Re: A Question About Personal Power

[Guest guest]

Dear eudaimon

Feel like just saying " best of luck " -- I get some of that and in a sense

for me life's challenge is a case of proving I'm worth it in terms of effort

made and results achieved versus flopping about self indulgently wasting

time and/or feeling miserable. I seem to thrive on it at the moment and

I've been solitary for three years now, celibate for 2 years. I now know

that the standards I have to meet are my own, though I'm still a bit of a

" people pleaser " as the stepNazis put it. Anyway, good luck and keep on

truckin'

Doug.

>From: eudaimon84133110@...

>Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups

>To: 12-step-freeegroups

>Subject: A Question About Personal Power

>Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 19:54:48 EDT

>

>I have found that my problem seems to be that I may have internalized the

>belief that there is something wrong with me such that I need someone to

>tell

>me how to live (i.e. 'sponsorship direction') and that without it I am

>doomed

>to living clumsily and being depressed all the time. Does anyone have any

>good hints on how to reclaim one's own proper place at the rudder of one's

>life from this condition?

>

>

>\

________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Doing is better than doing well.

It feels clumsily because it is new to you. The more you do it (live

your own life) the less it will feel that way.

best of luck.

keith

> I have found that my problem seems to be that I may have

internalized the

> belief that there is something wrong with me such that I need

someone to tell

> me how to live (i.e. 'sponsorship direction') and that without it I

am doomed

> to living clumsily and being depressed all the time. Does anyone

have any

> good hints on how to reclaim one's own proper place at the rudder

of one's

> life from this condition?

>

>

> \

[Guest guest]

I don't like everything about Rational Recovery, but I do think their

" Recovery Group Disorder " concept is intriguing. If nothing else, it's a

new perspective on why you feel the way you do.

http://www.rational.org/recovery/Reasons.cancel.html#anchor3241624

Judith

On Sun, 30 Apr 2000 19:54:48 EDT, 12-step-freeegroups wrote:

> I have found that my problem seems to be that I may have internalized the

> belief that there is something wrong with me such that I need someone to

tell

> me how to live (i.e. 'sponsorship direction') and that without it I am

doomed

> to living clumsily and being depressed all the time. Does anyone have any

> good hints on how to reclaim one's own proper place at the rudder of

one's

> life from this condition?

>

>

> \

_______________________________________________________

Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite

Visit http://freelane.excite.com/freeisp

[Guest guest]

Hi Judith.

Judith Stillwater wrote:

> I don't like everything about Rational Recovery, but I do think their

> " Recovery Group Disorder " concept is intriguing. If nothing else, it's a

> new perspective on why you feel the way you do.

>

> http://www.rational.org/recovery/Reasons.cancel.html#anchor3241624

>

> Judith

I agree with you about RR. There's three factors that I don't like about Jack

Trimpey.

1. He is an anti-intelluctal. Even though I've been an 'academic' all my life, I

don't appreciate everything about educated peoples behavior. The seven deadly

sins thrives and lives in these surroundings as it does everywhere.

Intellectuals are often vain, arrogant, envious etc., and they can be bought as

everyone else.

But these inevitable phenomena are only based on a fundamentally sound and

necessary activity. This is among other things a heavily loaded doctrine. " To

talk freely after ones conviction. " If the 'disagreeable' intellectuals is

prohibited to exchange freely, then the discussion will stop in the whole

official society. It will simply spread down the lines. Guess what the end

result of this is will be, if 12 step ideology takes over as the predominant

ideology?

Because RR will not grow beyond a certain size, I think.

2. He's IMO religious.

His treatment of his different metaphors in connection with his use of the

physical brian is, still IMO, dishonest.

The Beast in the brain, the Beast identical with Satan in the Biblical sense.

This kind of reasoning can be used in religious brainwashing techniques.

What would happen if AA just 'ate' some of him, an kept the rest?

3. The first reason and the second combined. This is straight out dangerous!

What I do like is his way of looking at AA, where he reverses every dogma, and

it works at least as well as AA. In this sense he must be a really pain in the

AA ass. His way of illuminating AA, so their structure comes more visible, is

outstanding and original work, and he'll get his credits for it, not doubt about

that. I only wish he would resign on his aspirations for being a prophet and a

savior. It seems more like a bi-polar disease with megalomania as the

predominating symptom. But then he don't like psychiatrists either, or does he?

Personally I think both manias and depressions are natural variations in all

humans, but that some sometimes steps over a cultural made 'drawing in the

sand'. Then they get diagnosed.

Further, I think, the common factor binding these opposites together is

relations. Both manias and depressions are disturbances in relation to 'the

others', the rest of the world, society, peer group, family etc.

The maniacs actually sometimes really shapes something ingenious, because their

brains is driving for full power, but their ideas of their own importance are

greatly disturbed. The depressive people mostly think they're no good. That the

world would be a better place without them, that their family would be lifted by

one heavy burden if they just vanished. That nobody can be able to love them,

etc., etc. This of course, is then disproved by their treatment, because it

shows them, that someone care, the doctors and the nurses.

And because the treatment system might be the only that REALLY accepts and

understand you, you're only way to get a feeling of belonging is to be a

recidivist. " My doctor says that you should not speak that way to me! I could

easily get a depression! "

The key words are 'relations' and 'belonging'. There is a contradiction between

the character of the relations and the need for belonging that only can be

fulfilled within the treatment system.

Therefore, I think, the optimal handling of these problem, if you can see them,

of course, is to work with the relations to others parallel with an insight in

the mechanisms underlying the disturbance.

This is hard work, and risky too, but it's the only way out into the open.

It's quite possible that your life can bring you in a social situation that

shapes a disturbance in the relations to others, but mostly there also are some

parallels in the experience that can be related to primary school time and early

childhood.

I know this can be a bit controversial on the list for various reasons, but just

because AA has shame ridden the concepts of psychodynamics' it doesn't prove

that they can't be useful. It depends on the context!

For example, if you in your early childhood have had felt unwanted or

disregarded, but there have been no strong proofs for this to be true, then

you'll probably idealize your parents and repress the contradictory material.

You'll actually get furious if someone questions the sacred memories about their

qualities.

If this missing link is not established later, the result might be, that you

subconsciously reproduce the original structure in your real life. Both seeking

back to the situations where you didn't get what you wished, and at the same

time avoiding the situation because it was traumatic.

But this is anxiety provoking, and therefore you'll probably get several

symptoms. Depression is most likely, and with this drinking to take the feeling

of 'ugliness' and not 'belonging'.

If you then cross the line for what's socially approved, your need for

'belonging' will make 'the others' turning the back to you, and then you'll get

the opposite of what you where longing for.

Then, of course, the situation will be even worse, and in the end you will end

up 'belonging' to AA.

Therefore leaving AA will provoke the old feelings connected with not felt loved

or appreciated, and could start a drinking worse than ever. Slowly this

mechanism will prove to you, that AA is the only way for all.

As a result of these considerations, I regard " addiction " as a relational

disturbance (like infatuation) that can be healed by ordinary psychological

thinking.

But even if the wounds are healed, alcohol will still be dangerous because it

could revitalize old patterns. I think the best defense would be to build up a

very cautious and very moderate drinking pattern in cooperation with family,

friends and possibly an expert. This might defuse some of the anxiety for a

relapse, that actually can release it.

In the above I of course means 'you' plural, I've not been thinking of anyone in

particular.

This of course can seem to be a long way from the discussion about Jack Trimpey

and RR, but like AA he's not allowing psychology into the 'wholy centers' of

their ideologies.

When AA is using a lot of psychologists that comply with the AA notion that you

should look at your own part of what happened to you in the past, they are

blocking a possbile way to freedom from these experiences.

One could also argue, that this blocking shapes stepzombies in the long run

because the underlying conflicts will surface againg and again. Only to prove AA

is the ultimate and only solution.

The AA'ers might not know better, but the psychologists should, IMO.

Bjørn

[Guest guest]

Correction:

A blatant fault has sneaked into my post giving the opposite meaning intended:

I wrote:

" What would happen if AA just 'ate' some of him, an kept the rest? "

I of course meant " ...., and left the rest? "

Sorry

Bjørn

Bjørn Herring wrote:

> Hi Judith.

>

> Judith Stillwater wrote:

>

> > I don't like everything about Rational Recovery, but I do think their

> > " Recovery Group Disorder " concept is intriguing. If nothing else, it's a

> > new perspective on why you feel the way you do.

> >

> > http://www.rational.org/recovery/Reasons.cancel.html#anchor3241624

> >

> > Judith

>

> I agree with you about RR. There's three factors that I don't like about Jack

> Trimpey.

> 1. He is an anti-intelluctal. Even though I've been an 'academic' all my life,

I

> don't appreciate everything about educated peoples behavior. The seven deadly

> sins thrives and lives in these surroundings as it does everywhere.

> Intellectuals are often vain, arrogant, envious etc., and they can be bought

as

> everyone else.

> But these inevitable phenomena are only based on a fundamentally sound and

> necessary activity. This is among other things a heavily loaded doctrine. " To

> talk freely after ones conviction. " If the 'disagreeable' intellectuals is

> prohibited to exchange freely, then the discussion will stop in the whole

> official society. It will simply spread down the lines. Guess what the end

> result of this is will be, if 12 step ideology takes over as the predominant

> ideology?

> Because RR will not grow beyond a certain size, I think.

>

> 2. He's IMO religious.

> His treatment of his different metaphors in connection with his use of the

> physical brian is, still IMO, dishonest.

> The Beast in the brain, the Beast identical with Satan in the Biblical sense.

> This kind of reasoning can be used in religious brainwashing techniques.

> What would happen if AA just 'ate' some of him, an kept the rest?

>

> 3. The first reason and the second combined. This is straight out dangerous!

