Guest guest Posted May 20, 2001 Report Share Posted May 20, 2001 > >Walking off and failing to fight for one's beliefs would not effect > >any change at all. Staying and pretending to " get it " also effects > >no > >change. The only course of action that makes the slightest dent in > >it > >is to stay and PUSH BACK as Rita has done. > > I've pretty much tried to stay out of this one, 1)because I've been > quite busy and have gotten behind in reading all the posts and 2) > because I haven't yet formed a solid opinion on what I have managed > to read. But I did wonder when I read this, and this isn't to say > that what Rita has chosen isn't correct, what if everyone did as > has done and just " walked off " ? First, I'm not sure that is what he did, but don't know. How could that *not* effect change? > It seems to me that if the majority of people just refused to > tolerate unfair or undesireable circumstances, the people attempting > to impose those circumstances would be forced to change. I'm not > naive enough to think that everyone is necessarily in a position to > do this, of course- there are mouths to feed, bills to pay, etc. Exactly. It is so hard to stand on principle when there are people depending on you. I always think that these issues fit single people much better, but even then...I don't know. My personal opinion is that more is accomplished by staying and trying to change the rules than by leaving and they make whatever rules they want without you. IMO, former employees don't have much influence in a given organization. Maybe in a fairly isolated environment they would, but not in America. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2001 Report Share Posted May 21, 2001 I am a bit late in replying to many messages. I have a heavy schedule right now. I am not sure SPECIFICLLY where an explosion in 'spirituality' will lead. But I am sure where, in GENERAL, it must lead. We can tell that by looking at massive spiritual eruptions in past history. They have invariably led to repressive and anti-humanistic results. I will elaborate further in other posts. Re Rita - I have no objection to her law suit, and never did have. I have no problem with her describing the law suit, even over and over, on the internet. Having a further example of EAP illegalities, and violation of personal rights, is helpful. Of course, there are hundreds of examples already well known, and some of them are worse than Rita's story. What I object to is not her legal action. But legal actions are limited. Only some things are material to a law suit, and most of the background of a case is simply immaterial, as a matter of law. In this forum, as I read through back postings, noted Rita's comment on 'soul rape', and then noted her response to critics of her use of this term, I concluded that Rita had gone far beyond the specifics of her lawsuit. She has now developed an interpretation, or 'frame', for what happened to her. She has created a 'story', with a plot, a set of characters, a dynamic, and a moral. It isn't her lawsuit, but this larger picture of her experience, to which I object. Let me say, first, that Rita has informed me I have no right to criticize her story unless I 'share' my own life with the internet. Baloney. When she put her story on the net, she had to expect criticism of it. I have not offered to 'share' my private life with an AA forum, a Scientology forum, or here. My politics are pretty much what they were in 1960, and I have lived a fairly honorable life. I am now in my 60s, retired on a VERY modest income, have a few health problems, but do what I can. (By the way, all you folks who bitch about the ACLU, did YOU pay your dues this year? I did.) Rita's 'resistance' is what it is - a lawsuit. This is not to say lawsuits don't have their place. But suing somebody isn't being in the anti-Nazi underground, either. Let's keep some realism here. In the 1980s, I was in Morazan for a time, with the guerrilla force commanded by Joaquim Villalobos. I met a young woman there whose husband had been tortured and butchered by the U.S.-Salvadoran death squads. She had left her baby with her mother, left her school-teaching job, and joined the guerrillas to fight. She'd been there a year when I wandered in. My second day there, we got pinned down in a fire fight. I got so scared I thought I was gonna piss in my pants. She was second in command of the guerrilla squad, and cool and brave. SHE was a resistance fighter. Rita has a lawsuit. Let's get real. Now, what is the problem I have with Rita's larger story (but not with the lawsuit). Well, look at the master frame of it. 1) there is the evil agent - in this case the 'brainwashing' AAs at the EAP (in some versions of the myth, the evil agents are alcohol, or drugs, or food, or sex, or aliens who take you into their craft and experiment on you, or a long-ago sex molester whom you discover only by 'recovered memory', or, of course - and this is the prototype of the frame - a demon who possesses you. 2) then, there is the degrading journey down. The evil agent has you in its power. You are 'brainwashed', under its control, unable to manage your own life, (your life has become unmanageable). Rita tells us about her depression, travail, etc. (To me, since it has now been years, and since the case long ago went to the lawyers, there is just too MUCH emotion in Rita's retelling of her experience.) 3) Anyway, the journey down ends up at the 'bottom' : 'soul rape' One is almost lost. The damage is so great, one can hardly make it. 4) Then comes the 'recovery'. How does one recover? Well, for Rita, it appears to be the fellowship of persons " also-abused by AA " which is her 'higher power'. She tells her emotional story, everyone nods and says 'yup, I have been soul raped, too,' and then the recovery grows. Course, this is likely to be a LONG process. Recovery from being 'soul raped' by the demons of AA could just take a lifetime. Now, this whole story from Rita is MYTH. Behind the myth are the real political, economic and social reasons why corporations screw over workers. Where has Rita discussed these political, economic and social background factors? EAPs are contracted to screw over workers, and discipline them. If you got rid of AA tomorrow, all that would happen is they would devise some OTHER stupid ideology with which to beat workers over the head. AA is just one particular SYMPTOM of the rotten system. Rita has made AA into evil incarnate - into the 'demon' - or should I say, into 'Demon Rum'. For Rita's 'story' follows the same damn form AAs use! Rita's myth OBSCURES the facts. And her lawsuit, focused on the EAP and AA, lets the really big boys off the hook: the politicians who legalize procedures to browbeat workers, unions that are corrupt and weak, communities that have embraced reaction and in which 'progressive' and 'liberal' are now dirty words, etc. Well, in a LAWSUIT, that is ok. You don't try to explain the world in a lawsuit, you just argue the facts relevent to your case, and try to win. I have no problem with that. But if you are going to not just describe the lawsuit, but tell a story and explain, then, please, give me the facts and nothing but the facts. I want the whole, material truth. I don't want a 'soul rape' myth Pushing Rita around fits into a big picture, and in that picture, MILLIONS of people are getting smashed, most a lot worse than Rita. Rita's mythic rendering of her 'spiritual recovery from AA soul rape' hides that bigger picture in fantasy.. . Re: Spirituality... > >Walking off and failing to fight for one's beliefs would not effect > >any change at all. Staying and pretending to " get it " also effects > >no > >change. The only course of action that makes the slightest dent in > >it > >is to stay and PUSH BACK as Rita has done. > > I've pretty much tried to stay out of this one, 1)because I've been > quite busy and have gotten behind in reading all the posts and 2) > because I haven't yet formed a solid opinion on what I have managed > to read. But I did wonder when I read this, and this isn't to say > that what Rita has chosen isn't correct, what if everyone did as > has done and just " walked off " ? How could that *not* effect change? > It seems to me that if the majority of people just refused to > tolerate unfair or undesireable circumstances, the people attempting > to impose those circumstances would be forced to change. I'm not > naive enough to think that everyone is necessarily in a position to > do this, of course- there are mouths to feed, bills to pay, etc. One > of the problems I have with libertarian thinking is that, although it > makes wonderful sense to me philosophically, implementing it in any > kind of practical sense is potentially problematic for a lot of > people. But I do like the thought that people could effect change in > this way - as opposed to " whining " as calls it (I'm not saying I > agree with his use of that particular word). > > Joan > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > Spirituality is seldom given an adequate definition. > > > > > > In the medical literature, where this stuff is real hot right > now, > > you get > > > social interaction (usually measured by church attendance), > beliefs > > > (measured by verbal report), and personal practices (such as > tobacco > > and > > > alcohol avoidance) all lumped into the 'spirituality' basket. > There > > are > > > flaws with each of these criteria, though. (see Dale s, > M.D., > > The > > > Faith Factor, 1998, Viking, for a review of spirituality and > > medicine) > > > > Next week I'm having an appointment with a new health provider. > I've > > never seen this provider before and was surprised to be sent a long > > questionnaire that included the questions: " Are you involved with > a > > faith community (for example church or synagogue)? Yes No. Do > you > > have a spiritual practice? Yes. No. " > > > > I have attempted to " be spiritual " at times in my life, but it has > > never " worked. " A popular connotation of the word is that it is a > > feeling that can be separate from an " organized religion " but > looking > > back, it seems there was always some sort of organization around > it. > > Whether that could have been termed " religious " is debatable. > > > > I even went so far as to be initiated in Reiki (for a mere $120 in > > 1994) :-\. Another of the women in my session asked the " master, " > > " pardon me, but am I supposed to feel anything? " Brave soul! I > can't > > remember his answer. After attempting to use this healing several > > times, all I could conclude is that it doesn't work, at least no > more > > than simple human touch. I know that there is quite an > organization > > built around it, complete with splinter groups. There is a > tradition > > of miraculous healings with it and a rationale of why it is only > > available to the initiated. > > > > The massage therapist I went to last time had a little setup with > some > > framed pictures of " spiritual " people. There was a little booklet > > there too and I sure wish I would have nabbed it. It would have a > > page called " forgiveness " and would tell the petitioner that only > in > > perfect forgiveness can we find enlightenment. Failure to forgive > is > > just failure to recognize that there is a reason for everthing and > > that nothing in this world is ever truly bad, except for the > > interpretation that we attach to it. Truly asinine and toxic > crap! > > Oh boy, have I had a bellyful of that type of thinking. " Relax, > GOD > > is in charge " and all that... > > > > , knowing nothing about you...when I read your first post to > Rita, > > I thought you were actually advocating that the Big Book should be > > used as a tool for acceptance and that acceptance was the > only " adult " > > response to adversity. Indeed, that post was so filled with such > > heavy sarcasm I'm still not sure what you were really trying to > say. > > I have been on this list for six months or so and there are many > > others who are new here too. I think that you do have much > > information and sources--your method of presenting them seems a bit > > heavy-handed however. > > > > If you take the postion that spirituality, especially the 12-step > > variety is a dangerous precursor to...(I'm still not clear on > what)... > > then Rita's stand at work is explary. Getting fired does happen to > > people - no one here said that it didn't as far as I know. [side > > note: last year an airline stewardess at Delta was fired after 13 > > years service because her urine sample was *dilute*. They had > a " zero > > tolerance " policy.] > > > > Walking off and failing to fight for one's beliefs would not effect > > any change at all. Staying and pretending to " get it " also effects > no > > change. The only course of action that makes the slightest dent in > it > > is to stay and PUSH BACK as Rita has done. > > > > I have also seen some signs that some of it is on the wane - shops > > that specialize in it closing down and more liturature critical of > > " New Age " thinking and critical of the 12-steps, of course. When I > > was heavy in the program, most of that stuff wasn't there at all. > Now > > it is gaining more visibility and there does seem to be a movement > > afoot to question the stranglehold that the various " recoveries " > have > > enjoyed. I saw a book on Amazon last night that I intend to buy > > called " Selling Serenity. " The author was a publisher of recovery > > books but has become disillusioned - as are many others. > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2001 Report Share Posted May 21, 2001 Irrational has several meanings, but none of them, I think, is the same as 'supernatural' or 'spiritual'. 