nutrition affects the baby's brain as
> you know, and if a mother drinks alcohol or lives on high sugar diets,
> that child's receptors for sugar processing are affected.

OK. So alcohol problem => gametes => depression => alcohol problem.
There's nothing in that loop that implies a genetic component, though.

> The "I like to eat crappy food" genes are receptor deficient genes.

You mean that particular alleles express themselves as dopamine receptor
deficiencies? Have these genes have been identified? (just curious)

> ADD and ADHD in children is a dopamine receptor deficiency in frontal
> lobes. Low dopamine receptors means higher excitability, and abundant
> dopamine receptors go with lower stress hormones.

School psychologists identify this condition according to it's external
manifestation. Is that valid?

> In recent decades more and more processed sugar and junk food exists,
> and depression rates are climbing. Food corprations replaced small
> farms, mothers are working, and packaged and convenience foods are the
> norm.

Right. And there hasn't been time for genes to catch up. This is a big
reason I'm dubious about attributing family dietary habits to genetic
makeup.

> No, they won't kill them, but they do *alter* receptors. Are we all
> healthier when compared to our great grandparents? I don't mean medical
> care advances, I mean stamina and dealing with stress.

I agree that food choices affect body chemistry.

> Did you consider that the cloudy environment where those fish and
> chips are favorites causes that culture to self-medicate their very
> low serotonin levels (lower sunlight) with the two foods great at
> elevating mood and serotonin, fish and potatoes?

And beer. But are these choices, or genetic predispositions /
adaptations?

I think indigenous people living in a consistent enviroment for many
many generations may indeed have enough time to develop genetic
adaptations to their enviroment.

But genes don't try to help people feel better in cloudy weather. A
gene's only purpose is to replicate. A gene doesn't care if you drink
beer, eat bacon, or fresh vegetables. If you have viable children, the
gene has done it's job.

Another reason people living on an island might eat a lot of fish is
that there are a lot of fish around.

If it *were* the case that, genetically speaking, it was advantageous
for certain people to each fish and chips (I'm not saying that's
impossible), should they now adopt a foreign diet to give their brains
some respite?

> I recently read alcoholism studies which showed asian peoples had a gene
> which made the taste of alcohol unpleasant and this protected them.
> That's the way it is with me. I couldn't understand anyone liking the
> stuff. I thought people forced themselves to like it, because all I got
> out of it was a headache after a few sips : )

An asian friend of mine in college would turn red as beet after a single
beer. And be pretty buzzed to boot. Lucky guy.. ;)

There's a genetic basis for that. I don't doubt it. What I do doubt is
whether it is worthwhile discussing attributes that don't contribute to
gene replication in genetic terms.

--
AB5DB9CC

[neuro equipoise]

Ron, I am going to reply to the topics of dopamine alleles, ADD, ADHD,
in a separate post, because I want to find some research I have saved on
altered D2 dopamine receptors and alcoholism. In the meantime, here is
the rest...

On - Thu, Feb 5, 2004, 4:56am (EST+5) can@the.spam (Ron) wrote:

> Right. And there hasn't been time for genes to
> catch up. This is a big reason I'm dubious about
> attributing family dietary habits to genetic
> makeup.

Animal studies show that genetic changes can occur rapidly, in several
generations. Alcohol has been around for a *long* time. Processed
sugar and denatured foods have been introduced in the industrial age,
and since white sugar is technically classified as a legal drug, (it
does alter receptors) it has had enough time to affect generations.

The animal studies show that it only takes a handful of genetic changes
to start species alterations. Why not with humans, just as there are
lactose intolerants, hypoglycemics, alcoholics, and Asian genes which
resist alcoholism? The D2 dopamine receptor is altered in alcoholism,
as are the excitatory/inhibitory receptors.

Research Quote:

>> New findings, reported today (Nov. 21) by an
>> international team in the scientific journal
>> Nature, paint the first comprehensive picture of
>> how animal patterns, in response to
>> selective pressure in the wild or in the laboratory,
>> can evolve rapidly through simple genetic
>> change.

>&