>

> What I do like is his way of looking at AA, where he reverses every dogma, and

> it works at least as well as AA. In this sense he must be a really pain in the

> AA ass. His way of illuminating AA, so their structure comes more visible, is

> outstanding and original work, and he'll get his credits for it, not doubt

about

> that. I only wish he would resign on his aspirations for being a prophet and a

> savior. It seems more like a bi-polar disease with megalomania as the

> predominating symptom. But then he don't like psychiatrists either, or does

he?

>

> Personally I think both manias and depressions are natural variations in all

> humans, but that some sometimes steps over a cultural made 'drawing in the

> sand'. Then they get diagnosed.

> Further, I think, the common factor binding these opposites together is

> relations. Both manias and depressions are disturbances in relation to 'the

> others', the rest of the world, society, peer group, family etc.

> The maniacs actually sometimes really shapes something ingenious, because

their

> brains is driving for full power, but their ideas of their own importance are

> greatly disturbed. The depressive people mostly think they're no good. That

the

> world would be a better place without them, that their family would be lifted

by

> one heavy burden if they just vanished. That nobody can be able to love them,

> etc., etc. This of course, is then disproved by their treatment, because it

> shows them, that someone care, the doctors and the nurses.

> And because the treatment system might be the only that REALLY accepts and

> understand you, you're only way to get a feeling of belonging is to be a

> recidivist. " My doctor says that you should not speak that way to me! I could

> easily get a depression! "

>

> The key words are 'relations' and 'belonging'. There is a contradiction

between

> the character of the relations and the need for belonging that only can be

> fulfilled within the treatment system.

>

> Therefore, I think, the optimal handling of these problem, if you can see

them,

> of course, is to work with the relations to others parallel with an insight in

> the mechanisms underlying the disturbance.

> This is hard work, and risky too, but it's the only way out into the open.

>

> It's quite possible that your life can bring you in a social situation that

> shapes a disturbance in the relations to others, but mostly there also are

some

> parallels in the experience that can be related to primary school time and

early

> childhood.

>

> I know this can be a bit controversial on the list for various reasons, but

just

> because AA has shame ridden the concepts of psychodynamics' it doesn't prove

> that they can't be useful. It depends on the context!

>

> For example, if you in your early childhood have had felt unwanted or

> disregarded, but there have been no strong proofs for this to be true, then

> you'll probably idealize your parents and repress the contradictory material.

> You'll actually get furious if someone questions the sacred memories about

their

> qualities.

>

> If this missing link is not established later, the result might be, that you

> subconsciously reproduce the original structure in your real life. Both

seeking

> back to the situations where you didn't get what you wished, and at the same

> time avoiding the situation because it was traumatic.

>

> But this is anxiety provoking, and therefore you'll probably get several

> symptoms. Depression is most likely, and with this drinking to take the

feeling

> of 'ugliness' and not 'belonging'.

>

> If you then cross the line for what's socially approved, your need for

> 'belonging' will make 'the others' turning the back to you, and then you'll

get

> the opposite of what you where longing for.

> Then, of course, the situation will be even worse, and in the end you will end

> up 'belonging' to AA.

>

> Therefore leaving AA will provoke the old feelings connected with not felt

loved

> or appreciated, and could start a drinking worse than ever. Slowly this

> mechanism will prove to you, that AA is the only way for all.

>

> As a result of these considerations, I regard " addiction " as a relational

> disturbance (like infatuation) that can be healed by ordinary psychological

> thinking.

> But even if the wounds are healed, alcohol will still be dangerous because it

> could revitalize old patterns. I think the best defense would be to build up

a

> very cautious and very moderate drinking pattern in cooperation with family,

> friends and possibly an expert. This might defuse some of the anxiety for a

> relapse, that actually can release it.

>

> In the above I of course means 'you' plural, I've not been thinking of anyone

in

> particular.

>

> This of course can seem to be a long way from the discussion about Jack

Trimpey

> and RR, but like AA he's not allowing psychology into the 'wholy centers' of

> their ideologies.

>

> When AA is using a lot of psychologists that comply with the AA notion that

you

> should look at your own part of what happened to you in the past, they are

> blocking a possbile way to freedom from these experiences.

> One could also argue, that this blocking shapes stepzombies in the long run

> because the underlying conflicts will surface againg and again. Only to prove

AA

> is the ultimate and only solution.

>

> The AA'ers might not know better, but the psychologists should, IMO.

>

> Bjørn

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Join Garden.com's affiliate program and enjoy numerous benefits.

> To learn more click here:

> http://click./1/2955/1/_/4324/_/957187825/

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Dear Bjorn,

Thanks for another good read from the psychological side of the fence. As

far as I understand it on one reading, your analysis of the psycho-emotional

dynamics of drinking is sound, as, I imagine, are your suggestions for

treatment. Your view of the obstruction of relational re-building through

the " moral internalising " of experience in AA articulates what I've felt.

The chronic " recoverer " /12step devotee is locked into a closed circuit of

behaviour, response, and psycho-social location --- AA becomes the world.

Also glad of your identification of the anti-intellectual strain in recovery

circles -- one of the more widely recognised defining attributes of cults is

said to be their anti-intellectualism, which facilitates unquestioning

loyalty to particular belief-systems. When I was subjected to " Minnesota

model " treatment as a result of my 12step wife's hysteria over an attempt at

controlled drinking, I was not a very good " patient " . The boss of the

treatment centre and I had a brief chat one afternoon well into my 8 weeks.

He shook his head and said " , you'd be fine here if your head was cut

off " . Er, quite . . .

Later, Bjorn,

Doug.

________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Bjørn: I had a good, long, thoughtful reply to your post, but took too long

about writing it. So Excite timed out on me and it never got sent Anyway,

I'm going to send you something a bit shorter this time around.

I agree with your reasons for being uncomfortable with Jack Trimpey and

Rational Recovery. However, I think he is something of a pioneer in working

on alternatives to AA--RR has been around something like 20 years. He's

earned the right to be outspoken, and I think there is integrity in his

insistence that RR reflect his vision.

I also agree that a more psychological approach would probably work better.

But I do think that it's helpful, early in abstinence, to have a simple,

powerful idea to return to. (At least for some people.) AA has their slogans

and steps, RR has the Beast. A person has to make the choice, over and over,

to *change* the habit of drinking, and reinforce the new behavior of

abstinence. That image, those simple slogans, I think can be helpful.

But ideally there would be multiple options available. People could choose

what works best for them, and what fits best in their life.

and I really think you've hit on something very important when you refer to

addiction and other mental illness as coming from relationships. I think

that's where all the " action " is. I'm always good enough for myself, but it

seems I have a hard time seeing myself as good enough for anyone else. That

stress can be very painful.

Enjoyed reading your post, Bjørn--it really made me think.

Judith

_______________________________________________________

Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite

Visit http://freelane.excite.com/freeisp

[Guest guest]

One last point I wanted to make about Jack Trimpey being a prophet or

savior. I don't necessarily believe that he wants to be viewed this way, or

that he views himself this way. I believe that, if a desperate person comes

to RR for help and finds it, they could easily elevate Trimpey to the status

of savior, whether or not he wants it.

Reading the stories about Bill W. and acid, and all the other stories I've

read about him here, I wonder how much he really wanted to be the founder of

the AA empire. He sounds like a troubled man; it can't have been easy to be

the public face of AA, 24/7. Don't worry, I don't expend too much sympathy

on him. I just wonder about these things...

Judith

_______________________________________________________

Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite

Visit http://freelane.excite.com/freeisp

[Guest guest]

Eudaimon,

I'm not sure if I'll be on target here, but sounds to me

that this is a self-esteem issue. I would highly recommend a

book that Joe B. posted here called Self-Esteem by McKay

and Fanning. It has helped me to begin to overcome

some self doubt. Quote:

" Affirming your worth is no easy task. Right now you believe

that your worth depends on your behavior. Metaphorically, you see

yourself as an empty vessel that must be filled, drop by drop,

with your achievements. You start out essentially worthless,

a body that moves and talks. The 'critic' in you would have

you believe that there is no intrinsic value in life, only a

potential for doing something worthwhile, something important.

The truth is that your value is your consciousness, your

ability to perceive and experience. The value of a human life

is that it exists. You are a complex miracle of creation.

You are a person who is trying to live, and that makes you as

worthwhile as every other person who is doing the same thing.

Achievement has nothing to do with it. Whatever you do, what-

ever you contribute should not come from the need to prove your

value, but from the natural flow of your aliveness. What you

do should come from the drive to fully live, rather than the

fight to justify yourself. "

Maybe you are afraid that if you take control, you may fail

or be criticized. And that would hurt. So to avoid that

pain, it is safer for you to let others " live " for you. That

way, if they screw up, hey it wouldn't be your fault, right?

Anyway, maybe this book could help. (thanks Joe

Sue

>From: eudaimon84133110@...

>Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups

>To: 12-step-freeegroups

>Subject: A Question About Personal Power

>Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 19:54:48 EDT

>

>I have found that my problem seems to be that I may have internalized the

>belief that there is something wrong with me such that I need someone to

>tell

>me how to live (i.e. 'sponsorship direction') and that without it I am

>doomed

>to living clumsily and being depressed all the time. Does anyone have any

>good hints on how to reclaim one's own proper place at the rudder of one's

>life from this condition?

>

>

>\

________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Hi Bjørn

I agree with you abt RR. It is good to see that I am not the only one

to think that RR is actually quite like AA in many ways - with an

insistence in abstinence as they approach, and a " cunning, baffling "

sounding Beast which is a permanent part of you speaking to you with

an Addictive Voice to lead you astray. Trimpey's hype is frankly

embarrassing (even by US standards) with " All Recovery groups

cancelled " announcements and such alike. Just because AA is a

crock it does not mean *all* recovery groups are a crock; support

groups can be very useful to help ppl with all manner of problems.

Also, he has declared out and out war on AA, a wish to destroy it it

would seem.