'Irrational' can refer to faulty reasoning, eg, arriving at a conclusion by invalid argument. Another use of the word has to do with processes of the 'unconscious' mind, or the mind when it is working in other states than the 'awake' state. So, 'dreams' are irrational, or what we do under hypnosis, or in a trance state. But all of this is perfectly 'material'. Another use of 'irrational' is to make arrive at a synthetic or empirical conclusion with too little evidence. This is what scientists and business people do ALL the time. They work on hunches. They just plain guess. One neat study of a lab - I think it was the Bell Lab - showed that the scientists who were most respected by colleagues for being creative and bright were the LEAST rational. They were the best, and bravest, guessers 'Spirituality' is best thought of as a form of thinking which posits a non-natural, 'spiritual' plane of existence, IMHO. Re: Spirituality... > > > > > > > How about this as a definition: Spirituality is a set of [alleged] > > internal > > > rewards that can be obtained only by holding an irrational belief > system. > > > > > > It seems to me that that definition fairly characterises how the word is > > > used these days. > > > > > > Dropping all pretense at objectivity, I think the whole thing is a big > con > > > game to get people to go along with a lot of nonsense :-) > > > > > > It is better to quantify than to define, however. Therefore I propose > the > > > following as Wally's First Law of Spirituality: A person's Spirituality > is > > > directly proportional to the Absurdity of his beliefs, multiplied by the > > > Sincerity with which he believes. > > > > > > --wally > [snip] > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2001 Report Share Posted May 21, 2001 > > It seems to me that if the majority of people just refused to > > tolerate unfair or undesireable circumstances, the people attempting > > to impose those circumstances would be forced to change. I'm not > > naive enough to think that everyone is necessarily in a position to > > do this, of course- there are mouths to feed, bills to pay, etc. > > Exactly. It is so hard to stand on principle when there are people > depending on you. I always think that these issues fit single people > much better, but even then...I don't know. My personal opinion is > that more is accomplished by staying and trying to change the rules > than by leaving and they make whatever rules they want without you. > IMO, former employees don't have much influence in a given > organization. > ---------------- That's true. But another point to consider is that leaving a job because of dangerous or plain wrong working conditions simply guarantees that somebody else will take your place in the exact same conditions. There is a HUGE difference between leaving a job because the work is personally unappealing (and the person after you might well like that type of work) and leaving a job because workers are oppressed and/or working in dangerous conditions. There have certainly been cases in the past where workers walked off the job en masse and forced the bosses to make changes -- it's called a strike. Consider the Triangle Shirtwaist Company. Prior to 1912, any individual worker objecting to the excessive hours, poor lighting and ventilation, locked exits, etc. was told " So quit if you don't like it " -- and if she/he did, another person " gratefully " took her place. After the fire in the sewing room (which was locked to prevent those " lazy " workers from taking breaks or leaving early) that killed 146 employees, the Garment Workers Union was organized and via strikes, got conditions improved. But workers did not join together and walk off en masse UNTIL 146 people perished! If a couple of workers had been able to secure an attorney and get the media's attention, etc., before the fatal fire, conditions might have been improved and the fire prevented. It is frankly ludicrous to imagine that railroad workers are going to walk off and shut down the railroad because of an obnoxious and unconstitutional drug/alcohol policy. Legal action by individual workers on behalf of, as the phrase went in my legal papers, " all employees similarly situated " , is the ONLY way to effect change. I actually don't disagree with that the coercive EAP policy on my railroad is part of a " bigger picture " of obnoxious and controlling managerial policies, and state policies for that matter. But I fail to see where the " well leave the job and don't be part of the system " thing fits in with that. The " system " as a whole will not change either way, but in the second option nothing changes at all even on a smaller level. Why is that better? ~Rita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2001 Report Share Posted May 21, 2001 Rita, I agree. I should have been more specific - I was talking about coerced 12-step, not the other issues that you mentioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2001 Report Share Posted May 21, 2001 Have you lost your mind, ? When did I ever demand that you " share your life " on the Internet?? And when did I ever in any way say that I myself was " brainwashed " , or that AA was the enemy?? You have valid points to make about the " big picture " , but you completely lose credibility when you fictionalize my posts and slam me via strawman (strawwoman?) arguments. I first of all did not come up with the phrase " soul-rape " -- it was Tommy's phrase -- I borrowed it for exactly one second and indeed kept it in quotes, indicating that it was a borrowed wording and in fact is a stronger phrase than I would normally use. Secondly, I borrowed the phrase only to describe the ATTEMPTS by my EAP to get me to believe, or pretend to believe, in their worldview and ideology. I actually never believed in 12- step/ " disease " ideology for one second -- so how could I have been " brainwashed " ?? Third, I was never " abused " by anyone in AA -- surprisingly perhaps to some, several people at the AA meetings I was required to attend wished me luck with my lawsuit (of course they were probably unaware that the suit was based on AA being religious and the coerced attendance being an Establishment Clause violation) -- they understood I had no alcohol dependency and for that reason were sympathetic toward my objections to being there. I have no reason to assume that my EAP personnel are " alcoholics " or AA members. I actually agree with you (but you seem to have your head too far up your Tuchis right now to realize it) that managerial policies of my company are the actual enemy -- and the fact is that our EAP is not independent, not legitimate even in the world of EAP's itself -- they are unabashedly part of company management, and allowed disciplinary powers over employees, unrestricted access to their records, etc. As such the problem is the power structure of my company, and the power accorded to our EAP - - it becomes irrelevant whether or not they themselves are members of 12-step groups -- the point is that they have the power, and enjoy having the power, to discipline employees for not dancing to their own fantasized tune of " recovery " . My use of the admittedly strong phrase " soul-rape " refers to the punishments meted out to me for my " non-compliant " BELIEFS. The truth of the matter is, I am still being harassed for my non- acquiescence to the company " higher powers " -- I am still required, 3 years after settling my suit, to submit to weekly drug/alcohol tests and periodic Inquisitions by the EAP goons. I have been tested and examined approximately 7 times longer than anyone else who has gone through our EAP program, and am contemplating further legal action. It is NOT over, and I am NOT " stuck in the past " nor struggling to " recover " from my past experience -- and AA is not the enemy here!! My various legal actions, as well as educating other employees, is putting a dent in the power structure of this railroad, on a small scale, the only scale that my circumstances permit me to affect. The more they harass me, the more I know I'm sticking in their craw. I'm enjoying the fight, despite the stress it causes. Discard your insulting straw-woman flames, and listen to what I'm actually saying, . OK? ~Rita > > Re Rita - I have no objection to her law suit, and never did have. I have > no problem with her describing the law suit, even over and over, on the > internet. Having a further example of EAP illegalities, and violation of > personal rights, is helpful. Of course, there are hundreds of examples > already well known, and some of them are worse than Rita's story. > > What I object to is not her legal action. But legal actions are limited. > Only some things are material to a law suit, and most of the background of a > case is simply immaterial, as a matter of law. > > In this forum, as I read through back postings, noted Rita's comment on > 'soul rape', and then noted her response to critics of her use of this term, > I concluded that Rita had gone far beyond the specifics of her lawsuit. She > has now developed an interpretation, or 'frame', for what happened to her. > She has created a 'story', with a plot, a set of characters, a dynamic, and > a moral. It isn't her lawsuit, but this larger picture of her experience, > to which I object. > > Let me say, first, that Rita has informed me I have no right to criticize > her story unless I 'share' my own life with the internet. Baloney. When > she put her story on the net, she had to expect criticism of it. I have not > offered to 'share' my private life with an AA forum, a Scientology forum, or > here. My politics are pretty much what they were in 1960, and I have lived > a fairly honorable life. I am now in my 60s, retired on a VERY modest > income, have a few health problems, but do what I can. (By the way, all you > folks who bitch about the ACLU, did YOU pay your dues this year? I did.) > > Rita's 'resistance' is what it is - a lawsuit. This is not to say > lawsuits don't have their place. But suing somebody isn't being in the > anti-Nazi underground, either. Let's keep some realism here. In the 1980s, > I was in Morazan for a time, with the guerrilla force commanded by Joaquim > Villalobos. I met a young woman there whose husband had been tortured and > butchered by the U.S.-Salvadoran death squads. She had left her baby with > her mother, left her school-teaching job, and joined the guerrillas to > fight. She'd been there a year when I wandered in. My second day there, we > got pinned down in a fire fight. I got so scared I thought I was gonna piss > in my pants. She was second in command of the guerrilla squad, and cool and > brave. SHE was a resistance fighter. Rita has a lawsuit. Let's get real. > > Now, what is the problem I have with Rita's larger story (but not with > the lawsuit). Well, look at the master frame of it. > > 1) there is the evil agent - in this case the 'brainwashing' AAs at the > EAP (in some versions of the myth, the evil agents are alcohol, or drugs, > or food, or sex, or aliens who take you into their craft and experiment on > you, or a long-ago sex molester whom you discover only by 'recovered > memory', or, of course - and this is the prototype of the frame - a demon > who possesses you. > > 2) then, there is the degrading journey down. The evil agent has you in > its power. You are 'brainwashed', under its control, unable to manage your > own life, (your life has become unmanageable). Rita tells us about her > depression, travail, etc. (To me, since it has now been years, and since > the case long ago went to the lawyers, there is just too MUCH emotion in > Rita's retelling of her experience.) > > 3) Anyway, the journey down ends up at the 'bottom' : 'soul rape' One is > almost lost. The damage is so great, one can hardly make it. > > 4) Then comes the 'recovery'. How does one recover? Well, for Rita, it > appears to be the fellowship of persons " also-abused by AA " which is her > 'higher power'. She tells her emotional story, everyone nods and says 'yup, > I have been soul raped, too,' and then the recovery grows. Course, this is > likely to be a LONG process. Recovery from being 'soul raped' by the demons > of AA could just take a lifetime. > > Now, this whole story from Rita is MYTH. Behind the myth are the real > political, economic and social reasons why corporations screw over workers. > Where has Rita discussed these political, economic and social background > factors? EAPs are contracted to screw over workers, and discipline them. > If you got rid of AA tomorrow, all that would happen is they would devise > some OTHER stupid ideology with which to beat workers over the head. AA is > just one particular SYMPTOM of the rotten system. Rita has made AA into > evil incarnate - into the 'demon' - or should I say, into 'Demon Rum'. For > Rita's 'story' follows the same damn form AAs use! > > Rita's myth OBSCURES the facts. And her lawsuit, focused on the EAP and > AA, lets the really big boys off the hook: the politicians who legalize > procedures to browbeat workers, unions that are corrupt and weak, > communities that have embraced reaction and in which 'progressive' and > 'liberal' are now dirty words, etc. Well, in a LAWSUIT, that is ok. You > don't try to explain the world in a lawsuit, you just argue the facts > relevent to your case, and try to win. I have no problem with that. But if > you are going to not just describe the lawsuit, but tell a story and > explain, then, please, give me the facts and nothing but the facts. I want > the whole, material truth. I don't want a 'soul rape' myth > > Pushing Rita around fits into a big picture, and in that picture, MILLIONS > of people are getting smashed, most a lot worse than Rita. Rita's mythic > rendering of her 'spiritual recovery from AA soul rape' hides that bigger > picture in fantasy. