Re: about Rational Recovery

[Guest guest]

:

I started using AVRT a few months ago to overcome an

alcohol addiction. In a matter of days I had it down

pretty well and today, I have no doubt that I'll never

drink again nor will I ever change my mind.

In AVRT, separating the " voice " of your beast, the

pleasure-seeking drive for using, from YOU, the one

who is serious about abstaining for good, is a key

idea. This is true when you first try it, and it's

still true even if you have been abstinent for several

years.

In AVRT, ANY thought or feeling that supports the

future use of alcohol/drugs is your Addictive Voice.

Concepts like recovery, one-day-at-time, keep coming

back for support, etc are set-ups that your beastly

voice will exploit in order to get you to use, no

matter how long you have been abstinent. AVRT simply

(yes SIMPLY) makes living without alcohol, and with

your beast (cuz it never really goes away completely)

an effortless, confidence-boosting endeavor.

May I suggest that you spend some more time at the

Rational Recovery website and read what others have

gained (or not gained) from AVRT principles. Also

check out the section on Recovery Group Disorders.

Believe me what you are experiencing is not that

uncommon.

Ron

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

:

Almost forgot to tell you, check out the discussion

forum at www.rational.org, too.

Regards,

Ron

--- Lomas wrote:

> I just had my first exposure to Rational Recovery

> (www.rational.org).

> I mainly read through the ATVR crash-course

> carefully. I want to

> share my fresh and incomplete thoughts about it ...

>

> Astounding! Obvious! Makes sense! Wow, the

> implications. Oh boy, how

> alive and well my " beast " is. Scary.

>

> Those were my first impressions. I'm 6 years clean

> and sober since

> being in an Ontario-government-provided non-12-step

> rehab program

> (Donwood Institute, Toronto). I made my own

> commitment then to never

> use again. I learned a hell of a lot from that rehab

> course,

> including some rather fundamental life skills I

> needed. And I felt

> like the support I got there was quite necessary.

>

> But in the 6 years since, I have been struggling

> with depression and

> anxiety often to a debilitating extent. I've been

> aware of these

> issues all my adult life, but being clean and sober

> has them right at

> the surface.

>

> If I subscribe to the ATVR school of thought, then

> the rehab program

> was invalid and unnecessary, and even my wishing to

> keep connected

> with recovery issues (like being on this list) is

> the beast (my

> " addictive voice " ) acting.

>

> To put this in perspective; I've never attempted

> suicide, but in the

> depths of depression, the thought of death can be

> comforting, since

> it at least means this won't go on forever. I

> certainly have been

> getting all kinds of " help " with the depression over

> the last few

> years, largely ineffectively I'm afraid. I think my

> " beast " occupies

> a similar position; I catch myself thinking things

> like " If I were

> given 6 months to live, I'd use drugs for sure " . So

> the " never " part

> of my commitment to health is not truly in effect.

>

> These are just honest outpourings. I feel the need

> for some

> strengthening of my recovery, and I'm not sure what

> form that should

> take. The double-edged sword of addiction and

> depression looms large.

> I'm basically not that happy since I recovered, and

> I worry that the

> logic of sobriety could eventually be over-powered.

>

> Confused, shaken,

> Looking for helpful input,

>

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

> If I subscribe to the ATVR school of thought, then the rehab program

> was invalid and unnecessary, and even my wishing to keep connected

> with recovery issues (like being on this list) is the beast (my

> " addictive voice " ) acting.

I can't go along with this logic. If divorcing yourself from all

recovery issues is the " beast, " then what is Trimpey's current status?

Many, many people who have found their personal confort level -

abstinence, moderation, whatever, still have an interest in remaining

current and informed about " recovery " issues.

Are we in a meeting here?

put it out there awhile ago that we are, but I see a great many

differences between this discussion list and a support group. Anyone?

And, what would be the point of seeing your treatment experience as

" invalid and unnecessary? " It is in the past and surely you learned

something from the experience. Maybe not what Trimpey defines as

important, but he isn't walking in your shoes and you are.

I have to be honest. AVRT and I don't get along, because I don't see

part of myself as a " beast. " I have been unable to successfully work

that dichotomy. However, I haven't read all of his literature and I

do admire him for standing up to AA.

I will be interested to see what responses you get about what you

wrote. Also, I wanted to thank you belatedly for putting the

interviews with your mom on. Take care.

[Guest guest]

Evidently the rehab you were in helped you, and it was not twelve

step. No harm, no foul. Remember, Jack Trimpey is a pretty

opinionated guy, opinionated enough to have alienated substantial

groups of former supporters. If what Trimpey says makes you believe

that being on this list is like listening to your addictive voice,

then what on earth can he say about his website, newsletter, the very

fact that he founded RR?