I of course cant say what everybody's views are here, but the

inmpression I get is that nobody here wants to *destroy* AA. Here

we're interested in things like abolishing AA coercion, combatting

its

mind control techniques for our own benefit, alerting other ppl to

these techniques and to the truth abt it, such as its obviously

religious nature, and the almost non-existence of scientific support

for it and the considerable support for the view it is largely

useless

and may even be damaging, and to the existence of alternatives,

including quitting or cutting down all by one's self.

If these goals are achieved then I expect few of us here would object

to kooky individuals choosing to gather in stuffy church basements to

engage in a weird neo-Xtian religion with Satan replaced by demon rum.

P.

>

> I agree with you about RR. There's three factors that I don't like

about Jack

> Trimpey.

> 1. He is an anti-intelluctal. Even though I've been an 'academic'

all my life, I

> don't appreciate everything about educated peoples behavior. The

seven deadly

> sins thrives and lives in these surroundings as it does everywhere.

> Intellectuals are often vain, arrogant, envious etc., and they can

be bought as

> everyone else.

> But these inevitable phenomena are only based on a fundamentally

sound and

> necessary activity. This is among other things a heavily loaded

doctrine. " To

> talk freely after ones conviction. " If the 'disagreeable'

intellectuals is

> prohibited to exchange freely, then the discussion will stop in the

whole

> official society. It will simply spread down the lines. Guess what

the end

> result of this is will be, if 12 step ideology takes over as the

predominant

> ideology?

> Because RR will not grow beyond a certain size, I think.

>

> 2. He's IMO religious.

> His treatment of his different metaphors in connection with his use

of the

> physical brian is, still IMO, dishonest.

> The Beast in the brain, the Beast identical with Satan in the

Biblical sense.

> This kind of reasoning can be used in religious brainwashing

techniques.

> What would happen if AA just 'ate' some of him, an kept the rest?

>

> 3. The first reason and the second combined. This is straight out

dangerous!

>

> What I do like is his way of looking at AA, where he reverses every

dogma, and

> it works at least as well as AA. In this sense he must be a really

pain in the

> AA ass. His way of illuminating AA, so their structure comes more

visible, is

> outstanding and original work, and he'll get his credits for it,

not

doubt about

> that. I only wish he would resign on his aspirations for being a

prophet and a

> savior. It seems more like a bi-polar disease with megalomania as

the

> predominating symptom. But then he don't like psychiatrists either,

or does he?

>

> Personally I think both manias and depressions are natural

variations in all

> humans, but that some sometimes steps over a cultural made 'drawing

in the

> sand'. Then they get diagnosed.

> Further, I think, the common factor binding these opposites

together

is

> relations. Both manias and depressions are disturbances in relation

to 'the

> others', the rest of the world, society, peer group, family etc.

> The maniacs actually sometimes really shapes something ingenious,

because their

> brains is driving for full power, but their ideas of their own

importance are

> greatly disturbed. The depressive people mostly think they're no

good. That the

> world would be a better place without them, that their family would

be lifted by

> one heavy burden if they just vanished. That nobody can be able to

love them,

> etc., etc. This of course, is then disproved by their treatment,

because it

> shows them, that someone care, the doctors and the nurses.

> And because the treatment system might be the only that REALLY

accepts and

> understand you, you're only way to get a feeling of belonging is to

be a

> recidivist. " My doctor says that you should not speak that way to

me! I could

> easily get a depression! "

>

> The key words are 'relations' and 'belonging'. There is a

contradiction between

> the character of the relations and the need for belonging that only

can be

> fulfilled within the treatment system.

>

> Therefore, I think, the optimal handling of these problem, if you

can see them,

> of course, is to work with the relations to others parallel with an

insight in

> the mechanisms underlying the disturbance.

> This is hard work, and risky too, but it's the only way out into

the

open.

>

> It's quite possible that your life can bring you in a social

situation that

> shapes a disturbance in the relations to others, but mostly there

also are some

> parallels in the experience that can be related to primary school

time and early

> childhood.

>

> I know this can be a bit controversial on the list for various

reasons, but just

> because AA has shame ridden the concepts of psychodynamics' it

doesn't prove

> that they can't be useful. It depends on the context!

>

> For example, if you in your early childhood have had felt unwanted

or

> disregarded, but there have been no strong proofs for this to be

true, then

> you'll probably idealize your parents and repress the contradictory

material.

> You'll actually get furious if someone questions the sacred

memories

about their

> qualities.

>

> If this missing link is not established later, the result might be,

that you

> subconsciously reproduce the original structure in your real life.

Both seeking

> back to the situations where you didn't get what you wished, and at

the same

> time avoiding the situation because it was traumatic.

>

> But this is anxiety provoking, and therefore you'll probably get

several

> symptoms. Depression is most likely, and with this drinking to take

the feeling

> of 'ugliness' and not 'belonging'.

>

> If you then cross the line for what's socially approved, your need

for

> 'belonging' will make 'the others' turning the back to you, and

then

you'll get

> the opposite of what you where longing for.

> Then, of course, the situation will be even worse, and in the end

you will end

> up 'belonging' to AA.

>

> Therefore leaving AA will provoke the old feelings connected with

not felt loved

> or appreciated, and could start a drinking worse than ever. Slowly

this

> mechanism will prove to you, that AA is the only way for all.

>

> As a result of these considerations, I regard " addiction " as a

relational

> disturbance (like infatuation) that can be healed by ordinary

psychological

> thinking.

> But even if the wounds are healed, alcohol will still be dangerous

because it

> could revitalize old patterns. I think the best defense would be

to

build up a

> very cautious and very moderate drinking pattern in cooperation

with

family,

> friends and possibly an expert. This might defuse some of the

anxiety for a

> relapse, that actually can release it.

>

> In the above I of course means 'you' plural, I've not been thinking

of anyone in

> particular.

>

> This of course can seem to be a long way from the discussion about

Jack Trimpey

> and RR, but like AA he's not allowing psychology into the 'wholy

centers' of

> their ideologies.

>

> When AA is using a lot of psychologists that comply with the AA

notion that you

> should look at your own part of what happened to you in the past,

they are

> blocking a possbile way to freedom from these experiences.

> One could also argue, that this blocking shapes stepzombies in the

long run

> because the underlying conflicts will surface againg and again.

Only

to prove AA

> is the ultimate and only solution.

>

> The AA'ers might not know better, but the psychologists should, IMO.

>

> Bjørn

[Guest guest]

You cant eat your Trimpey and keep him Bjorn....

Well maybe Lois Trimpey can.

P.

> >

> > > I don't like everything about Rational Recovery, but I do think

their

> > > " Recovery Group Disorder " concept is intriguing. If nothing

else, it's a

> > > new perspective on why you feel the way you do.

> > >

> > >

http://www.rational.org/recovery/Reasons.cancel.html#anchor3241624

> > >

> > > Judith

> >

> > I agree with you about RR. There's three factors that I don't

like

about Jack

> > Trimpey.

> > 1. He is an anti-intelluctal. Even though I've been an 'academic'

all my life, I

> > don't appreciate everything about educated peoples behavior. The

seven deadly

> > sins thrives and lives in these surroundings as it does

everywhere.

> > Intellectuals are often vain, arrogant, envious etc., and they

can

be bought as

> > everyone else.

> > But these inevitable phenomena are only based on a fundamentally

sound and

> > necessary activity. This is among other things a heavily loaded

doctrine. " To

> > talk freely after ones conviction. " If the 'disagreeable'

intellectuals is

> > prohibited to exchange freely, then the discussion will stop in

the whole

> > official society. It will simply spread down the lines. Guess

what

the end

> > result of this is will be, if 12 step ideology takes over as the

predominant

> > ideology?

> > Because RR will not grow beyond a certain size, I think.

> >

> > 2. He's IMO religious.

> > His treatment of his different metaphors in connection with his

use of the

> > physical brian is, still IMO, dishonest.

> > The Beast in the brain, the Beast identical with Satan in the

Biblical sense.

> > This kind of reasoning can be used in religious brainwashing

techniques.

> > What would happen if AA just 'ate' some of him, an kept the rest?

> >

> > 3. The first reason and the second combined. This is straight out

dangerous!

> >

> > What I do like is his way of looking at AA, where he reverses

every dogma, and

> > it works at least as well as AA. In this sense he must be a

really

pain in the

> > AA ass. His way of illuminating AA, so their structure comes more

visible, is

> > outstanding and original work, and he'll get his credits for it,

not doubt about

> > that. I only wish he would resign on his aspirations for being a

prophet and a

> > savior. It seems more like a bi-polar disease with megalomania as

the

> > predominating symptom. But then he don't like psychiatrists

either, or does he?

> >

> > Personally I think both manias and depressions are natural

variations in all

> > humans, but that some sometimes steps over a cultural made

'drawing in the

> > sand'. Then they get diagnosed.

> > Further, I think, the common factor binding these opposites

together is

> > relations. Both manias and depressions are disturbances in

relation to 'the

> > others', the rest of the world, society, peer group, family etc.

> > The maniacs actually sometimes really shapes something ingenious,

because their

> > brains is driving for full power, but their ideas of their own

importance are

> > greatly disturbed. The depressive people mostly think they're no

good. That the

> > world would be a better place without them, that their family

would be lifted by

> > one heavy burden if they just vanished. That nobody can be able

to

love them,

> > etc., etc. This of course, is then disproved by their treatment,

because it

> > shows them, that someone care, the doctors and the nurses.

> > And because the treatment system might be the only that REALLY

accepts and

> > understand you, you're only way to get a feeling of belonging is

to be a

> > recidivist. " My doctor says that you should not speak that way to

me! I could

> > easily get a depression! "

> >

> > The key words are 'relations' and 'belonging'. There is a

contradiction between

> > the character of the relations and the need for belonging that

only can be

> > fulfilled within the treatment system.

> >

> > Therefore, I think, the optimal handling of these problem, if you

can see them,

> > of course, is to work with the relations to others parallel with

an insight in

> > the mechanisms underlying the disturbance.

> > This is hard work, and risky too, but it's the only way out into

the open.