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2001 Report Share Posted May 21, 2001 paul diener wrote: > Rita's myth OBSCURES the facts. And her lawsuit, focused on the EAP and > AA, lets the really big boys off the hook: the politicians who legalize > procedures to browbeat workers, unions that are corrupt and weak, > communities that have embraced reaction and in which 'progressive' and > 'liberal' are now dirty words, etc. , Living in Northern California, just 45 minutes from " The People's Republic of Berkeley " and San Francisco, I have to say the 'progressive' and 'liberal' have become dirty words to me. They are almost all " in recovery " from one disease or another, and their idea of benevolence is free coerced 12-Step " treatment. " Very odd for fascist Buchman's " spirituality " has taken over the liberal-left bay area without a word in opposition. Ken Ragge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2001 Report Share Posted May 21, 2001 --- paul diener wrote: > Irrational has several meanings, but none of them, I think, is the > same as > 'supernatural' or 'spiritual'. > > 'Irrational' can refer to faulty reasoning, eg, arriving at a > conclusion > by invalid argument. Another use of the word has to do with > processes of > the 'unconscious' mind, or the mind when it is working in other > states than > the 'awake' state. So, 'dreams' are irrational, or what we do under > hypnosis, or in a trance state. But all of this is perfectly > 'material'. > > Another use of 'irrational' is to make arrive at a synthetic or > empirical > conclusion with too little evidence. This is what scientists and > business > people do ALL the time. They work on hunches. They just plain > guess. One > neat study of a lab - I think it was the Bell Lab - showed that the > scientists who were most respected by colleagues for being creative > and > bright were the LEAST rational. They were the best, and bravest, > guessers Ok, with that in mind, you wrote: > 'Spirituality' is best thought of as a form of thinking which > posits a > non-natural, 'spiritual' plane of existence, IMHO. I agree with you that the concept of spirituality is a form of thinking. But I have to say that I think you have very effectively convinced me that spirituality==irrationality. Let me explain. You said, " 'Spirituality' is best thought of as a form of thinking... " Thinking. Reason. Conclusions based on evidence. It is a product of our mind and is therefore natural, not supernatural. The 'spiritual' plane of existence might be a great name for one of the 'levels' or 'planes' of our complex minds, but is wholly contained within it. -Cal __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2001 Report Share Posted May 21, 2001 Rational thinking is only one kind of thinking. See Harding and , Learning and Cognition, 1997, if you want to look at a great recent text. Spiritual beliefs are like belief in a unicorn, or a child's belief in Santa Claus. The ideas are real, and the person may have a good reason to accept them. (Why should a child distrust his/her parents when told about Santa, since they have proved to be very trustworthy in the past?) But unicorns, and Santa, and spiritual beings are myths. They do not have referents in the material, natural world (which is why we say spirits are super-natural beings). Myths can serve as powerful social mobilizers. They simplify reality, and they usually give us easy answers to complex problems. We need to look at the values the myths express. Myths of the 'spiritual' always put the 'unseen order' before humanity. Often they promote selfish interests - of a group, or a nation - against the general human interest. People embrace myths because it serves their interest. Germans were not brainwashed into accepting Nazi ideology; most accepted it because it promised to make THEM better off. What happened to Jews was secondary. Most Americans accept the myth of 'god and country' because it benefits them and theirs. Colombians come secondarily, if at all. If you are a narcissist with a narrow interests, a myth is preferible to greater knowledge. More knowledge would only mess up what you already know you want to do. It would just get in the way, and maybe make you feel bad. If you want a powerful Germany, and Hitler is giving you that, then just believing and going along is easier. If you want a wealthy America, then trusting the business elite makes a lot of sense. A lot of myths exist to prove how good the business system of the U.S. is for the whole world. Ascribing to myth always involves choice. No one's brain is ever 'washed'. The motive for embracing myth is to find easy answers, to escape hard knowledge: " For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow. " (Ecclesiastes 1:18). But knowledge also is what makes us uniquely human. The human condition, since we 'ate of the tree of knowledge' - that is, became language-using creatures - has always involved a choice. We can try to know more, or we can try to Escape From Freedom (E. Fromm). Myth is one way in which people CHOOSE to try to escape from freedom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2001 Report Share Posted May 21, 2001 I don't disagree with your critique of Berkeley, etc. I had a conflict with Room on Addict-L a while back about his interpretation of the Berkeley 12-Steppers. But they are not really traditional liberals. They are 'left fascists', or, to be more technically precise, they are espousing a variety of left proto-fascism. Remember, fascism was a national SOCIALISM wherever it occurred.. I am not a 'liberal', of course. Liberalism was very flawed in Weimar, and it was very flawed in the U.S. in the 1950s and 1960s. But it is still frightening to see liberalism being attacked and overthrown, and something even worse arising. I know you are time pressed, but you really should take the time to read Sternhell. Also, Emilio Gentile's recent book, The Sacralization of Politics in Fascist Italy. Genitile had a shorter paper in 1990, " Fascism as Political Religion, " Jour of Contemporary History, 25, (2-3): 229-251. There seems to be a pretty right-wing bias in this whole forum, Ken. Just how right-wing are you, personally?. I will take some time when possible and respond to you 'brain wash' stuff. IMHO, you are very far away from what the literature tells us. Oh, also look at, K. Vondung, 1979, " Spiritual Revolution and Magic: Speculation and Political Action in National Socialism, " Modern Age, 23, 394-402. His book, unfortunately, is in German, which I don't have (my lazy student days betray me yet again). ciao Re: Re: Spirituality... > > > paul diener wrote: > > > Rita's myth OBSCURES the facts. And her lawsuit, focused on the EAP and > > AA, lets the really big boys off the hook: the politicians who legalize > > procedures to browbeat workers, unions that are corrupt and weak, > > communities that have embraced reaction and in which 'progressive' and > > 'liberal' are now dirty words, etc. > > , > > Living in Northern California, just 45 minutes from " The People's Republic of > Berkeley " and San Francisco, I have to say the 'progressive' and 'liberal' have > become dirty words to me. They are almost all " in recovery " from one disease or > another, and their idea of benevolence is free coerced 12-Step " treatment. " > Very odd for fascist Buchman's " spirituality " has taken over the > liberal-left bay area without a word in opposition. > > Ken Ragge > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2001 Report Share Posted May 21, 2001 were you a mercenary?Were you a member of some kind of foreign military outfit? In my opinion, although I don't think it is the law, fighting in a foreign Army is tantamount to renouncing your citizenship.Anyway, since you have mentioned your combat service overseas, I would like to hear more about it, if possible. Mike. Re: Spirituality... > > > > >Walking off and failing to fight for one's beliefs would not effect > > >any change at all. Staying and pretending to " get it " also effects > > >no > > >change. The only course of action that makes the slightest dent in > > >it > > >is to stay and PUSH BACK as Rita has done. > > > > I've pretty much tried to stay out of this one, 1)because I've been > > quite busy and have gotten behind in reading all the posts and 2) > > because I haven't yet formed a solid opinion on what I have managed > > to read. But I did wonder when I read this, and this isn't to say > > that what Rita has chosen isn't correct, what if everyone did as > > has done and just " walked off " ? How could that *not* effect change? > > It seems to me that if the majority of people just refused to > > tolerate unfair or undesireable circumstances, the people attempting > > to impose those circumstances would be forced to change. I'm not > > naive enough to think that everyone is necessarily in a position to > > do this, of course- there are mouths to feed, bills to pay, etc. One > > of the problems I have with libertarian thinking is that, although it > > makes wonderful sense to me philosophically, implementing it in any > > kind of practical sense is potentially problematic for a lot of > > people. But I do like the thought that people could effect change in > > this way - as opposed to " whining " as calls it (I'm not saying I > > agree with his use of that particular word). > > > > Joan > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > Spirituality is seldom given an adequate definition. > > > > > > > > In the medical literature, where this stuff is real hot right > > now, > > > you get > > > > social interaction (usually measured by church attendance), > > beliefs > > > > (measured by verbal report), and personal practices (such as > > tobacco > > > and > > > > alcohol avoidance) all lumped into the 'spirituality' basket. > > There > > > are > > > > flaws with each of these criteria, though. (see Dale s, > > M.D., > > > The > > > > Faith Factor, 1998, Viking, for a review of spirituality and > > > medicine) > > > > > > Next week I'm having an appointment with a new health provider. > > I've > > > never seen this provider before and was surprised to be sent a long > > > questionnaire that included the questions: " Are you involved with > > a > > > faith community (for example church or synagogue)? Yes No. Do > > you > > > have a spiritual practice? Yes. No. " > > > > > > I have attempted to " be spiritual " at times in my life, but it has > > > never " worked. " A popular connotation of the word is that it is a > > > feeling that can be separate from an " organized religion " but > > looking > > > back, it seems there was always some sort of organization around > > it. > > > Whether that could have been termed " religious " is debatable. > > > > > > I even went so far as to be initiated in Reiki (for a mere $120 in > > > 1994) :-\. Another of the women in my session asked the " master, " > > > " pardon me, but am I supposed to feel anything? " Brave soul! I > > can't > > > remember his answer. After attempting to use this healing several > > > times, all I could conclude is that it doesn't work, at least no > > more > > > than simple human touch. I know that there is quite an > > organization > > > built around it, complete with splinter groups. There is a > > tradition > > > of miraculous healings with it and a rationale of why it is only > > > available to the initiated. > > > > > > The massage therapist I went to last time had a little setup with > > some > > > framed pictures of " spiritual " people. There was a little booklet > > > there too and I sure wish I would have nabbed it. It would have a > > > page called " forgiveness " and would tell the petitioner that only > > in > > > perfect forgiveness can we find enlightenment. Failure to forgive > > is > > > just failure to recognize that there is a reason for everthing and > > > that nothing in this world is ever truly bad, except for the > > > interpretation that we attach to it. Truly asinine and toxic > > crap! > > > Oh boy, have I had a bellyful of that type of thinking. " Relax, > > GOD > > > is in charge " and all that... > > > > > > , knowing nothing about you...when I read your first post to > > Rita, > > > I thought you were actually advocating that the Big Book should be > > > used as a tool for acceptance and that acceptance was the > > only " adult " > > > response to adversity. Indeed, that post was so filled with such > > > heavy sarcasm I'm still not sure what you were really trying to > > say. > > > I have been on this list for six months or so and there are many > > > others who are new here too. I think that you do have much > > > information and sources--your method of presenting them seems a bit > > > heavy-handed however. > > > > > > If you take the postion that spirituality, especially the 12-step > > > variety is a dangerous precursor to...