If you have never tried medication for your depression, you should

check it out, I think. It helps me a lot. If you're not helped at

first, it doesn't necessarily mean that it will never help, it may

simply mean that you are on the wrong drug, or the wrong combination

of drugs.

I was once told that I had a 15% chance of surviving five years. It

had no effect whatsoever on whether I drank or not. It did motivate

me to acquire two things I had always wanted -- a piano and a home

computer. Anyway, that was eleven years ago.

Just hang in there. Even if the help you've found for depression has

been ineffective, it doesn't mean that effective help doesn't exist.

Just persevere.

> I just had my first exposure to Rational Recovery

(www.rational.org).

> I mainly read through the ATVR crash-course carefully. I want to

> share my fresh and incomplete thoughts about it ...

>

> Astounding! Obvious! Makes sense! Wow, the implications. Oh boy, how

> alive and well my " beast " is. Scary.

>

> Those were my first impressions. I'm 6 years clean and sober since

> being in an Ontario-government-provided non-12-step rehab program

> (Donwood Institute, Toronto). I made my own commitment then to never

> use again. I learned a hell of a lot from that rehab course,

> including some rather fundamental life skills I needed. And I felt

> like the support I got there was quite necessary.

>

> But in the 6 years since, I have been struggling with depression and

> anxiety often to a debilitating extent. I've been aware of these

> issues all my adult life, but being clean and sober has them right

at

> the surface.

>

> If I subscribe to the ATVR school of thought, then the rehab program

> was invalid and unnecessary, and even my wishing to keep connected

> with recovery issues (like being on this list) is the beast (my

> " addictive voice " ) acting.

>

> To put this in perspective; I've never attempted suicide, but in the

> depths of depression, the thought of death can be comforting, since

> it at least means this won't go on forever. I certainly have been

> getting all kinds of " help " with the depression over the last few

> years, largely ineffectively I'm afraid. I think my " beast " occupies

> a similar position; I catch myself thinking things like " If I were

> given 6 months to live, I'd use drugs for sure " . So the " never " part

> of my commitment to health is not truly in effect.

>

> These are just honest outpourings. I feel the need for some

> strengthening of my recovery, and I'm not sure what form that should

> take. The double-edged sword of addiction and depression looms

large.

> I'm basically not that happy since I recovered, and I worry that the

> logic of sobriety could eventually be over-powered.

>

> Confused, shaken,

> Looking for helpful input,

>

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

The idea that everyone here is engaging in Beast Activity is quite easily dispelled.Believe it or not, RR actually supports meetings within the realm of political and community activism. Here's a segment from the following link http://rational.org//RRSN.html

I hope it comes through OK, I copied it in html.

Dave Trippel

Ground Rules for

Rational Recovery Network (RR-NET)

RR-NET may convene in any community, not for the purpose of personal addiction recovery, but only for the purpose of social change in your community. Our exclusive means of communications is the Internet.

RRSN members are self-recovered from alcohol and/or drug addiction along the lines of AVRT, with permanent abstinence founded in a Big Plan.

An RR-NET volunteer must register at the RR-NET website, to be placed on a mailing list. Volunteers must agree in principle with Rational Recovery: The New Cure from Substance Addiction, and the general slant of online RR resources, and agree to our rules pertaining to social activism and online conduct.

Each RR-NET volunteer will work under the general guidance and direction of the national office of Rational Recovery, reporting in a timely fashion.

Examples of RR-NET activity:

Contacting agency administrators, elected officials, etc.

Disseminating literature on planned abstinence, i.e., AVRT.

Participating in online discussion groups; setting forth AVRT.

Visiting jails and prisons.

Building RR's internet presence with new technology and strategies.

Attending court and informing people mandated into AA of their rights.

Educating the city council or county board of supervisors.

Contacting legislators to develop countermeasures against the AA cartel.

Gaining access to media, papers, local TV, public TV, radio, etc. Rational Recovery has gained considerable experience in social activism

and can help you devise a "treatment plan" for your community.

Re: about Rational Recovery

Hi ,> If I subscribe to the ATVR school of thought, then the rehab program > was invalid and unnecessary, and even my wishing to keep connected > with recovery issues (like being on this list) is the beast (my > "addictive voice") acting.I can't go along with this logic. If divorcing yourself from all recovery issues is the "beast," then what is Trimpey's current status? Many, many people who have found their personal confort level - abstinence, moderation, whatever, still have an interest in remaining current and informed about "recovery" issues.Are we in a meeting here? put it out there awhile ago that we are, but I see a great many differences between this discussion list and a support group. Anyone?And, what would be the point of seeing your treatment experience as "invalid and unnecessary?" It is in the past and surely you learned something from the experience. Maybe not what Trimpey defines as important, but he isn't walking in your shoes and you are.I have to be honest. AVRT and I don't get along, because I don't see part of myself as a "beast." I have been unable to successfully work that dichotomy. However, I haven't read all of his literature and I do admire him for standing up to AA.I will be interested to see what responses you get about what you wrote. Also, I wanted to thank you belatedly for putting the interviews with your mom on. Take care.