> >

> > It's quite possible that your life can bring you in a social

situation that

> > shapes a disturbance in the relations to others, but mostly there

also are some

> > parallels in the experience that can be related to primary school

time and early

> > childhood.

> >

> > I know this can be a bit controversial on the list for various

reasons, but just

> > because AA has shame ridden the concepts of psychodynamics' it

doesn't prove

> > that they can't be useful. It depends on the context!

> >

> > For example, if you in your early childhood have had felt

unwanted

or

> > disregarded, but there have been no strong proofs for this to be

true, then

> > you'll probably idealize your parents and repress the

contradictory material.

> > You'll actually get furious if someone questions the sacred

memories about their

> > qualities.

> >

> > If this missing link is not established later, the result might

be, that you

> > subconsciously reproduce the original structure in your real

life.

Both seeking

> > back to the situations where you didn't get what you wished, and

at the same

> > time avoiding the situation because it was traumatic.

> >

> > But this is anxiety provoking, and therefore you'll probably get

several

> > symptoms. Depression is most likely, and with this drinking to

take the feeling

> > of 'ugliness' and not 'belonging'.

> >

> > If you then cross the line for what's socially approved, your

need

for

> > 'belonging' will make 'the others' turning the back to you, and

then you'll get

> > the opposite of what you where longing for.

> > Then, of course, the situation will be even worse, and in the end

you will end

> > up 'belonging' to AA.

> >

> > Therefore leaving AA will provoke the old feelings connected with

not felt loved

> > or appreciated, and could start a drinking worse than ever.

Slowly

this

> > mechanism will prove to you, that AA is the only way for all.

> >

> > As a result of these considerations, I regard " addiction " as a

relational

> > disturbance (like infatuation) that can be healed by ordinary

psychological

> > thinking.

> > But even if the wounds are healed, alcohol will still be

dangerous

because it

> > could revitalize old patterns. I think the best defense would be

to build up a

> > very cautious and very moderate drinking pattern in cooperation

with family,

> > friends and possibly an expert. This might defuse some of the

anxiety for a

> > relapse, that actually can release it.

> >

> > In the above I of course means 'you' plural, I've not been

thinking of anyone in

> > particular.

> >

> > This of course can seem to be a long way from the discussion

about

Jack Trimpey

> > and RR, but like AA he's not allowing psychology into the 'wholy

centers' of

> > their ideologies.

> >

> > When AA is using a lot of psychologists that comply with the AA

notion that you

> > should look at your own part of what happened to you in the past,

they are

> > blocking a possbile way to freedom from these experiences.

> > One could also argue, that this blocking shapes stepzombies in

the

long run

> > because the underlying conflicts will surface againg and again.

Only to prove AA

> > is the ultimate and only solution.

> >

> > The AA'ers might not know better, but the psychologists should,

IMO.

> >

> > Bjørn

> >

> >

----------------------------------------------------------------------

--

> > Join Garden.com's affiliate program and enjoy numerous benefits.

> > To learn more click here:

> > http://click./1/2955/1/_/4324/_/957187825/

> >

----------------------------------------------------------------------

--

[Guest guest]

Hi Judith

Troubled is definitely right. Chronic depressive, and chronic

adulterer even tho he likely genuinely wished to be faithful to his

wife but could never ahieve it.

He claims to have been a chronic anonymity breaker early on and also

wanted AA to be called the " Bill Movement " but it appears,

from

the AA literature, that he had a fondness for self-flagellation if he

thought it could impress his audience, and the confessions

were probably merely done with this in mind.

P.

> One last point I wanted to make about Jack Trimpey being a prophet

or

> savior. I don't necessarily believe that he wants to be viewed this

way, or

> that he views himself this way. I believe that, if a desperate

person comes

> to RR for help and finds it, they could easily elevate Trimpey to

the status

> of savior, whether or not he wants it.

>

> Reading the stories about Bill W. and acid, and all the other

stories I've

> read about him here, I wonder how much he really wanted to be the

founder of

> the AA empire. He sounds like a troubled man; it can't have been

easy to be

> the public face of AA, 24/7. Don't worry, I don't expend too much

sympathy

> on him. I just wonder about these things...

>

> Judith

>

>

>

>

>

> _______________________________________________________

> Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite

> Visit http://freelane.excite.com/freeisp

[Guest guest]

Pete --

You say we don't want ot destroy AA/12steps but are interested in

" abolishing AA coercion, combatting . . . mind control techniques . . .

alerting other ppl to . . . the truth abt it . . . and the almost

non-existence of scientific support for it and the considerable support for

the view it is largely useless and may even be damaging " .

If we succeed in these aims we WILL have destroyed AA, and I wouldn't be

sorry to see it go. If the choice is between AA is as it and the

destruction of AA, then I go along with a Kempis, " Of the two evils

the lesser is always to be chosen " . It is not only the internal character of

AA we must consider, but its invidiousness in terms of its sp-uruious

clincal status, respectability, and general (successful) social masquerade.

Doug.

>From: watts_pete@...

>Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups

>To: 12-step-freeegroups

>Subject: Re: A Question About Personal Power

>Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 00:01:33 -0000

>

>Hi Bjørn

>

>I agree with you abt RR. It is good to see that I am not the only one

>to think that RR is actually quite like AA in many ways - with an

>insistence in abstinence as they approach, and a " cunning, baffling "

>sounding Beast which is a permanent part of you speaking to you with

>an Addictive Voice to lead you astray. Trimpey's hype is frankly

>embarrassing (even by US standards) with " All Recovery groups

>cancelled " announcements and such alike. Just because AA is a

>crock it does not mean *all* recovery groups are a crock; support

>groups can be very useful to help ppl with all manner of problems.

>Also, he has declared out and out war on AA, a wish to destroy it it

>would seem.

>

>I of course cant say what everybody's views are here, but the

>inmpression I get is that nobody here wants to *destroy* AA. Here

>we're interested in things like abolishing AA coercion, combatting

>its

>mind control techniques for our own benefit, alerting other ppl to

>these techniques and to the truth abt it, such as its obviously

>religious nature, and the almost non-existence of scientific support

>for it and the considerable support for the view it is largely

>useless

>and may even be damaging, and to the existence of alternatives,

>including quitting or cutting down all by one's self.

>

>If these goals are achieved then I expect few of us here would object

>to kooky individuals choosing to gather in stuffy church basements to

>engage in a weird neo-Xtian religion with Satan replaced by demon rum.

>

>P.

>

>

>

>

> >

> > I agree with you about RR. There's three factors that I don't like

>about Jack

> > Trimpey.

> > 1. He is an anti-intelluctal. Even though I've been an 'academic'

>all my life, I

> > don't appreciate everything about educated peoples behavior. The

>seven deadly

> > sins thrives and lives in these surroundings as it does everywhere.

> > Intellectuals are often vain, arrogant, envious etc., and they can

>be bought as

> > everyone else.

> > But these inevitable phenomena are only based on a fundamentally

>sound and

> > necessary activity. This is among other things a heavily loaded

>doctrine. " To

> > talk freely after ones conviction. " If the 'disagreeable'

>intellectuals is

> > prohibited to exchange freely, then the discussion will stop in the

>whole

> > official society. It will simply spread down the lines. Guess what

>the end

> > result of this is will be, if 12 step ideology takes over as the

>predominant

> > ideology?

> > Because RR will not grow beyond a certain size, I think.

> >

> > 2. He's IMO religious.

> > His treatment of his different metaphors in connection with his use

>of the

> > physical brian is, still IMO, dishonest.

> > The Beast in the brain, the Beast identical with Satan in the

>Biblical sense.

> > This kind of reasoning can be used in religious brainwashing

>techniques.

> > What would happen if AA just 'ate' some of him, an kept the rest?

> >

> > 3. The first reason and the second combined. This is straight out

>dangerous!

> >

> > What I do like is his way of looking at AA, where he reverses every

>dogma, and

> > it works at least as well as AA. In this sense he must be a really

>pain in the

> > AA ass. His way of illuminating AA, so their structure comes more

>visible, is

> > outstanding and original work, and he'll get his credits for it,

>not

>doubt about

> > that. I only wish he would resign on his aspirations for being a

>prophet and a

> > savior. It seems more like a bi-polar disease with megalomania as

>the

> > predominating symptom. But then he don't like psychiatrists either,

>or does he?

> >

> > Personally I think both manias and depressions are natural

>variations in all

> > humans, but that some sometimes steps over a cultural made 'drawing

>in the

> > sand'. Then they get diagnosed.

> > Further, I think, the common factor binding these opposites

>together

>is

> > relations. Both manias and depressions are disturbances in relation

>to 'the

> > others', the rest of the world, society, peer group, family etc.

> > The maniacs actually sometimes really shapes something ingenious,

>because their

> > brains is driving for full power, but their ideas of their own

>importance are

> > greatly disturbed. The depressive people mostly think they're no

>good. That the

> > world would be a better place without them, that their family would

>be lifted by

> > one heavy burden if they just vanished. That nobody can be able to

>love them,

> > etc., etc. This of course, is then disproved by their treatment,

>because it

> > shows them, that someone care, the doctors and the nurses.

> > And because the treatment system might be the only that REALLY

>accepts and

> > understand you, you're only way to get a feeling of belonging is to

>be a

> > recidivist. " My doctor says that you should not speak that way to

>me! I could

> > easily get a depression! "

> >

> > The key words are 'relations' and 'belonging'. There is a

>contradiction between

> > the character of the relations and the need for belonging that only

>can be

> > fulfilled within the treatment system.

> >

> > Therefore, I think, the optimal handling of these problem, if you

>can see them,

> > of course, is to work with the relations to others parallel with an

>insight in

> > the mechanisms underlying the disturbance.

> > This is hard work, and risky too, but it's the only way out into

>the

>open.

> >

> > It's quite possible that your life can bring you in a social

>situation that

> > shapes a disturbance in the relations to others, but mostly there

>also are some

> > parallels in the experience that can be related to primary school

>time and early

> > childhood.