(I'm still not clear on > > what)... > > > then Rita's stand at work is explary. Getting fired does happen to > > > people - no one here said that it didn't as far as I know. [side > > > note: last year an airline stewardess at Delta was fired after 13 > > > years service because her urine sample was *dilute*. They had > > a " zero > > > tolerance " policy.] > > > > > > Walking off and failing to fight for one's beliefs would not effect > > > any change at all. Staying and pretending to " get it " also effects > > no > > > change. The only course of action that makes the slightest dent in > > it > > > is to stay and PUSH BACK as Rita has done. > > > > > > I have also seen some signs that some of it is on the wane - shops > > > that specialize in it closing down and more liturature critical of > > > " New Age " thinking and critical of the 12-steps, of course. When I > > > was heavy in the program, most of that stuff wasn't there at all. > > Now > > > it is gaining more visibility and there does seem to be a movement > > > afoot to question the stranglehold that the various " recoveries " > > have > > > enjoyed. I saw a book on Amazon last night that I intend to buy > > > called " Selling Serenity. " The author was a publisher of recovery > > > books but has become disillusioned - as are many others. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2001 Report Share Posted May 21, 2001 Rita 1) You admit that my point about larger context is valid. (If that is so, perhaps you might provide more of the larger context of your case - eg, the political and economic background). 2) You admit the term 'soul rape' was inappropriate, and that the whole image of 'recovery from soul rape' is misleading. (Some who came rushing to your defense don't admit this). 3) You admit you were NEVER brainwashed. You seem to imply that many AAs you met, at least those who wished you well, were not 'brainwashed' either. (I don't think any AAs, ever, are 'brainwashed'. Influenced, coerced, lied to, persuaded, yes. . . but never 'brainwashed.) 1) I admit that your lawsuit has merit 2) I admit it is a worthwhile activity, if a limited one, to oppose EAP/12-Step indoctrination - though this begs the question, who HIRED the EAP, and why. 3) I admit that my argument was unnecessarily harsh. It should have been constructed more politely. I apologize for that. 4) I admit that I was responding as much, perhaps more, to the general tenor of a number of other posts I read at the same sitting when I read yours. The overall impression I got was one of over-emotionality, and mythic explanation. The 'recovery frame' seemed broadly in use. I don't think my basic point is wrong, though my harsh rhetoric towards you was ungentlemanly. The " AA is an evil agent/we were 'soul raped'/ recovery lies in sharing our hurts and emotions " is, in my opinion, just 12-Stepping redux. Perhaps you might comment on that. Re: Spirituality... > > Have you lost your mind, ? When did I ever demand that > you " share your life " on the Internet?? And when did I ever in any > way say that I myself was " brainwashed " , or that AA was the enemy?? > > You have valid points to make about the " big picture " , but you > completely lose credibility when you fictionalize my posts and slam > me via strawman (strawwoman?) arguments. > > I first of all did not come up with the phrase " soul-rape " -- it > was Tommy's phrase -- I borrowed it for exactly one second and indeed > kept it in quotes, indicating that it was a borrowed wording and in > fact is a stronger phrase than I would normally use. > > Secondly, I borrowed the phrase only to describe the ATTEMPTS by > my EAP to get me to believe, or pretend to believe, in their > worldview and ideology. I actually never believed in 12- > step/ " disease " ideology for one second -- so how could I have > been " brainwashed " ?? > > Third, I was never " abused " by anyone in AA -- surprisingly > perhaps to some, several people at the AA meetings I was required to > attend wished me luck with my lawsuit (of course they were probably > unaware that the suit was based on AA being religious and the coerced > attendance being an Establishment Clause violation) -- they > understood I had no alcohol dependency and for that reason were > sympathetic toward my objections to being there. > > I have no reason to assume that my EAP personnel > are " alcoholics " or AA members. I actually agree with you (but you > seem to have your head too far up your Tuchis right now to realize > it) that managerial policies of my company are the actual enemy -- > and the fact is that our EAP is not independent, not legitimate even > in the world of EAP's itself -- they are unabashedly part of company > management, and allowed disciplinary powers over employees, > unrestricted access to their records, etc. As such the problem is > the power structure of my company, and the power accorded to our EAP - > - it becomes irrelevant whether or not they themselves are members of > 12-step groups -- the point is that they have the power, and enjoy > having the power, to discipline employees for not dancing to their > own fantasized tune of " recovery " . My use of the admittedly strong > phrase " soul-rape " refers to the punishments meted out to me for > my " non-compliant " BELIEFS. > > The truth of the matter is, I am still being harassed for my non- > acquiescence to the company " higher powers " -- I am still required, 3 > years after settling my suit, to submit to weekly drug/alcohol tests > and periodic Inquisitions by the EAP goons. I have been tested and > examined approximately 7 times longer than anyone else who has gone > through our EAP program, and am contemplating further legal action. > It is NOT over, and I am NOT " stuck in the past " nor struggling > to " recover " from my past experience -- and AA is not the enemy here!! > > My various legal actions, as well as educating other employees, > is putting a dent in the power structure of this railroad, on a small > scale, the only scale that my circumstances permit me to affect. The > more they harass me, the more I know I'm sticking in their craw. I'm > enjoying the fight, despite the stress it causes. > > > Discard your insulting straw-woman flames, and listen to what > I'm actually saying, . OK? > > ~Rita > > > > > > > > Re Rita - I have no objection to her law suit, and never did > have. I have > > no problem with her describing the law suit, even over and over, on > the > > internet. Having a further example of EAP illegalities, and > violation of > > personal rights, is helpful. Of course, there are hundreds of > examples > > already well known, and some of them are worse than Rita's story. > > > > What I object to is not her legal action. But legal actions are > limited. > > Only some things are material to a law suit, and most of the > background of a > > case is simply immaterial, as a matter of law. > > > > In this forum, as I read through back postings, noted Rita's > comment on > > 'soul rape', and then noted her response to critics of her use of > this term, > > I concluded that Rita had gone far beyond the specifics of her > lawsuit. She > > has now developed an interpretation, or 'frame', for what happened > to her. > > She has created a 'story', with a plot, a set of characters, a > dynamic, and > > a moral. It isn't her lawsuit, but this larger picture of her > experience, > > to which I object. > > > > Let me say, first, that Rita has informed me I have no right to > criticize > > her story unless I 'share' my own life with the internet. > Baloney. When > > she put her story on the net, she had to expect criticism of it. I > have not > > offered to 'share' my private life with an AA forum, a Scientology > forum, or > > here. My politics are pretty much what they were in 1960, and I > have lived > > a fairly honorable life. I am now in my 60s, retired on a VERY > modest > > income, have a few health problems, but do what I can. (By the way, > all you > > folks who bitch about the ACLU, did YOU pay your dues this year? I > did.) > > > > Rita's 'resistance' is what it is - a lawsuit. This is not to > say > > lawsuits don't have their place. But suing somebody isn't being in > the > > anti-Nazi underground, either. Let's keep some realism here. In > the 1980s, > > I was in Morazan for a time, with the guerrilla force commanded by > Joaquim > > Villalobos. I met a young woman there whose husband had been > tortured and > > butchered by the U.S.-Salvadoran death squads. She had left her > baby with > > her mother, left her school-teaching job, and joined the guerrillas > to > > fight. She'd been there a year when I wandered in. My second day > there, we > > got pinned down in a fire fight. I got so scared I thought I was > gonna piss > > in my pants. She was second in command of the guerrilla squad, and > cool and > > brave. SHE was a resistance fighter. Rita has a lawsuit. Let's > get real. > > > > Now, what is the problem I have with Rita's larger story (but > not with > > the lawsuit). Well, look at the master frame of it. > > > > 1) there is the evil agent - in this case the 'brainwashing' AAs > at the > > EAP (in some versions of the myth, the evil agents are alcohol, or > drugs, > > or food, or sex, or aliens who take you into their craft and > experiment on > > you, or a long-ago sex molester whom you discover only by 'recovered > > memory', or, of course - and this is the prototype of the frame - a > demon > > who possesses you. > > > > 2) then, there is the degrading journey down. The evil agent > has you in > > its power. You are 'brainwashed', under its control, unable to > manage your > > own life, (your life has become unmanageable). Rita tells us about > her > > depression, travail, etc. (To me, since it has now been years, and > since > > the case long ago went to the lawyers, there is just too MUCH > emotion in > > Rita's retelling of her experience.) > > > > 3) Anyway, the journey down ends up at the 'bottom' : 'soul > rape' One is > > almost lost. The damage is so great, one can hardly make it. > > > > 4) Then comes the 'recovery'. How does one recover? Well, for > Rita, it > > appears to be the fellowship of persons " also-abused by AA " which > is her > > 'higher power'. She tells her emotional story, everyone nods and > says 'yup, > > I have been soul raped, too,' and then the recovery grows. Course, > this is > > likely to be a LONG process. Recovery from being 'soul raped' by > the demons > > of AA could just take a lifetime. > > > > Now, this whole story from Rita is MYTH. Behind the myth are the > real > > political, economic and social reasons why corporations screw over > workers. > > Where has Rita discussed these political, economic and social > background > > factors? EAPs are contracted to screw over workers, and discipline > them. > > If you got rid of AA tomorrow, all that would happen is they would > devise > > some OTHER stupid ideology with which to beat workers over the > head. AA is > > just one particular SYMPTOM of the rotten system. Rita has made > AA into > > evil incarnate - into the 'demon' - or should I say, into 'Demon > Rum'. For > > Rita's 'story' follows the same damn form AAs use! > > > > Rita's myth OBSCURES the facts. And her lawsuit, focused on the > EAP and > > AA, lets the really big boys off the hook: the politicians who > legalize > > procedures to browbeat workers, unions that are corrupt and weak, > > communities that have embraced reaction and in which 'progressive' > and > > 'liberal' are now dirty words, etc. Well, in a LAWSUIT, that is > ok. You > > don't try to explain the world in a lawsuit, you just argue the > facts > > relevent to your case, and try to win. I have no problem with > that. But if > > you are going to not just describe the lawsuit, but tell a story and > > explain, then, please, give me the facts and nothing but the > facts. I want > > the whole, material truth. I don't want a 'soul rape' myth > > > > Pushing Rita around fits into a big picture, and in that picture, > MILLIONS > > of people are getting smashed, most a lot worse than Rita. Rita's > mythic > > rendering of her 'spiritual recovery from AA soul rape' hides that > bigger > > picture in fantasy. > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2001 Report Share Posted May 21, 2001 Rita I never suggested you should leave the job. I know you would not be willing to do that, especially given your family situation. I accept your lesser course of action as just that, lesser - but still worth doing. I criticized the fact that I have not seen comment by you relating your problems to the larger context of political and management repression. I criticized the 'soul rape' image, and the explanatory 'frame' that comes with that. I criticized your glorification of reformism, as if reformism were the only and best way to oppose injustice. Reformism fits YOUR agenda, and your legal case MAY do some small good for others. Maybe. But there are bigger heros, risking much more than you are, who are fighting against the Drug Warriors. It wouldn't hurt you to acknowledge that, or show a bit more modesty about your own limited contribution. Lawsuits won't reverse the 'conservative revolution', the War On Drugs, or the War in Colombia. Lawsuits follow precedents, and precedent is set by the Supreme Court. Take a good look at the Supreme Court. Is THAT to whom you are going to address all your your hopes and appeals. There were a lot of people who put their faith in the system, and in the courts, in the 1930s. They learned that did not work in the end. Re: Spirituality... > > > > > It seems to me that if the majority of people just refused to > > > tolerate unfair or undesireable circumstances, the people attempting > > > to impose those circumstances would be forced to change. I'm not > > > naive enough to think that everyone is necessarily in a position to > > > do this, of course- there are mouths to feed, bills to pay, etc. > > > > Exactly. It is so hard to stand on principle when there are people > > depending on you. I always think that these issues fit single people > > much better, but even then...I don't know. My personal opinion is > > that more is accomplished by staying and trying to change the rules > > than by leaving and they make whatever rules they want without you. > > IMO, former employees don't have much influence in a given > > organization. > > > ---------------- > > That's true. But another point to consider is that leaving a job because of dangerous or plain wrong working conditions simply guarantees that somebody else will take your place in the exact same conditions. There is a HUGE difference between leaving a job because the work is personally unappealing (and the person after you might well like that type of work) and leaving a job because workers are oppressed and/or working in dangerous conditions. > > There have certainly been cases in the past where workers walked off the job en masse and forced the bosses to make changes -- it's called a strike. Consider the Triangle Shirtwaist Company. Prior to 1912, any individual worker objecting to the excessive hours, poor lighting and ventilation, locked exits, etc. was told " So quit if you don't like it " -- and if she/he did, another person " gratefully " took her place. After the fire in the sewing room (which was locked to prevent those " lazy " workers from taking breaks or leaving early) that killed 146 employees, the Garment Workers Union was organized and via strikes, got conditions improved. > > But workers did not join together and walk off en masse UNTIL 146 people perished! If a couple of workers had been able to secure an attorney and get the media's attention, etc., before the fatal fire, conditions might have been improved and the fire prevented. > > It is frankly ludicrous to imagine that railroad workers are going to walk off and shut down the railroad because of an obnoxious and unconstitutional drug/alcohol policy. Legal action by individual workers on behalf of, as the phrase went in my legal papers, " all employees similarly situated " , is the ONLY way to effect change. > > I actually don't disagree with that the coercive EAP policy on my railroad is part of a " bigger picture " of obnoxious and controlling managerial policies, and state policies for that matter. But I fail to see where the " well leave the job and don't be part of the system " thing fits in with that. The " system " as a whole will not change either way, but in the second option nothing changes at all even on a smaller level. Why is that better? > > ~Rita > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2001 Report Share Posted May 21, 2001 (and I know I invite his wrath when I say this) is a one-trick pony. He seems to believe that his cause is the only worthy cause. And yet he is so anti-12-step that I can't understand his stance in your case. > That's true. But another point to consider is that leaving a job because of dangerous or plain wrong working conditions simply guarantees that somebody else will take your place in the exact same conditions. There is a HUGE difference between leaving a job because the work is personally unappealing (and the person after you might well like that type of work) and leaving a job because workers are oppressed and/or working in dangerous conditions. > > There have certainly been cases in the past where workers walked off the job en masse and forced the bosses to make changes -- it's called a strike. Consider the Triangle Shirtwaist Company. Prior to 1912, any individual worker objecting to the excessive hours, poor lighting and ventilation, locked exits, etc. was told " So quit if you don't like it " -- and if she/he did, another person " gratefully " took her place. After the fire in the sewing room (which was locked to prevent those " lazy " workers from taking breaks or leaving early) that killed 146 employees, the Garment Workers Union was organized and via strikes, got conditions improved. > > But workers did not join together and walk off en masse UNTIL 146 people perished! If a couple of workers had been able to secure an attorney and get the media's attention, etc., before the fatal fire, conditions might have been improved and the fire prevented. > > It is frankly ludicrous to imagine that railroad workers are going to walk off and shut down the railroad because of an obnoxious and unconstitutional drug/alcohol policy. Legal action by individual workers on behalf of, as the phrase went in my legal papers, " all employees similarly situated " , is the ONLY way to effect change. > > I actually don't disagree with that the coercive EAP policy on my railroad is part of a " bigger picture " of obnoxious and controlling managerial policies, and state policies for that matter. But I fail to see where the " well leave the job and don't be part of the system " thing fits in with that. The " system " as a whole will not change either way, but in the second option nothing changes at all even on a smaller level. Why is that better? > > ~Rita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2001 Report Share Posted May 21, 2001 , Rita has certainly been emotional about her experience, and you have been emotional about yours. " Soul rape " is a metaphor, and one person who had been physically raped supported his AA experience as constituting soul rape as well. How would you react if someone made it a condition of your job that you believe certain beliefs that you do not share? I cannot speak for Rita, but I am sure that she knows, since she is obviously intelligent, that there are others in the world who have worse travails than she does. She is not in Morazan, and there are compelling reasons for her not to go there (a son who must be thirteen by now, if I remember correctly). Why should she clean up Morazan when there are corners of her world that need cleaning? Why should she do it when there may be any number of other causes she might wish to take up if she were retired and had no family constraints? You too have your myth, , and maybe it's more mythical than Rita's. Your myth has it's evil agents, talks up your incredible courage, speaks to how difficult it was for you and how unworthy you were compared to the people you fought beside and the children that suffered. It's a giant myth, and you become very brave by relating it. You seem to believe that smaller heroes are unworthy. You appear also to believe that Rita's effort was worthless because the heartless corporations will just come up with some other instrument of torture, now that Rita's curbed the EAP evil. I do not have the impression that Rita ever intended to take on the evil corporations, the weak unions, or the political dynamic that drives them. She just wanted to do her job. , you definitely have a story with a plot, characters, a dynamic and a moral, and while Rita's is perhaps quotidian compared to yours, that is no reason she shouldn't celebrate her victory. I doubt that you will ever have a victory, having taken on the corrupt and evil South American governments. There have been corrupt and evil governments ever since people have formed governments, and I expect the trend to continue. Would Rita be better if she had lived through Dachau? Have you considered that perhaps her parents did? And that they would be happy to know that there is a world in which the evils she faces are smaller ones than the ones they faced, and perhaps ones that can be beaten? <snip> > In this forum, as I read through back postings, noted Rita's comment on > 'soul rape', and then noted her response to critics of her use of this term, > I concluded that Rita had gone far beyond the specifics of her lawsuit. She > has now developed an interpretation, or 'frame', for what happened to her. > She has created a 'story', with a plot, a set of characters, a dynamic, and > a moral. It isn't her lawsuit, but this larger picture of her experience, > to which I object. > > Let me say, first, that Rita has informed me I have no right to criticize > her story unless I 'share' my own life with the internet. Baloney. When > she put her story on the net, she had to expect criticism of it. I have not > offered to 'share' my private life with an AA forum, a Scientology forum, or > here. My politics are pretty much what they were in 1960, and I have lived > a fairly honorable life. I am now in my 60s, retired on a VERY modest > income, have a few health problems, but do what I can. (By the way, all you > folks who bitch about the ACLU, did YOU pay your dues this year? I did.) > > Rita's 'resistance' is what it is - a lawsuit. This is not to say > lawsuits don't have their place. But suing somebody isn't being in the > anti-Nazi underground, either. Let's keep some realism here. In the 1980s, > I was in Morazan for a time, with the guerrilla force commanded by Joaquim > Villalobos. I met a young woman there whose husband had been tortured and > butchered by the U.S.-Salvadoran death squads. She had left her baby with > her mother, left her school-teaching job, and joined the guerrillas to > fight. She'd been there a year when I wandered in. My second day there, we > got pinned down in a fire fight. I got so scared I thought I was gonna piss > in my pants. She was second in command of the guerrilla squad, and cool and > brave. SHE was a resistance fighter. Rita has a lawsuit. Let's get real. > > Now, what is the problem I have with Rita's larger story (but not with > the lawsuit). Well, look at the master frame of it. > > 1) there is the evil agent - in this case the 'brainwashing' AAs at the > EAP (in some versions of the myth, the evil agents are alcohol, or drugs, > or food, or sex, or aliens who take you into their craft and experiment on > you, or a long-ago sex molester whom you discover only by 'recovered > memory', or, of course - and this is the prototype of the frame - a demon > who possesses you. > > 2) then, there is the degrading journey down. The evil agent has you in > its power. You are 'brainwashed', under its control, unable to manage your > own life, (your life has become unmanageable). Rita tells us about her > depression, travail, etc. (To me, since it has now been years, and since > the case long ago went to the lawyers, there is just too MUCH emotion in > Rita's retelling of her experience.) > > 3) Anyway, the journey down ends up at the 'bottom' : 'soul rape' One is > almost lost. The damage is so great, one can hardly make it. > > 4) Then comes the 'recovery'. How does one recover? Well, for Rita, it > appears to be the fellowship of persons " also-abused by AA " which is her > 'higher power'. She tells her emotional story, everyone nods and says 'yup, > I have been soul raped, too,' and then the recovery grows. Course, this is > likely to be a LONG process. Recovery from being 'soul raped' by the demons > of AA could just take a lifetime. > > Now, this whole story from Rita is MYTH. Behind the myth are the real > political, economic and social reasons why corporations screw over workers. > Where has Rita discussed these political, economic and social background > factors? EAPs are contracted to screw over workers, and discipline them. > If you got rid of AA tomorrow, all that would happen is they would devise > some OTHER stupid ideology with which to beat workers over the head. AA is > just one particular SYMPTOM of the rotten system. Rita has made AA into > evil incarnate - into the 'demon' - or should I say, into 'Demon Rum'. For > Rita's 'story' follows the same damn form AAs use! > > Rita's myth OBSCURES the facts. And her lawsuit, focused on the EAP and > AA, lets the really big boys off the hook: the politicians who legalize > procedures to browbeat workers, unions that are corrupt and weak, > communities that have embraced reaction and in which 'progressive' and > 'liberal' are now dirty words, etc. Well, in a LAWSUIT, that is ok. You > don't try to explain the world in a lawsuit, you just argue the facts > relevent to your case, and try to win. I have no problem with that. But if > you are going to not just describe the lawsuit, but tell a story and > explain, then, please, give me the facts and nothing but the facts. I want > the whole, material truth. I don't want a 'soul rape' myth > > Pushing Rita around fits into a big picture, and in that picture, MILLIONS > of people are getting smashed, most a lot worse than Rita. Rita's mythic > rendering of her 'spiritual recovery from AA soul rape' hides that bigger > picture in fantasy.. . ----- Original Message ----- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2001 Report Share Posted May 21, 2001 Spiritedness. Now that's a word I can sink my teeth into. Spirituality, on the other hand.....no wonder 12 steppers are so neurotic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2001 Report Share Posted May 21, 2001 Your argument logically suggests that, had Rita been a German living in Germany in the 1930s, she should have just tried to do her job. After all, there have always been evil governments, so why oppose the Nazis. That is what most Germans did. Ooops. YOU could have gotten away with that in Germany. Not Rita. I wouldn't have done so well either. I am not Jewish, but they actually got to the commies first, and I would probably have qualified. But, as you say, Rita CAN play the 'I've got mine, to hell with you' game NOW, in this country. That is her choice. This is not a place for a long discussion of epistemology. But. . . . The difference between 'truth' and 'myth' has to do with how well a verbal representation corresponds with material experience. And what role 'reason' plays in the development of the model. No verbal representation ever is fully accurate, since words are not things. And, as we learn and knowledge grows, verbal representations get better and better. Truth changes. Now, I don't deny that my thinking is not always as good as it should be. We all make mistakes. But I also believe that a view of current social and political structures which takes a global view of events is today more accurate than the parochial focus you suggest. You don't, luckily, have to rely on my poor efforts to see the big picture. There are many better minds than mine working on these problems. Relating the parts to the whole gives us a truer picture than keeping our nose stuck in our bankbooks. This larger perspective isn't just another myth, it is a TRUER representation, since it is the best verbal picture of the social world we have today. Hell, even those capitalists whose stock you hold dear will tell you 'it's a global world now, baby.' The myth is that you can continue to live in your own backyard, and be unaffected. Of course, I think you know all this. You have just decided to let the higher power handle the big decisions for you. You have decided that if you agree to be powerless over the big decisions, then they will run the program so that it works to your benefit. That is the 'miracle of faith' that undergirds 12-step, and other, leaps of faith. Trusting the higher powers to do you good. I never said I was heroic, by the way. I said I have met heros. And witnessed victims, too. I suggest when we discuss the drug war, truth demands that we note all the fronts on which that war is being fought. You prefer, it seems, to remain ignorant of those aspects of the drug war that don't directly touch your life: " It is not enough that you understand in what ignorance humans as well as animals live; you must also acquire the WILL to ignorance. You need to grasp that without this kind of ignorance life itself would be impossible, that it is a condition under which alone the living thing can preserve itself and PROSPER; a great, firm dome of ignorance must encompass you " F. Nietzsche, 1968, The Will To Power, Vintage, p. 609 ---- Original Message ----- To: <12-step-free > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 6:18 PM Subject: Re: Spirituality... > , Rita has certainly been emotional about her experience, and you > have been emotional about yours. " Soul rape " is a metaphor, and one > person who had been physically raped supported his AA experience as > constituting soul rape as well. > > How would you react if someone made it a condition of your job that > you believe certain beliefs that you do not share? > > I cannot speak for Rita, but I am sure that she knows, since she is > obviously intelligent, that there are others in the world who have > worse travails than she does. She is not in Morazan, and there are > compelling reasons for her not to go there (a son who must be thirteen > by now, if I remember correctly). Why should she clean up Morazan > when there are corners of her world that need cleaning? Why should > she do it when there may be any number of other causes she might wish > to take up if she were retired and had no family constraints? > > You too have your myth, , and maybe it's more mythical than > Rita's. Your myth has it's evil agents, talks up your incredible > courage, speaks to how difficult it was for you and how unworthy you > were compared to the people you fought beside and the children that > suffered. It's a giant myth, and you become very brave by relating > it. You seem to believe that smaller heroes are unworthy. You appear > also to believe that Rita's effort was worthless because the heartless > corporations will just come up with some other instrument of torture, > now that Rita's curbed the EAP evil. I do not have the impression > that Rita ever intended to take on the evil corporations, the weak > unions, or the political dynamic that drives them. She just wanted to > do her job. > > , you definitely have a story with a plot, characters, a dynamic > and a moral, and while Rita's is perhaps quotidian compared to yours, > that is no reason she shouldn't celebrate her victory. I doubt that > you will ever have a victory, having taken on the corrupt and evil > South American governments. There have been corrupt and evil > governments ever since people have formed governments, and I expect > the trend to continue. > > Would Rita be better if she had lived through Dachau? Have you > considered that perhaps her parents did? And that they would be happy > to know that there is a world in which the evils she faces are smaller > ones than the ones they faced, and perhaps ones that can be beaten? > > > > <snip> > > > In this forum, as I read through back postings, noted Rita's comment > on > > 'soul rape', and then noted her response to critics of her use of > this term, > > I concluded that Rita had gone far beyond the specifics of her > lawsuit. She > > has now developed an interpretation, or 'frame', for what happened > to her. > > She has created a 'story', with a plot, a set of characters, a > dynamic, and > > a moral. It isn't her lawsuit, but this larger picture of her > experience, > > to which I object. > > > > Let me say, first, that Rita has informed me I have no right to > criticize > > her story unless I 'share' my own life with the internet. Baloney. > When > > she put her story on the net, she had to expect criticism of it. I > have not > > offered to 'share' my private life with an AA forum, a Scientology > forum, or > > here. My politics are pretty much what they were in 1960, and I > have lived > > a fairly honorable life. I am now in my 60s, retired on a VERY > modest > > income, have a few health problems, but do what I can. (By the way, > all you > > folks who bitch about the ACLU, did YOU pay your dues this year? I > did.) > > > > Rita's 'resistance' is what it is - a lawsuit. This is not to > say > > lawsuits don't have their place. But suing somebody isn't being in > the > > anti-Nazi underground, either. Let's keep some realism here. In > the 1980s, > > I was in Morazan for a time, with the guerrilla force commanded by > Joaquim > > Villalobos. I met a young woman there whose husband had been > tortured and > > butchered by the U.S.-Salvadoran death squads. She had left her > baby with > > her mother, left her school-teaching job, and joined the guerrillas > to > > fight. She'd been there a year when I wandered in. My second day > there, we > > got pinned down in a fire fight. I got so scared I thought I was > gonna piss > > in my pants. She was second in command of the guerrilla squad, and > cool and > > brave. SHE was a resistance fighter. Rita has a lawsuit. Let's > get real. > > > > Now, what is the problem I have with Rita's larger story (but not > with > > the lawsuit). Well, look at the master frame of it. > > > > 1) there is the evil agent - in this case the 'brainwashing' AAs > at the > > EAP (in some versions of the myth, the evil agents are alcohol, or > drugs, > > or food, or sex, or aliens who take you into their craft and > experiment on > > you, or a long-ago sex molester whom you discover only by 'recovered > > memory', or, of course - and this is the prototype of the frame - a > demon > > who possesses you. > > > > 2) then, there is the degrading journey down. The evil agent has > you in > > its power. You are 'brainwashed', under its control, unable to > manage your > > own life, (your life has become unmanageable). Rita tells us about > her > > depression, travail, etc. (To me, since it has now been years, and > since > > the case long ago went to the lawyers, there is just too MUCH > emotion in > > Rita's retelling of her experience.) > > > > 3) Anyway, the journey down ends up at the 'bottom' : 'soul rape' > One is > > almost lost. The damage is so great, one can hardly make it. > > > > 4) Then comes the 'recovery'. How does one recover? Well, for > Rita, it > > appears to be the fellowship of persons " also-abused by AA " which > is her > > 'higher power'. She tells her emotional story, everyone nods and > says 'yup, > > I have been soul raped, too,' and then the recovery grows. Course, > this is > > likely to be a LONG process. Recovery from being 'soul raped' by > the demons > > of AA could just take a lifetime. > > > > Now, this whole story from Rita is MYTH. Behind the myth are the > real > > political, economic and social reasons why corporations screw over > workers. > > Where has Rita discussed these political, economic and social > background > > factors? EAPs are contracted to screw over workers, and discipline > them. > > If you got rid of AA tomorrow, all that would happen is they would > devise > > some OTHER stupid ideology with which to beat workers over the head. > AA is > > just one particular SYMPTOM of the rotten system. Rita has made AA > into > > evil incarnate - into the 'demon' - or should I say, into 'Demon > Rum'. For > > Rita's 'story' follows the same damn form AAs use! > > > > Rita's myth OBSCURES the facts. And her lawsuit, focused on the > EAP and > > AA, lets the really big boys off the hook: the politicians who > legalize > > procedures to browbeat workers, unions that are corrupt and weak, > > communities that have embraced reaction and in which 'progressive' > and > > 'liberal' are now dirty words, etc. Well, in a LAWSUIT, that is ok. > You > > don't try to explain the world in a lawsuit, you just argue the > facts > > relevent to your case, and try to win. I have no problem with that. > But if > > you are going to not just describe the lawsuit, but tell a story and > > explain, then, please, give me the facts and nothing but the facts. > I want > > the whole, material truth. I don't want a 'soul rape' myth > > > > Pushing Rita around fits into a big picture, and in that picture, > MILLIONS > > of people are getting smashed, most a lot worse than Rita. Rita's > mythic > > rendering of her 'spiritual recovery from AA soul rape' hides that > bigger > > picture in fantasy.. . ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2001 Report Share Posted May 21, 2001 Lawsuits won't reverse the 'conservative revolution', the War On Drugs, or the War in Colombia. Look, you are unlikely to find any cohort of people more opposed to the War on People Who Use Drugs than those who oppose 12-Step bullshit. And I agree, the Supremes are not going to reverse their precedent upholding the on Narcotic Act and its sequela. Those nine judges, like most human beings and judges, just can't bring themselves to commit what they regard as an unleashing of demon drugs on the nation and "the children." I myself am a militant opponent of the so-called War on Drugs, including the absurd and immoral interventions in Columbia, Mexico and other nations. But none of this is a Corporate, capitalist plot. Human beings believe inane and insane things, like, a lot. Yes, narcotics were criminalized via outrageous, racist campaigns. But the booboisie -- to employ your Menckenism -- can be a bunch of racist louts quite without any puppetmasters. I simply do not understand why you must assume there are evil cabals of capitalism that send orders to their ostensible minions on the bench, in the prosecutors office & etc. Power and the urge to control people, and "protect" them from themselves, has its genesis in your own philosophy of putting humanity first, above your own material welfare. If people minded their own business, we wouldn't have this ghastly and immoral WOD. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2001 Report Share Posted May 21, 2001 > > Your argument logically suggests that, had Rita been a German living in > Germany in the 1930s, she should have just tried to do her job. After all, > there have always been evil governments, so why oppose the Nazis. That is > what most Germans did. No, that is not what I suggest, or say. I say she is not in Morazan, and she prefers to worry about the problems she does encounter in her own back yard, as you put it, rather than the ones that are another continent away. And she has good reasons for doing so, as you admitted in an earlier post. > > Ooops. YOU could have gotten away with that in Germany. Not Rita. I > wouldn't have done so well either. I am not Jewish, but they actually got > to the commies first, and I would probably have qualified. > Being a German scholar, I have given a lot of thought to whether I could have ignored the atrocities of Nazi Germany, though it's not clear to me how many people really knew about them given the efficiency of the Nazi media machine in a world with a less globally intensive information exchange. I can tell you that I have lost a couple of jobs because I have spoken up for principles I believed to be right. As for Germany, obviously I will never know the answer. I would like to believe that I could have been very brave, and done my best to prevent what I could prevent. On the other hand, I doubt that you would have faulted a German who said that he wasn't going to help out the Jews because his main priority was to assassinate Hitler, nor can you believe, I think, that under the circumstances an assassination would not have helped the Jews more directly than any kind of underground railroad or resistance fighting that could have been undertaken. > But, as you say, Rita CAN play the 'I've got mine, to hell with you' game > NOW, in this country. I did not say that. > > That is her choice. > > This is not a place for a long discussion of epistemology. But. .. . . > > The difference between 'truth' and 'myth' has to do with how well a verbal > representation corresponds with material experience. And what role 'reason' > plays in the development of the model. > > No verbal representation ever is fully accurate, since words are not > things. And, as we learn and knowledge grows, verbal representations get > better and better. Truth changes. The problem here is that you cannot compare Rita's facts to her representation of them, because you were not there and do not know them. In fact, you are denying the reality of her experience without a basis to do so. > > Now, I don't deny that my thinking is not always as good as it should be. Glad to hear it. > We all make mistakes. But I also believe that a view of current social and > political structures which takes a global view of events is today more > accurate than the parochial focus you suggest. You don't, luckily, have to > rely on my poor efforts to see the big picture. There are many better minds > than mine working on these problems. > > Relating the parts to the whole gives us a truer picture than keeping our > nose stuck in our bankbooks. This larger perspective isn't just another > myth, it is a TRUER representation, since it is the best verbal picture of > the social world we have today. Hell, even those capitalists whose stock > you hold dear will tell you 'it's a global world now, baby.' Now you are building some sort of myth about my bankbook and stock holdings, about which you know nothing. You remind me of the friend who held a box containing a birthday present upside down and pounded on it, saying, " You're a lawyer, there's got to be more in here than this. " > > The myth is that you can continue to live in your own backyard, and be > unaffected. > > Of course, I think you know all this. You have just decided to let the > higher power handle the big decisions for you. You have decided that if you > agree to be powerless over the big decisions, then they will run the program > so that it works to your benefit. That is the 'miracle of faith' that > undergirds 12-step, and other, leaps of faith. Trusting the higher powers > to do you good. Here you are making a whopping and insulting assumption, which suggests that you have never read any of my posts or that if you have, you have forgotten what they said. > > I never said I was heroic, by the way. I said I have met heros. And > witnessed victims, too. I suggest when we discuss the drug war, truth > demands that we note all the fronts on which that war is being fought. You > prefer, it seems, to remain ignorant of those aspects of the drug war that > don't directly touch your life: I am well aware that the drug wars are being fought in my own back yard, and I am appalled by the erosion of civil liberties that has resulted. But somehow I do not think that picking up an assault rifle and going to Latin America will fix this. We still have courts, and until now, for the most part rational courts. This is the forum in which to fight the ways in which the war on drugs affects American citizens. I am not really sure that in the long run your efforts will even have as much effect as Rita's. If you really want to put human beings first, I would suggest, from my point of view, that you fight nuclear power, or Roundup resistant soybeans, which have the possibility of affecting human beings not just for fifty or a hundred, but for thousands of years. That is what I call a global view. I do not consider it taking a global view to fight in Latin America. I consider it an exercise like watching a Bruce Willis movie, in which more heat than light is generated. (Yes, it's not my line. No, I don't remember who said it.) You have already said in a different post that the most important priority to you is to fight against American exploitation of Latin Americans in the drug wars. So be it. But I cannot fathom why you assume that this should be everyone's priority, or why that alone would assure that the good guys will win. Wars are fought on many fronts, and no one who fights on only one front will win. Many people who contributed to the WWII effort were not on battlegrounds. Some were in laboratories, some were in decoding offices. Do you think we would have prevailed in WWII if the allies had not succeeded in convincing the Germans that an allied invasion would not occur in Normandy? The alternative would have been, perhaps, that now we would be ruled by the Russians, who wrought terrible atrocities on the people of Berlin when they invaded. Would that have been a good outcome, in your view? > > " It is not enough that you understand in what ignorance humans as well > as animals live; you must also acquire the WILL to ignorance. You need to > grasp that without this kind of ignorance life itself would be impossible, > that it is a condition under which alone the living thing can preserve > itself and PROSPER; a great, firm dome of ignorance must encompass you " > > F. Nietzsche, 1968, The Will To Power, Vintage, p. 609 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2001 Report Share Posted May 21, 2001 Hello, > > Your argument logically suggests that, had Rita been a German living in > Germany in the 1930s, she should have just tried to do her job. After all, > there have always been evil governments, so why oppose the Nazis. That is > what most Germans did. Your argument logically suggests that the current situation in the United States is similar to pre-Nazi Germany. While I am sure that there were many people who were in a great deal of " denial " about what was happening there (their neighbors being shipped away en masse for example)...I truly do not see that the current situation is similar. Therefore, these types of arguments strike me as the vainest *HYPERBOLE*! In fact, much, much, worse than the metaphor of " soul rape " or " brainwashing " that you object to so strenuously. (I hope most of you can see that this is a huge *understatment* and that I actually feel much more strongly about it). Can you back up the comparison? Other people have given reasonable explanations for their choice of words. You haven't. Also, a huge tactic that XA uses is to demean people's experiences because there is always the greater suffering somewhere. This is the same thing you are doing. Your story is more dramatic, more vital, more...more...more! Therefore, everyone else's efforts are just paltry, small, etc. But what you don't seem to be getting, in your near-perfect arrogance, is that not all people can be for all causes, and your idea of importance may not be universally shared. Things *are* relative. For someone recovering from an injury, walking might be a great accomplishment. Most other people have the luxury to take it for granted. You are taking a hell of a lot for granted. I'm so glad you have the *freedom* to fight for your causes. Hicks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2001 Report Share Posted May 21, 2001 Should we all refuse to help a few people just because we can't be Mother and help them all? Most people, however small or grandiose their intentions, end up effecting change in small ways. That doesn't mean that the overall issue at hand is insignificant. Anyone claiming such a thing about any facet of the addiction issue would just be wrong. Very well said, Joan. You and Kaleigh have both posted compelling arguments in this and other threads vis-a-vis 's position. (As has Hicks.) So often, lovers of humanity in general are piss poor at helping people in the particular. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2001 Report Share Posted May 21, 2001 >But what you don't seem to be getting, >in your near-perfect arrogance, is that not all people can be for >all >causes, and your idea of importance may not be universally shared. I've been reading a little more on this debate between and others. This statement, among other things, got me thinking about something. Before someone accuses me of comparing the holocaust to drug policy, let me just say that it is not my intention to do so. People have suffered unspeakable evils throughout history. People continue to suffer such evils, I'm sure. But the fact that such oppression goes on does not mean there are no other issues to be dealt with, and I don't think 's notion that to pay attention to these other things is somehow immoral because of what he defines as " worse " . In my opinion, how we view and deal with " addiction " is an extremely important issue that effects millions of people in our world, from the casualties of " the war on drugs " , to the failure of the treatment industry (AA). Prevailing attitudes about addiction are destructive in many ways. All sorts of people suffer, and some of them die. I could sit here and provide all sorts of links and statistics, but most of the people on this list probably already know them better than I do. I have absolutely no idea what Rita's motivation was in doing what she did - whether she was as self-centered as would have her be, or whether she had some greater good in mind in taking the action she chose. I don't think it really matters. In her own way, however insignificant it may seem to some, she raised awareness. She raised awareness of a particular issue that speaks to a much larger one. Maybe to only a few people. But she did something. Should we all refuse to help a few people just because we can't be Mother and help them all? Most people, however small or grandiose their intentions, end up effecting change in small ways. That doesn't mean that the overall issue at hand is insignificant. Anyone claiming such a thing about any facet of the addiction issue would just be wrong. Joan >- In 12-step-free@y..., ahicks@s... wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > Your argument logically suggests that, had Rita been a German > living in > > Germany in the 1930s, she should have just tried to do her job. > After all, > > there have always been evil governments, so why oppose the Nazis. > That is > > what most Germans did. > > Your argument logically suggests that the current situation in the > United States is similar to pre-Nazi Germany. While I am sure that > there were many people who were in a great deal of " denial " about what > was happening there (their neighbors being shipped away en masse for > example)...I truly do not see that the current situation is