[Guest guest]

Hi Dave,

> Hi ,

> The idea that everyone here is engaging in Beast Activity is quite

easily dispelled.

> Believe it or not, RR actually supports meetings within the realm of

political and community activism.

> Here's a segment from the following link

http://rational.org//RRSN.html

> I hope it comes through OK, I copied it in html.

Thank you for posting that, it did seem to come through fine.

[Guest guest]

>

> I have to be honest. AVRT and I don't get along,

> because I don't see

> part of myself as a " beast. " I have been unable to

> successfully work

> that dichotomy. However, I haven't read all of his

> literature and I

> do admire him for standing up to AA.

Hi :

The " beast " is merely a metaphor used in AVRT to

describe a neurobiological function of the midbrain,

where certain drives for pleasure originate. I find it

very useful in identifying the nature of addiction.

But thats all it is. I prefer a more wholistic view of

my own nature. Of course we are much more than beasts.

I do make an exception though when it comes to the

subject of addiction and it's related issues. Perhaps

if/when you have some time and inclination, check out

Trimpey's website. I don't agree with all of his

thinking, but AVRT principles really demystify the

whole concept of addiction, " treatment " , and

" recovery " .

Regards

Ron

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Thanks .

Very enlightening.

When I first read Jack Trimpey's writings I became quite enthusiastic because he opposed AA so strong and directly.

But by know I just think he's the anti-thesis to AA.

Groups - no groups, helplessness - empowerment. But they agree on the abstinence criteria, which is the main goal for AA. Jack Trimly says AA represent the Devil and that he represents the Constitution and God. We can almost hear the hymn when Jack is warmed up.

Then, he's using double-talk, which is a cult technique. Seemingly logical sentences are inherently nonsense.

This is done by taking metaphors literally. Because metaphors are powerful mental tools, they can sedate the sense of logic.

He refuses to see AVRT as a cognitive technique, which it is, and that he has 'stolen' from Albert Ellis.

But instead he is covering this theft up by claiming it's his own invention, and that he totally has left the foundation he was working on when he cooperated with Ellis.

Therefore he's actually forced to take his metaphors literally. Otherwise he would reveal himself as a plagiator (?) and a person that can not be trusted.

Which of course means that the fuel that's driving his engine is made up of denied shame.

If you try to read different papers from him, he's using "beast" in at least three totally different meanings.

But just for the logical exercise, if you try to combine all these meanings you come to the logical conclusion, that we have a Devil inside our heads, and that this Devil shall be killed by the single individual using AVRT.

Which BTW has nothing to do with science, it's the TRUTH.

To me support for Jack Trimpey seems to follow the principle that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

The proof for this is that I've never seen a worked through analysis of RR and Jack Trimpey. Hope I can inspire some to be more systematical than myself.

Bjørn

Re: about Rational Recovery

Hi ,> If I subscribe to the ATVR school of thought, then the rehab program > was invalid and unnecessary, and even my wishing to keep connected > with recovery issues (like being on this list) is the beast (my > "addictive voice") acting.I can't go along with this logic. If divorcing yourself from all recovery issues is the "beast," then what is Trimpey's current status? Many, many people who have found their personal confort level - abstinence, moderation, whatever, still have an interest in remaining current and informed about "recovery" issues.Are we in a meeting here? put it out there awhile ago that we are, but I see a great many differences between this discussion list and a support group. Anyone?And, what would be the point of seeing your treatment experience as "invalid and unnecessary?" It is in the past and surely you learned something from the experience. Maybe not what Trimpey defines as important, but he isn't walking in your shoes and you are.I have to be honest. AVRT and I don't get along, because I don't see part of myself as a "beast." I have been unable to successfully work that dichotomy. However, I haven't read all of his literature and I do admire him for standing up to AA.I will be interested to see what responses you get about what you wrote. Also, I wanted to thank you belatedly for putting the interviews with your mom on. Take care.

[Guest guest]

Ron:

The "beast" is merely a metaphor used in AVRT todescribe a neurobiological function of the midbrain,where certain drives for pleasure originate. I find itvery useful in identifying the nature of addiction.But thats all it is.

Identifying the nature of addiction? Do you mean that addiction is a brain disease?

Then the rhetorical question:

What happens to a person that injures the structures in the midbraind where the beast is situated, do they become more human or do they get Alzheimer?

At last, is RR supposed to be science or what? Is it OK to take what you can use and leave the rest?

Bjørn

[Guest guest]

Hi, I'm . I'm new to the group and this is my first post.

>He refuses to see AVRT as a cognitive technique, which it is, and that > he

>has 'stolen' from Albert Ellis.