> >

> > I know this can be a bit controversial on the list for various

>reasons, but just

> > because AA has shame ridden the concepts of psychodynamics' it

>doesn't prove

> > that they can't be useful. It depends on the context!

> >

> > For example, if you in your early childhood have had felt unwanted

>or

> > disregarded, but there have been no strong proofs for this to be

>true, then

> > you'll probably idealize your parents and repress the contradictory

>material.

> > You'll actually get furious if someone questions the sacred

>memories

>about their

> > qualities.

> >

> > If this missing link is not established later, the result might be,

>that you

> > subconsciously reproduce the original structure in your real life.

>Both seeking

> > back to the situations where you didn't get what you wished, and at

>the same

> > time avoiding the situation because it was traumatic.

> >

> > But this is anxiety provoking, and therefore you'll probably get

>several

> > symptoms. Depression is most likely, and with this drinking to take

>the feeling

> > of 'ugliness' and not 'belonging'.

> >

> > If you then cross the line for what's socially approved, your need

>for

> > 'belonging' will make 'the others' turning the back to you, and

>then

>you'll get

> > the opposite of what you where longing for.

> > Then, of course, the situation will be even worse, and in the end

>you will end

> > up 'belonging' to AA.

> >

> > Therefore leaving AA will provoke the old feelings connected with

>not felt loved

> > or appreciated, and could start a drinking worse than ever. Slowly

>this

> > mechanism will prove to you, that AA is the only way for all.

> >

> > As a result of these considerations, I regard " addiction " as a

>relational

> > disturbance (like infatuation) that can be healed by ordinary

>psychological

> > thinking.

> > But even if the wounds are healed, alcohol will still be dangerous

>because it

> > could revitalize old patterns. I think the best defense would be

>to

>build up a

> > very cautious and very moderate drinking pattern in cooperation

>with

>family,

> > friends and possibly an expert. This might defuse some of the

>anxiety for a

> > relapse, that actually can release it.

> >

> > In the above I of course means 'you' plural, I've not been thinking

>of anyone in

> > particular.

> >

> > This of course can seem to be a long way from the discussion about

>Jack Trimpey

> > and RR, but like AA he's not allowing psychology into the 'wholy

>centers' of

> > their ideologies.

> >

> > When AA is using a lot of psychologists that comply with the AA

>notion that you

> > should look at your own part of what happened to you in the past,

>they are

> > blocking a possbile way to freedom from these experiences.

> > One could also argue, that this blocking shapes stepzombies in the

>long run

> > because the underlying conflicts will surface againg and again.

>Only

>to prove AA

> > is the ultimate and only solution.

> >

> > The AA'ers might not know better, but the psychologists should, IMO.

> >

> > Bjørn

>

________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Hi Sue

Tx for that great quote. Helps me further along to the point I am

gradually groping toward. sounds like a good book.

P.

>

> Eudaimon,

>

> I'm not sure if I'll be on target here, but sounds to me

> that this is a self-esteem issue. I would highly recommend a

> book that Joe B. posted here called Self-Esteem by McKay

> and Fanning. It has helped me to begin to overcome

> some self doubt. Quote:

> " Affirming your worth is no easy task. Right now you believe

> that your worth depends on your behavior. Metaphorically, you

see

> yourself as an empty vessel that must be filled, drop by drop,

> with your achievements. You start out essentially worthless,

> a body that moves and talks. The 'critic' in you would have

> you believe that there is no intrinsic value in life, only a

> potential for doing something worthwhile, something important.

> The truth is that your value is your consciousness, your

> ability to perceive and experience. The value of a human life

> is that it exists. You are a complex miracle of creation.

> You are a person who is trying to live, and that makes you as

> worthwhile as every other person who is doing the same thing.

> Achievement has nothing to do with it. Whatever you do, what-

> ever you contribute should not come from the need to prove your

> value, but from the natural flow of your aliveness. What you

> do should come from the drive to fully live, rather than the

> fight to justify yourself. "

>

> Maybe you are afraid that if you take control, you may fail

> or be criticized. And that would hurt. So to avoid that

> pain, it is safer for you to let others " live " for you. That

> way, if they screw up, hey it wouldn't be your fault, right?

>

> Anyway, maybe this book could help. (thanks Joe

>

> Sue

>

>

>

>

> >From: eudaimon84133110@a...

> >Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups

> >To: 12-step-freeegroups

> >Subject: A Question About Personal Power

> >Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 19:54:48 EDT

> >

> >I have found that my problem seems to be that I may have

internalized the

> >belief that there is something wrong with me such that I need

someone to

> >tell

> >me how to live (i.e. 'sponsorship direction') and that without it

I

am

> >doomed

> >to living clumsily and being depressed all the time. Does anyone

have any

> >good hints on how to reclaim one's own proper place at the rudder

of one's

> >life from this condition?

> >

> >

> >\

>

>

______________________________________________________________________

__

> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at

http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Hi Judith,

No you didn't imply that he does. I was " piggybacking " on your reply to

Bjorn.

sean

[Guest guest]

Hi Pete

And I'm one of the ones who disagree with you about RR. Not that I think

it's " the answer " to addiction problems, but just that I like what Trimpey

is doing. I think of him as a citizen-radical, in the tradition of Tom Paine

and Abbie Hoffman. (It's an " American " thing, and I'm not too surprised if

you folks on the other side of the pond think Trimpey's a weirdo :-)) He

takes extreme positions, he gets people to listen and think, and by so doing

he expands the universe of discourse even if most of those he reaches

disagree, at least to the extent of thinking he " goes too far. "

I agree with Trimpey that AA, and its influence on our culture, is a big

part of the problem. I share his feeling, expressed in the essay that Bjorn

quoted, that some mysterious -Kingish " monster " is loose in the land,

taking over minds and institutions, and that AA is a part of it.

Re " destroying AA " , if everything you list in your penultimate paragraph

happened, that would do the job pretty well. I would only add that until

there is a public consensus that AA is a bunch of " kooky individuals

choosing to gather in stuffy church basements to

engage in a weird neo-Xtian religion with Satan replaced by demon rum " that

the job of alerting the public to its true nature is not finished. Don't you

think that even Jack Trimpey would be satisfied with such an outcome?

--wally

Re: A Question About Personal Power

Hi Bjørn

I agree with you abt RR. It is good to see that I am not the only one

to think that RR is actually quite like AA in many ways - with an

insistence in abstinence as they approach, and a " cunning, baffling "

sounding Beast which is a permanent part of you speaking to you with

an Addictive Voice to lead you astray. Trimpey's hype is frankly

embarrassing (even by US standards) with " All Recovery groups

cancelled " announcements and such alike. Just because AA is a

crock it does not mean *all* recovery groups are a crock; support

groups can be very useful to help ppl with all manner of problems.

Also, he has declared out and out war on AA, a wish to destroy it it

would seem.

I of course cant say what everybody's views are here, but the

inmpression I get is that nobody here wants to *destroy* AA. Here

we're interested in things like abolishing AA coercion, combatting

its

mind control techniques for our own benefit, alerting other ppl to

these techniques and to the truth abt it, such as its obviously

religious nature, and the almost non-existence of scientific support

for it and the considerable support for the view it is largely

useless

and may even be damaging, and to the existence of alternatives,

including quitting or cutting down all by one's self.

If these goals are achieved then I expect few of us here would object

to kooky individuals choosing to gather in stuffy church basements to

engage in a weird neo-Xtian religion with Satan replaced by demon rum.

P.

[Guest guest]

Wally --

Good stuff and your views have my support. The large number of " conspiracy "

theorists who involve AA/12steps in Kingi-ish projections re the

American future includes some convincingly sane people, whose views tie in

with those of radical academics, etc. Use of the " Beast " and other

quasi-mythological concepts reflect the need to devise a language, a mode of

discourse, for discussing these matters, which are political, religious,

psychological, social, and cultural -- churchofgodanonymous.com are clear on

their aim of becoming a new world religion -- that's a world I don't want my

children in. They've already, my kids, been subject to " virtual-kidnapping "

by their mother, who is a long-term disturbed

12step " brainwash " victim. It's a sinister scene.

Yours in the AmeriKan night,

.

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups

>To: <12-step-freeegroups>

>Subject: Re: A Question About Personal Power

>Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 23:07:55 -0400

>

>Hi Pete

>

>And I'm one of the ones who disagree with you about RR. Not that I think

>it's " the answer " to addiction problems, but just that I like what Trimpey

>is doing. I think of him as a citizen-radical, in the tradition of Tom

>Paine

>and Abbie Hoffman. (It's an " American " thing, and I'm not too surprised if

>you folks on the other side of the pond think Trimpey's a weirdo :-)) He

>takes extreme positions, he gets people to listen and think, and by so

>doing

>he expands the universe of discourse even if most of those he reaches

>disagree, at least to the extent of thinking he " goes too far. "

>

>I agree with Trimpey that AA, and its influence on our culture, is a big

>part of the problem. I share his feeling, expressed in the essay that Bjorn

>quoted, that some mysterious -Kingish " monster " is loose in the land,

>taking over minds and institutions, and that AA is a part of it.

>

>Re " destroying AA " , if everything you list in your penultimate paragraph

>happened, that would do the job pretty well. I would only add that until

>there is a public consensus that AA is a bunch of " kooky individuals

>choosing to gather in stuffy church basements to

>engage in a weird neo-Xtian religion with Satan replaced by demon rum " that

>the job of alerting the public to its true nature is not finished. Don't

>you

>think that even Jack Trimpey would be satisfied with such an outcome?

>

>--wally

>

> Re: A Question About Personal Power

>

>

>Hi Bjørn

>

>I agree with you abt RR. It is good to see that I am not the only one

>to think that RR is actually quite like AA in many ways - with an

>insistence in abstinence as they approach, and a " cunning, baffling "

>sounding Beast which is a permanent part of you speaking to you with

>an Addictive Voice to lead you astray. Trimpey's hype is frankly

>embarrassing (even by US standards) with " All Recovery groups

>cancelled " announcements and such alike. Just because AA is a

>crock it does not mean *all* recovery groups are a crock; support

>groups can be very useful to help ppl with all manner of problems.