similar. > Therefore, these types of arguments strike me as the vainest > *HYPERBOLE*! In fact, much, much, worse than the metaphor of " soul > rape " or " brainwashing " that you object to so strenuously. (I hope > most of you can see that this is a huge *understatment* and that I > actually feel much more strongly about it). > > Can you back up the comparison? Other people have given reasonable > explanations for their choice of words. You haven't. > > Also, a huge tactic that XA uses is to demean people's experiences > because there is always the greater suffering somewhere. > > This is the same thing you are doing. Your story is more dramatic, > more vital, more...more...more! Therefore, everyone else's efforts > are just paltry, small, etc. But what you don't seem to be getting, > in your near-perfect arrogance, is that not all people can be for all > causes, and your idea of importance may not be universally shared. > Things *are* relative. For someone recovering from an injury, walking > might be a great accomplishment. Most other people have the luxury to > take it for granted. > > You are taking a hell of a lot for granted. I'm so glad you have the > *freedom* to fight for your causes. > > Hicks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2001 Report Share Posted May 22, 2001 May we not react to external stimulii which, as yet, cannot be identified, qualified or quantified? Or is our thinking too based in " certainties " which, at the end of the day, do not exist in emotional terms? dear, dear!! hehe > >Reply-To: 12-step-free >To: 12-step-free >Subject: Re: Spirituality... >Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:10:07 -0700 (PDT) > >--- paul diener wrote: > > Irrational has several meanings, but none of them, I think, is the > > same as > > 'supernatural' or 'spiritual'. > > > > 'Irrational' can refer to faulty reasoning, eg, arriving at a > > conclusion > > by invalid argument. Another use of the word has to do with > > processes of > > the 'unconscious' mind, or the mind when it is working in other > > states than > > the 'awake' state. So, 'dreams' are irrational, or what we do under > > hypnosis, or in a trance state. But all of this is perfectly > > 'material'. > > > > Another use of 'irrational' is to make arrive at a synthetic or > > empirical > > conclusion with too little evidence. This is what scientists and > > business > > people do ALL the time. They work on hunches. They just plain > > guess. One > > neat study of a lab - I think it was the Bell Lab - showed that the > > scientists who were most respected by colleagues for being creative > > and > > bright were the LEAST rational. They were the best, and bravest, > > guessers > >Ok, with that in mind, you wrote: > > > 'Spirituality' is best thought of as a form of thinking which > > posits a > > non-natural, 'spiritual' plane of existence, IMHO. > >I agree with you that the concept of spirituality is a form of >thinking. But I have to say that I think you have very effectively >convinced me that spirituality==irrationality. Let me explain. You >said, " 'Spirituality' is best thought of as a form of thinking... " >Thinking. Reason. Conclusions based on evidence. It is a product of our >mind and is therefore natural, not supernatural. The 'spiritual' plane >of existence might be a great name for one of the 'levels' or 'planes' >of our complex minds, but is wholly contained within it. > >-Cal > >__________________________________________________ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2001 Report Share Posted May 22, 2001 Then comes the 'recovery'. How does one recover? Well, for Rita, it appears to be the fellowship of persons "also-abused by AA" which is her 'higher power'. She tells her emotional story, everyone nods and says 'yup, I have been soul raped, too,' and then the recovery grows. Course, this is likely to be a LONG process. Recovery from being 'soul raped' by the demons of AA could just take a lifetime. You clearly have no accurate grasp of the dynamics in this elist. I was never "soul-raped" by AA or any other entity, because I am too well informed to have let the AA shoveled at me in rehab and after-care go on for very long at all. After 3-4 days participating in the latter, I fired off a heated letter to the Director of the program setting forth just how putrid and deranged the 12-Step propaganda was, and advising her that I would not be participating further. So I do not sit here "nodding about being soul-raped" by AA. Never happened, never will. But yes, some angst gets spewed here, and so what? Just because Rita didn't face the ovens at Auschwitz does not decrease the serious wrong and injustice that she opposed, at a great deal of personal stress to herself. Is that the worst that can happen? No. I have endured what may be the worst thing that can happen to a human being -- it is certainly one of the top three -- but I still see great merit in Rita's bravery and spirit. Life is not a contest of who can tell the greatest tale of tragedy and woe -- to wax cliched, one must bloom where one is planted. And BTW, I have been "soul-raped." But not by AA. It was wholly personal. Nevertheless, I understand what people mean when they use such hyperbole vis-a-vis AA, and I do believe the steps can push some people to the brink of insanity and/or suicide. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2001 Report Share Posted May 23, 2001 Right. Now there is something to REALLY get excited about! The terrible threat of soybeans raised with Roundup! Why in the world would anyone be worrying about thousands of dead in Colombia, when our tofu isn't safe? You suburbanites are a hoot and a crock, my dear. I am ending the discussion. I know your values, and they are not going to change. No sense wasting time. Re: Spirituality... > > > > > Your argument logically suggests that, had Rita been a German > living in > > Germany in the 1930s, she should have just tried to do her job. > After all, > > there have always been evil governments, so why oppose the Nazis. > That is > > what most Germans did. > > No, that is not what I suggest, or say. I say she is not in Morazan, > and she prefers to worry about the problems she does encounter in her > own back yard, as you put it, rather than the ones that are another > continent away. And she has good reasons for doing so, as you > admitted in an earlier post. > > > > Ooops. YOU could have gotten away with that in Germany. Not > Rita. I > > wouldn't have done so well either. I am not Jewish, but they > actually got > > to the commies first, and I would probably have qualified. > > > Being a German scholar, I have given a lot of thought to whether I > could have ignored the atrocities of Nazi Germany, though it's not > clear to me how many people really knew about them given the > efficiency of the Nazi media machine in a world with a less globally > intensive information exchange. I can tell you that I have lost a > couple of jobs because I have spoken up for principles I believed to > be right. As for Germany, obviously I will never know the answer. I > would like to believe that I could have been very brave, and done my > best to prevent what I could prevent. On the other hand, I doubt that > you would have faulted a German who said that he wasn't going to help > out the Jews because his main priority was to assassinate Hitler, nor > can you believe, I think, that under the circumstances an > assassination would not have helped the Jews more directly than any > kind of underground railroad or resistance fighting that could have > been undertaken. > > > But, as you say, Rita CAN play the 'I've got mine, to hell with > you' game > > NOW, in this country. > > I did not say that. > > > > That is her choice. > > > > This is not a place for a long discussion of epistemology. But. > . . . > > > > The difference between 'truth' and 'myth' has to do with how well > a verbal > > representation corresponds with material experience. And what role > 'reason' > > plays in the development of the model. > > > > No verbal representation ever is fully accurate, since words are > not > > things. And, as we learn and knowledge grows, verbal > representations get > > better and better. Truth changes. > > The problem here is that you cannot compare Rita's facts to her > representation of them, because you were not there and do not know > them. In fact, you are denying the reality of her experience without a > basis to do so. > > > > Now, I don't deny that my thinking is not always as good as it > should be. > > Glad to hear it. > > > We all make mistakes. But I also believe that a view of current > social and > > political structures which takes a global view of events is today > more > > accurate than the parochial focus you suggest. You don't, luckily, > have to > > rely on my poor efforts to see the big picture. There are many > better minds > > than mine working on these problems. > > > > Relating the parts to the whole gives us a truer picture than > keeping our > > nose stuck in our bankbooks. This larger perspective isn't just > another > > myth, it is a TRUER representation, since it is the best verbal > picture of > > the social world we have today. Hell, even those capitalists whose > stock > > you hold dear will tell you 'it's a global world now, baby.' > > Now you are building some sort of myth about my bankbook and stock > holdings, about which you know nothing. You remind me of the friend > who held a box containing a birthday present upside down and pounded > on it, saying, " You're a lawyer, there's got to be more in here than > this. " > > > > The myth is that you can continue to live in your own backyard, > and be > > unaffected. > > > > Of course, I think you know all this. You have just decided to > let the > > higher power handle the big decisions for you. You have decided > that if you > > agree to be powerless over the big decisions, then they will run the > program > > so that it works to your benefit. That is the 'miracle of faith' > that > > undergirds 12-step, and other, leaps of faith. Trusting the higher > powers > > to do you good. > > Here you are making a whopping and insulting assumption, which > suggests that you have never read any of my posts or that if you have, > you have forgotten what they said. > > > > I never said I was heroic, by the way. I said I have met heros. > And > > witnessed victims, too. I suggest when we discuss the drug war, > truth > > demands that we note all the fronts on which that war is being > fought. You > > prefer, it seems, to remain ignorant of those aspects of the drug > war that > > don't directly touch your life: > > I am well aware that the drug wars are being fought in my own back > yard, and I am appalled by the erosion of civil liberties that has > resulted. But somehow I do not think that picking up an assault rifle > and going to Latin America will fix this. We still have courts, and > until now, for the most part rational courts. This is the forum in > which to fight the ways in which the war on drugs affects American > citizens. I am not really sure that in the long run your efforts will > even have as much effect as Rita's. > > If you really want to put human beings first, I would suggest, from my > point of view, that you fight nuclear power, or Roundup resistant > soybeans, which have the possibility of affecting human beings not > just for fifty or a hundred, but for thousands of years. That is what > I call a global view. I do not consider it taking a global view to > fight in Latin America. I consider it an exercise like watching a > Bruce Willis movie, in which more heat than light is generated. (Yes, > it's not my line. No, I don't remember who said it.) > > You have already said in a different post that the most important > priority to you is to fight against American exploitation of Latin > Americans in the drug wars. So be it. But I cannot fathom why you > assume that this should be everyone's priority, or why that alone > would assure that the good guys will win. Wars are fought on many > fronts, and no one who fights on only one front will win. Many people > who contributed to the WWII effort were not on battlegrounds. Some > were in laboratories, some were in decoding offices. Do you think we > would have prevailed in WWII if the allies had not succeeded in > convincing the Germans that an allied invasion would not occur in > Normandy? The alternative would have been, perhaps, that now we would > be ruled by the Russians, who wrought terrible atrocities on the > people of Berlin when they invaded. Would that have been a good > outcome, in your view? > > > > " It is not enough that you understand in what ignorance humans > as well > > as animals live; you must also acquire the WILL to ignorance. You > need to > > grasp that without this kind of ignorance life itself would be > impossible, > > that it is a condition under which alone the living thing can > preserve > > itself and PROSPER; a great, firm dome of ignorance must encompass > you " > > > > F. Nietzsche, 1968, The Will To Power, Vintage, p. 609 > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.