>Therefore he's actually forced to take his metaphors literally.

Bjørn, thanks so much for this thoughtful commentary on RR. I read RR a

couple weeks ago and found it helpful, but had some misgivings. The

" mid-brain " idea seemed idiotic to me, as if he were trying to

scientifically justify a psychological concept. (I probably got that idea

from your post, too!)

You explained it very well. He's using a technique developed by someone

else, Ellis' Rational Emotive Therapy, while touting a trumped-up theory to

explain it.

>To me support for Jack Trimpey seems to follow the principle that the enemy

>of my enemy is my friend.

Overall, RR was invaluable in helping me escape from AA. After I did the

obligatory 90/90 I was starting to become intellectually dulled by the

dogma. Trimpey's commentary helped me clarify my argument against, and

ultimately escape from, the group. In that way he did serve as an ally.

The idea of the little voice in my head being " not me " is also useful. I'm

new in sobriety and being able to disassociate from thoughts of drinking has

often helped me.

Like everything else though, we need to question RR just as we have

questioned AA.

I recently found this link for " Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit "

The " Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric " section reads like an AA

meeting: http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html

RR contains some logical fallacies also, and it's important to be aware of

that.

You've brought up some very interesting points here Bjørn, thanks.

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

Welcome to 12-step-free

> Hi, I'm . I'm new to the group and this is my first post.

>

> >He refuses to see AVRT as a cognitive technique, which it is, and

that > he

> >has 'stolen' from Albert Ellis.

>

> >Therefore he's actually forced to take his metaphors literally.

>

> Bjørn, thanks so much for this thoughtful commentary on RR. I read

RR a

> couple weeks ago and found it helpful, but had some misgivings.

The

> " mid-brain " idea seemed idiotic to me, as if he were trying to

> scientifically justify a psychological concept. (I probably got

that idea

> from your post, too!)

>

I disagree. I think it was more reactive than thought out. ly, I

don't think it's bad to support a psychological concept (conflicting

internal dialogue) with something scientific (biological). It's quite

simple, like Trimpey says, the structural model is from a junior high

school physiology book.

> You explained it very well. He's using a technique developed by

someone

> else, Ellis' Rational Emotive Therapy, while touting a trumped-up

theory to

> explain it.

I believe AVRT has less to do with REBT than REBT has to do with

psychoanalysis. I can imagine REBT as a Disease Model of Self Talk,

and still see AVRT as a healthful model of self-talk recognition, and

habituated pleasure seeking is still off the disease list in my book.

>

> >To me support for Jack Trimpey seems to follow the principle that

the enemy

> >of my enemy is my friend.

>

> Overall, RR was invaluable in helping me escape from AA. After I

did the

> obligatory 90/90 I was starting to become intellectually dulled by

the

> dogma. Trimpey's commentary helped me clarify my argument against,

and

> ultimately escape from, the group. In that way he did serve as an

ally.

>

> The idea of the little voice in my head being " not me " is also

useful. I'm

> new in sobriety and being able to disassociate from thoughts of

drinking has

> often helped me.

You're doing what RR calls AVRT. We just say it's derived from a part

of the Central Nervous System the size of two oysters that's

quadrapelegic. Yeah, it IS gimicky in a way. But it works so

sweetly, n'est pas?

>

> Like everything else though, we need to question RR just as we have

> questioned AA.

>

> I recently found this link for " Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit "

> The " Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric " section reads like an

AA

> meeting: http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html

>

Great link, Thanks.

> RR contains some logical fallacies also, and it's important to be

aware of

> that.

>

Help me out on this one, though. What do you think they are?

> You've brought up some very interesting points here Bjørn, thanks.

>

>

Dave Trippel

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

I too have struggled with depression all my life and I too was floored by

AVRT...I took the course with Jack Trimpey. Here are my opinions

1 Not only do I think rehab is unnecessary, but I believe it causes

addiction, as well as many other problems. If one is drinking /drugging

oneself into trouble, the most dangerous lesson to be taught is that one has

a disease, and is powerless over it.

2 I'm also in this 12-step free group but for reasons concerning knowledge

and/or politics...not support. Since you're sober 6 years, I suspect you

don't need " support " either...good for you

3 As for depression and anxiety, I've had psychiatric help for years with

limited progress. What I'm finding (I'm speaking only for myself) is that

I've always " believed " I was depressed, therefore depression would be my

response to life situations. My depressions paralleled my addiction.

Interestingly, psychiatry as a profession is under attack for similar reasons

that 12 step programs are under attack. Both (some would argue) take

voluntary behaviors, and call them diseases, thereby perpetuating the

behavior. I drank/drugged until I had enough. Similarly, I got

debilitatingly depressed (out of work for weeks), until I had enough. Guys

like Trimpey and Jeff Schaler were very helpful readings for me...I was

choosing my misery, I just didn't know it.