>Also, he has declared out and out war on AA, a wish to destroy it it

>would seem.

>

>I of course cant say what everybody's views are here, but the

>inmpression I get is that nobody here wants to *destroy* AA. Here

>we're interested in things like abolishing AA coercion, combatting

>its

>mind control techniques for our own benefit, alerting other ppl to

>these techniques and to the truth abt it, such as its obviously

>religious nature, and the almost non-existence of scientific support

>for it and the considerable support for the view it is largely

>useless

>and may even be damaging, and to the existence of alternatives,

>including quitting or cutting down all by one's self.

>

>If these goals are achieved then I expect few of us here would object

>to kooky individuals choosing to gather in stuffy church basements to

>engage in a weird neo-Xtian religion with Satan replaced by demon rum.

>

>P.

>

>

>

>

>

________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

I agree with the general sentiments towards Trimpey that have been expressed

here by the way. The self-help world is a thriving breeding ground for people

who want to be the Ubersponsor because that's where the most vulnerable

people who want to follow suggestions, like myself so much of the time, can

be found.

[Guest guest]

Does the " Minnesota Model " have anything to do with the MMPI? Or was that

developed in Wisconsin? All I remember is that it was modelled on analyses of

some rather atypical group, I think all of them were farmers in a limited

region. I hope I never have to take one of those damn things again. I'm sick

of saying I don't have black, tarry bowel movements.

In a message dated 5/1/00 12:08:25 PM Central Daylight Time,

doug_houston@... writes:

<<

Also glad of your identification of the anti-intellectual strain in recovery

circles -- one of the more widely recognised defining attributes of cults is

said to be their anti-intellectualism, which facilitates unquestioning

loyalty to particular belief-systems. When I was subjected to " Minnesota

model " treatment as a result of my 12step wife's hysteria over an attempt at

controlled drinking, I was not a very good " patient " . The boss of the

treatment centre and I had a brief chat one afternoon well into my 8 weeks.

He shook his head and said " , you'd be fine here if your head was >>

[Guest guest]

The " inner voice " thing sounds to me like the superego, or a cluster of

rationality in one's unconscious, or maybe like Socrates' " Oracle. " Or all of

the above.

In a message dated 5/1/00 5:24:25 PM Central Daylight Time,

doug_houston@... writes:

<< Judith --

I agree with you that Trimpey is a worthwhile contributor to discourse

around AA/addiction, etc. I think the V(oice)R(ecognition)T(echnique -- or

therapy?) sounds a bit hard to swallow, but I've examined the idea and think

it might be workable for some/?for me. I suppose you have to accept that

the " voice " that says drink is the " beast " , simultaneously a

religio-metaphysical and psychological entity in Trimpey's presentation. Do

we all actually respond to a " voice " in any literal sense when urged to do

what " our better selves " might not? This view of things borders on

territory labelled " You're never alone with schizophrenia " , though the sense

of " voice " is strong in many lucid and well-reasoned religious writings and

we all know directly what anyone means by hearing something in our minds,

re-running our thoughts in voice mode.

I think Trimpey's Beast concept is quite a powerful extension or

re-animation of Freud's Id, itself, ultimately, a psycho-metaphorical

construct.

Remarkable stuff about old trip-head Bill W. -- Niacin/B3 was used in my

hippy days as a sort of trip suppressor if you were having too strong an

effect. Maybe he had a need for it.

Best wishes all,

Doug.

>>

[Guest guest]

I want to make some kind of chart to carry around in my head that will help

me socialize, select clothing, focus energy, maintenance my everyday life and

engage in productive endeavors. I have been wanting to do this for years, and

have done it a little bit now and then but attempts are usually foiled by

anxiety that rises when I attempt to do it. I have been getting severely

depressed. I don't want to go to a therapist, I've wasted too much time in

therapy, it always turns into expensive bull (shit) sessions. I am so

frustrated I think about blowing my brains out, though I would never actually

do this, being too curious about the future and too hopeful that things will

get better. It gets really hard to try again when almost all the past

attempts have not led to any fruition, just more survival and self doubt and

sometimes paranoia. I want to get off of the malevolent universe premise and

on to the benevolent universe premise. Any suggestions?

[Guest guest]

Well, and Wally.

I must have expressed myself very poorly. Pete has missed no opportunity to make

me aware of my language problem. Maybe soon I will see the white light. But,

until then, and " I ONLY SAY THIS ONCE! " (with French accent, guess which

serial!).

I'm not questioning your appreciation of " Embodiment of the Beast " by Jack

Trimpey. I like it, and first time I read it I got on a mental 'trip'. Even

though I'm in Denmark, and haven't been treated for a substance problem, or even

had one, I have followed AA's progress the last 20 years in Scandinavia in

general and specific in Denmark. When I read his article I got a really

King feeling, and I could feel that he was right about something essential.

Believe me, I would never feel inclined to attack something that didn't have

some attraction about it.

Jack Trimpey has given me a lot to my own recognition, but this doesn't mean

that I agree with him on the theoretical level.

Therefore, in this particular discussion, just regard me as a logical prick. A

logical junkie. Actually, the first reason I got attracted to this field in 1977

was it's lack of logic. Where there is a lack of logic, there is a secret, and

where there is a secret, there is shame (almost Nietzsche) . This is my dogmatic

starting point, and I've got a nose for it, so to speak. In my conception AA is

organized denial of shame, and this is evil. Actually I think this kind of evil

has necessitated religion, and therefore anti-Christ etc. is not farfetched.

So, I'm at least as weird as anybody else. I like Jack Trimpey.

Well, Wally and . Have the tunnels met, is it a hole through? Do I have

to embarrass myself by asking Pete to explain what I want to say?

I'm taking the liberty to guess 'not', which allows me to continue with my real

errand of this mail.

But first, nobody have been able to explain how the Beast in the Addictive Voice

can develop into the 'Beast' in " Embodiment of the Beast " . From this I'm

compelled to extract, that you don't think this is theoretically possible.

There are two aspects of JT's theory that bothers me. The first is his lack of

understanding of the importance of culture. He seems to think that the American

culture is 'Nature', which is seriously wrong.

The second is his conception of brain functioning, which cannot be confirmed by

our knowledge about this complex organ.

Instead of using a lot of references in my arguments, I've chosen, as you often

do yourself, to use my personal experiences.

The first is about culture:

To your basic information I should inform you that I'm born in a town called

Harstad in Northern Norway in 1946, and moved to Denmark from Oslo in 1971.

Because I met a Danish girl, well, the story of my life. I can resist anything

but temptations!

The difference between the Danish alcohol culture and the rest of Scandinavia

is, that the Danes are known to be a beer drinking country like Germany, Holland

and Belgium.

Norway and Sweden are typically ardent spirits drinking people.

When I got to Denmark it was impossible for me to maintain my Norwegian drinking

pattern. Because what was accepted in Norway, was intolerable in Denmark, and

the other way around.

I'll give you an example:

When I went to High School (not sure, but Gymnasium in my language) in Northern

Norway, and I was about 17 years old, we mostly partied in homes where the

parents where gone on vacation or was partying themselves. In principle, there

was no difference between the youth and grown up's partying except that we (the

young ones) had less experience with this rather complicated drinking pattern.

It's complicated because the art was to get as drunk as possible without getting

seriously hurt, and get what you want.

In one of our parties we drank 'moonshine' , sugar and coffee. 'Moonshine' is

about 80% alcohol ( can't figure out the proof figure). Sugar replaces the sugar

loss alcohol gives you ( alcohol was used in diabetes treatment before insulin

), and the coffee keeps you awake.

The result was 'acid' and surrealistic, but nobody got hurt, and we all had

great fun.

The next day we talked about it and had another laugh.

When I got to Denmark everybody drank almost every day, but almost never to

excess. Beer gets you drowsy because of some ingredients in the hop.

I've a personal experience of what difference culture makes, nobody can convince

me about an alcoholism theory built on the 'animal brain'.

My second objection is his brain theory.

In my practical experience at the University of Aarhus I was working on a ward

that treated brain injuries. My former boss is by now the most prominent

neuropsychologist in Denmark, and is the head of the first institution for

rehabilitation of brain damages. Her name is Anne-Lise Christensen.

My job was to train an 'impossible' damage called a right hemisphere tempero

parietal anereusm. Which means that a common known great vein has burst where it

is an angle. The problem with the training is, that the 'insight' is placed in

the right hemisphere, and therefore training is difficult because of lack of

motivation. But I made a success, and my patient was elected for a yearly

conference. Anne-Lise had great expectations for me, but I chose another

direction.

Anne-Lise was a very conservative person, but introduced the theories of a

Russian psychologist called R. Luria. He was jewish, I think, and

psychologists were not high status in USSR.

Before he got specialized in neuropsychology he was familiar with the schools of

Vygotski and Piaget, which has to do with the development of consciousness on

the formal level.

During W.W.II he examined a lot af the brain damages in young and healthy

soldiers. I think the Soviet Union lost about 20 millions during the war, and

many survivors had been shot in their heads.

Therefore Luria could compare the symptoms with the extension and location of

the damage. Because a lot of people was wounded, he could have several people

with almost the same wounds.

From this he developed his theory of the brain. He has written a book called

" The Working Brain " , and it describes the basic theory for my successful

rehabilitation.

I've read this book several times, done a lot of study of the anatomy of the

brain, and I was elected to a study circle as the only student among

professionals.

Therefore, although I can appreciate a lot of the things Jack Trimpey states, I

disagree with his fundamental theory.

Compared with Luria, Trimpey is just a person with a need for a certain

primitive model of the brain to serve his own needs. His model reminds of the

person who invented the 'Primal Scream'.

The references to the Freudian model of the psyche is purely metaphorical, as

Freud's model was a topological model with no intended physical correlation.

These are my basic objections against Jack Trimpey, but from this, there follows

more.

Therefore, Jack Trimpey's " Structural Model of Addiction " is nothing but a

clever part of a cognitive model. At the same time he defies cognitive

psychology. No wonder he's an intellectual anti-intellectual.

Do you understand me?

Bjørn

Best.

Bjørn

wally wrote:

> Hi Pete

>

> And I'm one of the ones who disagree with you about RR. Not that I think

> it's " the answer " to addiction problems, but just that I like what Trimpey

> is doing. I think of him as a citizen-radical, in the tradition of Tom Paine

> and Abbie Hoffman. (It's an " American " thing, and I'm not too surprised if

> you folks on the other side of the pond think Trimpey's a weirdo :-)) He

> takes extreme positions, he gets people to listen and think, and by so doing

> he expands the universe of discourse even if most of those he reaches

> disagree, at least to the extent of thinking he " goes too far. "

>

> I agree with Trimpey that AA, and its influence on our culture, is a big

> part of the problem. I share his feeling, expressed in the essay that Bjorn

> quoted, that some mysterious -Kingish " monster " is loose in the land,

> taking over minds and institutions, and that AA is a part of it.

>

> Re " destroying AA " , if everything you list in your penultimate paragraph

> happened, that would do the job pretty well. I would only add that until

> there is a public consensus that AA is a bunch of " kooky individuals

> choosing to gather in stuffy church basements to

> engage in a weird neo-Xtian religion with Satan replaced by demon rum " that

> the job of alerting the public to its true nature is not finished. Don't you

> think that even Jack Trimpey would be satisfied with such an outcome?

>

> --wally

>

> Re: A Question About Personal Power

>

> Hi Bjørn

>

> I agree with you abt RR. It is good to see that I am not the only one

> to think that RR is actually quite like AA in many ways - with an

> insistence in abstinence as they approach, and a " cunning, baffling "

> sounding Beast which is a permanent part of you speaking to you with

> an Addictive Voice to lead you astray. Trimpey's hype is frankly

> embarrassing (even by US standards) with " All Recovery groups

> cancelled " announcements and such alike. Just because AA is a

> crock it does not mean *all* recovery groups are a crock; support

> groups can be very useful to help ppl with all manner of problems.

> Also, he has declared out and out war on AA, a wish to destroy it it

> would seem.

>

> I of course cant say what everybody's views are here, but the

> inmpression I get is that nobody here wants to *destroy* AA. Here

> we're interested in things like abolishing AA coercion, combatting

> its

> mind control techniques for our own benefit, alerting other ppl to

> these techniques and to the truth abt it, such as its obviously

> religious nature, and the almost non-existence of scientific support

> for it and the considerable support for the view it is largely

> useless

> and may even be damaging, and to the existence of alternatives,

> including quitting or cutting down all by one's self.

>

> If these goals are achieved then I expect few of us here would object

> to kooky individuals choosing to gather in stuffy church basements to

> engage in a weird neo-Xtian religion with Satan replaced by demon rum.

>

> P.

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> High rates giving you headaches? The 0% APR Introductory Rate from

> Capital One. 9.9% Fixed thereafter!

> http://click./1/3010/1/_/4324/_/957323261/

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Re-posting as first may not have gone off/arrived three hours ago.

Dear Eudaimon,

Treatments based around the first 5 of the 12 steps are " sold " in Britain

(where we're conditoned to being over-impressed by things AmeriKan!!!)as

" Minnesota Model " -- I believe Hazeleden (whom you must know as publishers

of 12step pabulum) are based in Minnesota and that's how the name comes

about. I think Hazleden were among the earlier AA-based institutions.

I'm worried about you Eudaimon -- the absolute end hit me when my wife sent

me out for a present for my daughter's 4th birthday when I wasn't fit to

drive after a heavy Christmas party (trust the kid to get born on 30

December). I was shattered, in bad shape altogether with the previous

ten-months out of my home BY ORDER, traumatic mugging in Paris, mother's

drawn out death, and general high tension all round. I had an absolute

curse-of-God hangover (or " a Prinvce of Darkness " as a friend of mined calls

them), which I just couldn't take, and and drank at the wheel (a lot) --

cops appeared out of the blue (like they scarily do at times) while I was

parked up talking to an acquaintance. Drove off at speed. Crashed car.

Cops were on their way a minute behind me, and that was that. My marriage

was about finished anyway, but that made sure. I went back to AA at this

point (New Year 1997), but knew I just couldn't do it -- they seemed such a

sad, totally uninspiring crowd, I knew the whole programme backwards and had

nothing at all to gain. The real break with wife occurred when this " last

hope " -- ie my re-admission to the 12step fold -- failed. Funny though, as

she wouldn't let us go to the same meetings -- was very difficult about

this, probably because she was alreaqdy into a heavy share-cycle concerning

her " need " to leave me.

So why am I going over another chapter in my unhappy tale of just another

divorce? Partly because I have to, am still under a strong emotional

compulsion (just call it love for the woman and kids I'm in exile from), and

this great group with its " anything goes " openness makes it OK for us to go

on if we need to (within reason!!)

But I'm implying two points for you:

1 --- don't drink and drive. This is one of the things in my life I will

always wish I hadn't done, and I thank God I didn't kill myself and/or

anyone else. Do something else crazy, short of killing yourself (your " hope

instinct " and sheer interest in what will happen in this weird old life are

such strong and attractive features in you).

2 --- don't go back to AA for a solution. If you just need a bit of company

OK, but they never were my scene conversationally. I think there's such a

thing as Abstinence Violation Effect (AVE [?!] -- it's a concept in a

book called " Problem Drinking " , whose authors I can't name now)-- the

self-fulfilling prophecy mechanism of AA/total abstinence. You do the

normal human behaviour of drinking but are " programmed " by meetings,

literature, sponsors, the whole bit, to believe this MUST result in

catastrophic " relapse " , so you panic with guilt triggers going off all round

and have a breakdown binge. Also your psychic energies are by then

exhausted with resisting the idea of drinking, so you've little resistance

left when the bottle begins emptying and the anaesthetic release from

tension is the greater.

Have you considered changing your name? Happiness as the measure of

rectitude doesn't seem like a wholly valid concept to me. I don't go along

with the " human right to happiness " -- its wonderful when you've got it and

some of us keep it, but it doesn't come on the Social Security.

Good luck, hang in there, ease up, and (it's a free cyber-country!) ask God

nicely for a hand.

Doug.

>From: eudaimon84133110@...

>Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups

>To: 12-step-freeegroups

>Subject: Re: A Question About Personal Power

>Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 11:33:41 EDT

>

>Does the " Minnesota Model " have anything to do with the MMPI? Or was that

>developed in Wisconsin? All I remember is that it was modelled on analyses

>of

>some rather atypical group, I think all of them were farmers in a limited

>region. I hope I never have to take one of those damn things again. I'm

>sick

>of saying I don't have black, tarry bowel movements.

>

>

>In a message dated 5/1/00 12:08:25 PM Central Daylight Time,

>doug_houston@... writes:

>

><<

> Also glad of your identification of the anti-intellectual strain in

>recovery

> circles -- one of the more widely recognised defining attributes of cults

>is

> said to be their anti-intellectualism, which facilitates unquestioning

> loyalty to particular belief-systems. When I was subjected to " Minnesota

> model " treatment as a result of my 12step wife's hysteria over an attempt

>at

> controlled drinking, I was not a very good " patient " . The boss of the

> treatment centre and I had a brief chat one afternoon well into my 8

>weeks.

> He shook his head and said " , you'd be fine here if your head was

> >>

________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

I suspect this won't be popular but I've always thought of it as

responsibility avoidance. AA's have the disease theory. RR's have

the Beast. I suppose the main difference is that RR comes a little

closer to the mark and yet still manages to place the blame on an

individuals baser (instinctual) side as opposed to the good side. An

internal battle of good verses evil, if you will.

Perhaps I don't know that much about the concept.

Bjorn's post did a good job of breaking it down. I agreed with most

of his comments on it but I would have added that, to me anyway,

Trimpey seems a bit long winded at times. I think his real genius is

in debunking AA. He does it well what can I say.

I believe the first time I was exposed to Trimpey was when reading

" The Real AA " . A 10 page introductory note by Trimpey was a bit much

for a 200 page book.

Re: A Question About Personal Power

The " inner voice " thing sounds to me like the superego, or a cluster

of

rationality in one's unconscious, or maybe like Socrates' " Oracle. "

Or all of

the above.

[Guest guest]

Bjorn,

The tunnels have met centre to centre.

Bjorn: " In my conception AA is organized denial of shame, and this is evil " .

Your whole articulation of the basis of your " Invasion of the Body

Snatchers " instinct re AA is entirely consistent with my own responses, but

put as I never could manage. I'm a bit of an old style logic-bore myself,

and chase down black-holes in logic as far as I'm able to to find out why my

intellect can't take the claims/propositions with which it's confronted.

Where lack of logic covers for shame, there are always contradictions --

(it's a disease, it's not your fault/It's your fault for not taking

responsibility for your disease. You're powerless/You're not powerless,

etc.) -- I've quoted Wittgenstein's " A contradiction implies any number of

propositions " before, and it can constitute blank map for paranoid

speculation. But ultimately there will be a proposition stating what is the

case. This logic was essential to the Bletchley Park intelligence

initiative in WWII that cracked the Nazi Enigma encryption system -- keep

running the programme until it DOES make sense. So while we don't know

quite what the movement in the darkness is when we try to clarify the matter

of AA/stepNazis, we know it's there and conclude it's evil.

I think we're all square on Trimpey too -- the thing about him I found hard

to take was his eccentric " brain model " --- " and this bit is where the

Beast lives " !!! Thanks for giving clinical direction to my feelings that

this was a specious move on T's behalf.