4 In your last paragraph you talk about your sobriety being overpowered. I'm

no expert, but it seems to me that you have chosen sobriety (6 years), and if

it's " overpowered " , then you will have chosen to drink. I'll borrow from

Jack and Lois Trimpey. They get calls all the time at RR by people who say

they had a relapse or a slip. Their response is " you didn't have a slip, you

had a drink " . So, stay sober if you want to, or drink if you want to...just

be aware that you're choosing...nothing is " overpowering " you...both you for

yourself, I for myself and all of us for ourselves, are in our own driver's

seat...a baffling concept for 12 step survivors, but a true one none the less.

Ray

[Guest guest]

Hello, Ray...can you elaborate on this concept of " choice " ?

You write, " ...just be aware that you're choosing...nothing is

" overpowering " you... "

This is very similar to the things I was hearing people say back in the

'70's. " Nobody can make you feel. You choose to feel. "

Can you tell us more about what you mean when you talk about choosing to do

things? Back in the '70's I heard people saying that depression is a choice

that we have freely made. We could be feeling good, but we made a choice to

feel bad. We want to feel good, we want to feel happy and functional, but

instead we freely (nothing overpowering) make a choice to feel bad. We

freely choose to do what we don't want to do.

I'm not asking this question to pick on you or give you a hard time. :-)

Nor am I implying by my question that I think people are nothing but

helpless victims. Rather, I'm trying to understand what people mean when

they say this.

Cheers,

nz

[Guest guest]

Thanks for your responses, on- and off-list.

I'm feeling a lot better about things, because (a) my recovery *is*

solid and can continue to be, and ( I remembered something from my

rehab program ...

Among many other things, I was taught a (cognitive?) technique which

they called talking back to your negative voice. Just like AVRT, it's

simply a question of catching negative thoughts before they win over

your whole state of mind. The idea is to " arrest " them, and find out

if they're true (which they invariably are not), at which point they

are easier to refute. This definitely works on the old addicted

" beast " for me. If I catch some addictive thinking, and manage to

talk back at it, I can literally feel that particular anxiety

dissolve in real time. Cool!

The depression is, ha-ha, a different beast. I am on

anti-depressants, but I need to get more interactive with my

" prescribe-and-goodbye " psychiatrist.

Thanks again, and thanks for the many things I learn from this list,

[Guest guest]

Hello Ray ( & all),

I found your post very insightful - many thanks. I too have pondered

the possibility of having chosen depression rather than being

afflicted with it. Was your recovery from depression based entirely

on the AVRT-type technique? The only part I have difficulty imagining

is that I mostly don't experience depression as a " response " (that I

know of), more just a place I find myself in sometimes. Even when

things are absolutely peachy.

I'm a strong believer in staying in touch with humor. I just laughed

out loud when I thought of the fact that I was way more functional in

life when I combined depression with drug abuse. See, two wrongs do

make a right ... as long as you don't mind the early death!

" Laugh? We nearly shat. "

(some old Python sketch)

[Guest guest]

Hi .

Your explanations doesn't hold water, and personally I despise pseudo scientism (J.T.), especially when combined with anti-intellectualism. For some it might not to be important as long as it works, but I'm not constructed that way. I'm interested in understanding WHY it works.

Every skilled cognitive therapist would immediately recognize AVRT as a powerful and useful cognitive technique, where the primary focus always is what's going on into the client's head.

But in cognitive therapy there is complete agreement between the therapist and the client about what's going on, a concept called psychoeducation.

But Jack denies AVRT to be a technique in order to (but not solely) strengthen it's effects, which is fraud.

He also denies that he owns anything to cognitive therapy by claiming that he discovered his AVRT when he interviewed people who had stopped drinking. This is an exploration technique used in cognitive therapy. Then he found everybody said NO in one way or another. Big deal!

Then his description of the Beast. The Beast is the one tempting Jesus in the desert, a part of the midbrain and the cause of empires to vanish.

I can imagine people in great need can buy into this, but how will they react when they come to their senses.

How would he explain his theory to a neuropsychologist?

On the general level the human brain is human, even though we may have some structures resembling lower animals like reptiles.

As the Russian neuropsychologist A.R. Luria convincingly has demonstrated through the study of thousands of head injuries during W.W.II, all parts of the brain are working together, and an injury in one part will affect functions in the rest of the brain.

His theory also permits rehabilitation of brain injuries in quite another extent than theories claiming that certain mental functions can be located to specific parts of the brain.

If you can't see that both AVRT and REBT is poured from the same well, I'm unable to help you. To me it's obvious, but your difficulty might stem from the confusing of facts with fiction (metaphors).

Metaphors are powerful instruments, and can be abused as well as used in a honest way. If abused they open up for double-talk and deception.