Your own work sounds admirable and most interesting. Enjoyed the account of

the alcoholic mores of the Scandinavian adolescent -- reminding me a bit of

my own early experiences on weird spirits-mixtures.

Best wishes,

.

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups

>To: 12-step-freeegroups

>Subject: Re: A Question About Personal Power

>Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 22:02:01 +0200

>

>Well, and Wally.

>

>I must have expressed myself very poorly. Pete has missed no opportunity to

>make

>me aware of my language problem. Maybe soon I will see the white light.

>But,

>until then, and " I ONLY SAY THIS ONCE! " (with French accent, guess which

>serial!).

>

>I'm not questioning your appreciation of " Embodiment of the Beast " by Jack

>Trimpey. I like it, and first time I read it I got on a mental 'trip'. Even

>though I'm in Denmark, and haven't been treated for a substance problem, or

>even

>had one, I have followed AA's progress the last 20 years in Scandinavia in

>general and specific in Denmark. When I read his article I got a really

>

>King feeling, and I could feel that he was right about something essential.

>Believe me, I would never feel inclined to attack something that didn't

>have

>some attraction about it.

>Jack Trimpey has given me a lot to my own recognition, but this doesn't

>mean

>that I agree with him on the theoretical level.

>Therefore, in this particular discussion, just regard me as a logical

>prick. A

>logical junkie. Actually, the first reason I got attracted to this field in

>1977

>was it's lack of logic. Where there is a lack of logic, there is a secret,

>and

>where there is a secret, there is shame (almost Nietzsche) . This is my

>dogmatic

>starting point, and I've got a nose for it, so to speak. In my conception

>AA is

>organized denial of shame, and this is evil. Actually I think this kind of

>evil

>has necessitated religion, and therefore anti-Christ etc. is not

>farfetched.

>So, I'm at least as weird as anybody else. I like Jack Trimpey.

>Well, Wally and . Have the tunnels met, is it a hole through? Do I

>have

>to embarrass myself by asking Pete to explain what I want to say?

>

>I'm taking the liberty to guess 'not', which allows me to continue with my

>real

>errand of this mail.

>But first, nobody have been able to explain how the Beast in the Addictive

>Voice

>can develop into the 'Beast' in " Embodiment of the Beast " . From this I'm

>compelled to extract, that you don't think this is theoretically possible.

>

>There are two aspects of JT's theory that bothers me. The first is his lack

>of

>understanding of the importance of culture. He seems to think that the

>American

>culture is 'Nature', which is seriously wrong.

>The second is his conception of brain functioning, which cannot be

>confirmed by

>our knowledge about this complex organ.

>

>Instead of using a lot of references in my arguments, I've chosen, as you

>often

>do yourself, to use my personal experiences.

>

>The first is about culture:

>To your basic information I should inform you that I'm born in a town

>called

>Harstad in Northern Norway in 1946, and moved to Denmark from Oslo in 1971.

>Because I met a Danish girl, well, the story of my life. I can resist

>anything

>but temptations!

>

>The difference between the Danish alcohol culture and the rest of

>Scandinavia

>is, that the Danes are known to be a beer drinking country like Germany,

>Holland

>and Belgium.

>Norway and Sweden are typically ardent spirits drinking people.

>When I got to Denmark it was impossible for me to maintain my Norwegian

>drinking

>pattern. Because what was accepted in Norway, was intolerable in Denmark,

>and

>the other way around.

>I'll give you an example:

>

>When I went to High School (not sure, but Gymnasium in my language) in

>Northern

>Norway, and I was about 17 years old, we mostly partied in homes where the

>parents where gone on vacation or was partying themselves. In principle,

>there

>was no difference between the youth and grown up's partying except that we

>(the

>young ones) had less experience with this rather complicated drinking

>pattern.

>

>It's complicated because the art was to get as drunk as possible without

>getting

>seriously hurt, and get what you want.

>In one of our parties we drank 'moonshine' , sugar and coffee. 'Moonshine'

>is

>about 80% alcohol ( can't figure out the proof figure). Sugar replaces the

>sugar

>loss alcohol gives you ( alcohol was used in diabetes treatment before

>insulin

>), and the coffee keeps you awake.

>The result was 'acid' and surrealistic, but nobody got hurt, and we all had

>great fun.

>The next day we talked about it and had another laugh.

>

>When I got to Denmark everybody drank almost every day, but almost never to

>excess. Beer gets you drowsy because of some ingredients in the hop.

>I've a personal experience of what difference culture makes, nobody can

>convince

>me about an alcoholism theory built on the 'animal brain'.

>

>My second objection is his brain theory.

>

>In my practical experience at the University of Aarhus I was working on a

>ward

>that treated brain injuries. My former boss is by now the most prominent

>neuropsychologist in Denmark, and is the head of the first institution for

>rehabilitation of brain damages. Her name is Anne-Lise Christensen.

>

>My job was to train an 'impossible' damage called a right hemisphere

>tempero

>parietal anereusm. Which means that a common known great vein has burst

>where it

>is an angle. The problem with the training is, that the 'insight' is placed

>in

>the right hemisphere, and therefore training is difficult because of lack

>of

>motivation. But I made a success, and my patient was elected for a yearly

>conference. Anne-Lise had great expectations for me, but I chose another

>direction.

>

>Anne-Lise was a very conservative person, but introduced the theories of a

>Russian psychologist called R. Luria. He was jewish, I think, and

>psychologists were not high status in USSR.

>Before he got specialized in neuropsychology he was familiar with the

>schools of

>Vygotski and Piaget, which has to do with the development of consciousness

>on

>the formal level.

>

>During W.W.II he examined a lot af the brain damages in young and healthy

>soldiers. I think the Soviet Union lost about 20 millions during the war,

>and

>many survivors had been shot in their heads.

>Therefore Luria could compare the symptoms with the extension and location

>of

>the damage. Because a lot of people was wounded, he could have several

>people

>with almost the same wounds.

>

>From this he developed his theory of the brain. He has written a book

>called

> " The Working Brain " , and it describes the basic theory for my successful

>rehabilitation.

>

>I've read this book several times, done a lot of study of the anatomy of

>the

>brain, and I was elected to a study circle as the only student among

>professionals.

>

>Therefore, although I can appreciate a lot of the things Jack Trimpey

>states, I

>disagree with his fundamental theory.

>Compared with Luria, Trimpey is just a person with a need for a certain

>primitive model of the brain to serve his own needs. His model reminds of

>the

>person who invented the 'Primal Scream'.

>The references to the Freudian model of the psyche is purely metaphorical,

>as

>Freud's model was a topological model with no intended physical

>correlation.

>

>These are my basic objections against Jack Trimpey, but from this, there

>follows

>more.

>

>Therefore, Jack Trimpey's " Structural Model of Addiction " is nothing but a

>clever part of a cognitive model. At the same time he defies cognitive

>psychology. No wonder he's an intellectual anti-intellectual.

>Do you understand me?

>

>Bjørn

>

>Best.

>

>Bjørn

>

>wally wrote:

>

> > Hi Pete

> >

> > And I'm one of the ones who disagree with you about RR. Not that I think

> > it's " the answer " to addiction problems, but just that I like what

>Trimpey

> > is doing. I think of him as a citizen-radical, in the tradition of Tom

>Paine

> > and Abbie Hoffman. (It's an " American " thing, and I'm not too surprised

>if

> > you folks on the other side of the pond think Trimpey's a weirdo :-)) He

> > takes extreme positions, he gets people to listen and think, and by so

>doing

> > he expands the universe of discourse even if most of those he reaches

> > disagree, at least to the extent of thinking he " goes too far. "

> >

> > I agree with Trimpey that AA, and its influence on our culture, is a big

> > part of the problem. I share his feeling, expressed in the essay that

>Bjorn

> > quoted, that some mysterious -Kingish " monster " is loose in the

>land,

> > taking over minds and institutions, and that AA is a part of it.

> >

> > Re " destroying AA " , if everything you list in your penultimate paragraph

> > happened, that would do the job pretty well. I would only add that until

> > there is a public consensus that AA is a bunch of " kooky individuals

> > choosing to gather in stuffy church basements to

> > engage in a weird neo-Xtian religion with Satan replaced by demon rum "

>that

> > the job of alerting the public to its true nature is not finished. Don't

>you

> > think that even Jack Trimpey would be satisfied with such an outcome?

> >

> > --wally

> >

> > Re: A Question About Personal Power

> >

> > Hi Bjørn

> >

> > I agree with you abt RR. It is good to see that I am not the only one

> > to think that RR is actually quite like AA in many ways - with an

> > insistence in abstinence as they approach, and a " cunning, baffling "

> > sounding Beast which is a permanent part of you speaking to you with

> > an Addictive Voice to lead you astray. Trimpey's hype is frankly

> > embarrassing (even by US standards) with " All Recovery groups

> > cancelled " announcements and such alike. Just because AA is a

> > crock it does not mean *all* recovery groups are a crock; support

> > groups can be very useful to help ppl with all manner of problems.

> > Also, he has declared out and out war on AA, a wish to destroy it it

> > would seem.

> >

> > I of course cant say what everybody's views are here, but the

> > inmpression I get is that nobody here wants to *destroy* AA. Here

> > we're interested in things like abolishing AA coercion, combatting

> > its

> > mind control techniques for our own benefit, alerting other ppl to

> > these techniques and to the truth abt it, such as its obviously

> > religious nature, and the almost non-existence of scientific support

> > for it and the considerable support for the view it is largely

> > useless

> > and may even be damaging, and to the existence of alternatives,

> > including quitting or cutting down all by one's self.

> >

> > If these goals are achieved then I expect few of us here would object

> > to kooky individuals choosing to gather in stuffy church basements to

> > engage in a weird neo-Xtian religion with Satan replaced by demon rum.

> >

> > P.

> >

> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> > High rates giving you headaches? The 0% APR Introductory Rate from

> > Capital One. 9.9% Fixed thereafter!

> > http://click./1/3010/1/_/4324/_/957323261/

> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com