Personally I would have much more faith in Jack Trimpey if he admitted his debt to psychology instead of attacking everybody he owes. The next thing will possibly be that he claims he has invented himself. A truly self-made man.

About the fate for AVRT I think it will live and die with the man himself, and with his stress on fundamental American religious, puritan values he will have little if no impact outside the Anglo-Saxon part of the world.

If you read Mc and Edgerton: "Drunken Comportment", 1967, you will from pure inference be able to dismiss the midbrain theory.

Or the conclusion must be that some cultures have more reptile brains than the rest of the world, and this would of course have to be the Americans ;-). Not a comforting conclusion, I guess.

But when looked at a distance, I find more similarities between AA and RR than real differences.

From my point of view the most serious is the common denial of shame connected with deviant behavior, which in turns explains the tendency to missionarism.

Actually I think AA will have no difficulty engulfing AVRT in Minnesota treatment facilities.

At a seminar last autumn in Copenhagen about "Treatment Damages" I asked the representative from AA if she didn't think it was a problem there were almost no alternatives to 12-step treatment in US. Then she said: "No, there's Rational Recovery"! She is BTW working with 'relapse prevention' (Allan Marlatt), so AVRT would actually suit her well.

Well, my conclusion is that Jack is sailing under a false flag, and that it would serve his reputation better to be honest and clear instead of being charismatic and double-talking.

But then, why should he?

Bjørn

Re: about Rational Recovery

Hi ,Welcome to 12-step-free> Hi, I'm . I'm new to the group and this is my first post.> > >He refuses to see AVRT as a cognitive technique, which it is, and that > he > >has 'stolen' from Albert Ellis.> > >Therefore he's actually forced to take his metaphors literally.> > Bjørn, thanks so much for this thoughtful commentary on RR. I read RR a > couple weeks ago and found it helpful, but had some misgivings. The > "mid-brain" idea seemed idiotic to me, as if he were trying to > scientifically justify a psychological concept. (I probably got that idea > from your post, too!)> I disagree. I think it was more reactive than thought out. ly, I don't think it's bad to support a psychological concept (conflicting internal dialogue) with something scientific (biological). It's quite simple, like Trimpey says, the structural model is from a junior high school physiology book.> You explained it very well. He's using a technique developed by someone > else, Ellis' Rational Emotive Therapy, while touting a trumped-up theory to > explain it.I believe AVRT has less to do with REBT than REBT has to do with psychoanalysis. I can imagine REBT as a Disease Model of Self Talk, and still see AVRT as a healthful model of self-talk recognition, and habituated pleasure seeking is still off the disease list in my book.> > >To me support for Jack Trimpey seems to follow the principle that the enemy > >of my enemy is my friend.> > Overall, RR was invaluable in helping me escape from AA. After I did the > obligatory 90/90 I was starting to become intellectually dulled by the > dogma. Trimpey's commentary helped me clarify my argument against, and > ultimately escape from, the group. In that way he did serve as an ally.> > The idea of the little voice in my head being "not me" is also useful. I'm > new in sobriety and being able to disassociate from thoughts of drinking has > often helped me.You're doing what RR calls AVRT. We just say it's derived from a part of the Central Nervous System the size of two oysters that's quadrapelegic. Yeah, it IS gimicky in a way. But it works so sweetly, n'est pas?> > Like everything else though, we need to question RR just as we have > questioned AA.> > I recently found this link for "Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit"> The "Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric" section reads like an AA > meeting: http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html> Great link, Thanks.> RR contains some logical fallacies also, and it's important to be aware of > that.>Help me out on this one, though. What do you think they are?> You've brought up some very interesting points here Bjørn, thanks.> > Dave Trippel

[Guest guest]

In wild animals depression is the most natural reaction to conditions where actions that could improve the situation is not available.

The depression makes the animal stay put, and the healing forces in the animal can take over and eventually make it fit for fight again, or the external situation could change for the better.

Humans are not living in 'natural' surroundings, but in social constructed settings, which means that there is great difficulty in knowing when depression is a healthy reaction or not.

Besides, our cognitive abilities can fixate the depression for a much longer time than needed, and therefore cognitive therapy can identify these not conscious thoughts and evaluate them.

The danger in cognitive therapy, IMO, is to identify ALL depressions as a result of faulty thinking. Sometimes a depression can be healthy, but we are not allowed to think this way due to the medical angle on natural processes considered unwanted.

Bjørn

Re: about Rational Recovery

Hello Ray ( & all),I found your post very insightful - many thanks. I too have pondered the possibility of having chosen depression rather than being afflicted with it. Was your recovery from depression based entirely on the AVRT-type technique? The only part I have difficulty imagining is that I mostly don't experience depression as a "response" (that I know of), more just a place I find myself in sometimes. Even when things are absolutely peachy.I'm a strong believer in staying in touch with humor. I just laughed out loud when I thought of the fact that I was way more functional in life when I combined depression with drug abuse. See, two wrongs do make a right ... as long as you don't mind the early death!"Laugh? We nearly shat."(some old Python sketch)

[Guest guest]

Hello Bjorn

You are right about Trimpey and RR, have you seen some of the stuff

written by Trimpey on Peele's website? It's amazing. RR is like a

kind of Protestantism to AA's Catholicism - vehemently opposed, but

still part of the same religion. RR's Beast is pretty much AA's " Ism "

- and the solution required - total abstinence - the same.

P.

>

> Hi ,

>

> > If I subscribe to the ATVR school of thought, then the rehab

program

> > was invalid and unnecessary, and even my wishing to keep

connected

> > with recovery issues (like being on this list) is the beast

(my

> > " addictive voice " ) acting.

>

> I can't go along with this logic. If divorcing yourself from

all

> recovery issues is the " beast, " then what is Trimpey's current

status?

> Many, many people who have found their personal confort level -

> abstinence, moderation, whatever, still have an interest in

remaining

> current and informed about " recovery " issues.

>

> Are we in a meeting here?

>

> put it out there awhile ago that we are, but I see a great

many

> differences between this discussion list and a support group.

Anyone?

>

> And, what would be the point of seeing your treatment experience

as

> " invalid and unnecessary? " It is in the past and surely you

learned

> something from the experience. Maybe not what Trimpey defines

as

> important, but he isn't walking in your shoes and you are.

>

> I have to be honest. AVRT and I don't get along, because I

don't see

> part of myself as a " beast. " I have been unable to successfully

work

> that dichotomy. However, I haven't read all of his literature

and I

> do admire him for standing up to AA.

>

> I will be interested to see what responses you get about what

you

> wrote. Also, I wanted to thank you belatedly for putting the

> interviews with your mom on. Take care.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Re: about Rational Recovery

Hi ,Welcome to 12-step-free> Hi, I'm . I'm new to the group and this is my first post.> > >He refuses to see AVRT as a cognitive technique, which it is, and that > he > >has 'stolen' from Albert Ellis.> > >Therefore he's actually forced to take his metaphors literally.> > Bjørn, thanks so much for this thoughtful commentary on RR. I read RR a > couple weeks ago and found it helpful, but had some misgivings. The > "mid-brain" idea seemed idiotic to me, as if he were trying to > scientifically justify a psychological concept. (I probably got that idea > from your post, too!)> I disagree. I think it was more reactive than thought out. ly, I don't think it's bad to support a psychological concept (conflicting internal dialogue) with something scientific (biological). It's quite simple, like Trimpey says, the structural model is from a junior high school physiology book.> You explained it very well. He's using a technique developed by someone > else, Ellis' Rational Emotive Therapy, while touting a trumped-up theory to > explain it.I believe AVRT has less to do with REBT than REBT has to do with psychoanalysis. I can imagine REBT as a Disease Model of Self Talk, and still see AVRT as a healthful model of self-talk recognition, and habituated pleasure seeking is still off the disease list in my book.> > >To me support for Jack Trimpey seems to follow the principle that the enemy > >of my enemy is my friend.> > Overall, RR was invaluable in helping me escape from AA. After I did the > obligatory 90/90 I was starting to become intellectually dulled by the > dogma. Trimpey's commentary helped me clarify my argument against, and > ultimately escape from, the group. In that way he did serve as an ally.> > The idea of the little voice in my head being "not me" is also useful. I'm > new in sobriety and being able to disassociate from thoughts of drinking has > often helped me.You're doing what RR calls AVRT. We just say it's derived from a part of the Central Nervous System the size of two oysters that's quadrapelegic. Yeah, it IS gimicky in a way. But it works so sweetly, n'est pas?> > Like everything else though, we need to question RR just as we have > questioned AA.> > I recently found this link for "Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit"> The "Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric" section reads like an AA > meeting: http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html> Great link, Thanks.> RR contains some logical fallacies also, and it's important to be aware of > that.>Help me out on this one, though. What do you think they are?> You've brought up some very interesting points here Bjørn, thanks.> > Dave Trippel

[Guest guest]

Hi Bjorn & all

You said:

" You are right about Trimpey and RR, have you seen some of the stuff

written by Trimpey on Peele's website? It's amazing. RR is like a

kind of Protestantism to AA's Catholicism - vehemently opposed, but

still part of the same religion. RR's Beast is pretty much AA's " Ism "

- and the solution required - total abstinence - the same. "

I don't know why the person behind the method is quite so important

in this case. Looking at AVRT alone, it seems to be a simple, common

sense method that could help many people recover on their own. No

indoctrination, no ties, no isms. It just doesn't seem like it could

be a tool to further any cause he might have. I think " the beast " is

simply an analogy for the part of us that does the craving and wants

to drink/use despite the consequences. It's just a model.

Perhaps I feel this way because I've never been able to drink/use in

moderation. And my instincts tell me that the vast majority of people

who've had a serious drinking/using problem are better off

abstaining. If their problems were less serious, then they'd probably

recover on their own, even without something like AVRT.

Cheers,

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

I also love to laugh, we're alike. I did not " recover " from depression using

AVRT (for that matter I didn't " recover " from substances using it either).

What I got from Jack Trimpey and RR was a frontal attack on AA, AA thinking

and the treatment industry. Understand at the time (several years ago), I

swallowed the 12 step dogma hook, line and sinker. So, anytime I wanted to

use, my addictive voice would whisper something like:

" Let's do it…it's a disease that we're powerless over right? so come on let's

get high, besides relapse is a part of recovery right? you know that's true

and we're hungry, angry, lonely and tired and you know what that does and

don't forget we're resentful for not getting that promotion and resentment is

the number 1 offender besides, we can get so blasted that we drive the car

right through the playground and they'll always welcome us back no matter

what we do, even homicide, they'll always applaud. "

Then in remorse, I would cry " my disease is bigger than I am " I laugh at

that inner voice now. Trimpey pointed out how tragic the " belief " in this

disease/powerless nonsense is. I wasn't consciously choosing substance

abuse, I strongly believed that I wasn't able to choose, and I behaved

accordingly.

I'm not as clear on depression at least not as universal but, I'm convinced

that like substances, there's a " belief " component in depressive illness...at

least in my case. Like Trimpey's (and others) attack on 12 step dogma, I

read Jeff Schaler, Szasz and others who are very critical of

psychiatry. I thought about my own history. Over a 21/2 year period, as a

result of an address change and health plan change, I saw 4 different

psyciatrists with the same presenting problem. Here are their diagnosis: 1)

bipolar 2) cyclothymic hypomania 3) cyclothymic hypomania with ADHD, 4)

" nothing's wrong with you...you're a high energy person who should learn to

utilize it " . The point I'm making is that there was little if any

objectivity here...no blood tests, x-rays or CT Scans to confirm the doctor's

suspician, there was only the doctor's subjective judgment about my behavior

(not disease). When I started withdrawing from 12 step, well-meaning others

in my life objected... " you have to stay, you're an_____________ " . These

people were wrong. When I withdrew from psychiatry, these same people had

the same responses. " You have to take your lithium " . " You're a

_____________ " . Am I? Or have I accepted YOUR judgment of who I am? Do I

really have to take lithium and/or adderall, ritalin,dexedrene, topramax,

klonitin,ambien, valproic acid, prozac, wellbutrin, luvox or effexor?

(actually prescribed over the 21/2 years)

Here's the humorous close. There used to be a show on TV called Hee Haw.

Ever see it? They did a skit where a guy would see the doctor and say " doc

it harts when I do that " . The doc would smack him in the head and reply

" well don't do that " ! That Hee Haw doctor was more valuable to me than all

the Bill s, Bradshaws and Psychiatrists combined.

Best Regards

Ray

[Guest guest]

--

Oh, I agree with you completely about the usefulness of AVRT as a

" self-recovery " technique. The problem is, Trimpey does not allow RR to simply

be an organization that promotes AVRT or do-it-yourself recovery in general --

RR's " raison d'etre " is to politicize " recovery " issues and to be a platform for

Trimpey's personal rants and pseudo-scientific babbling. Trimpey has chosen for

it to be this way. AVRT can be taught without Trimpey, and adapted to

non-abstinence styles for that matter -- but RR does not exist outside of

Trimpey dogma. A discussion of similarities between RR and AA is not a

discussion of AVRT, but rather a critique of Trimpey's babblings. And since

Trimpey insists on declaring his mythology to be a " scientific " counterpoint to

12-step ideology, while at the same time rejecting and ridiculing any real

scientific research, such discussions are entirely appropriate for people who

wish to be critical thinkers.

~Rita

> Hi Bjorn & all

>

> You said:

>

> " You are right about Trimpey and RR, have you seen some of the stuff

> written by Trimpey on Peele's website? It's amazing. RR is like a

> kind of Protestantism to AA's Catholicism - vehemently opposed, but

> still part of the same religion. RR's Beast is pretty much AA's " Ism "

> - and the solution required - total abstinence - the same. "

>

> I don't know why the person behind the method is quite so important

> in this case. Looking at AVRT alone, it seems to be a simple, common

> sense method that could help many people recover on their own. No

> indoctrination, no ties, no isms. It just doesn't seem like it could

> be a tool to further any cause he might have. I think " the beast " is

> simply an analogy for the part of us that does the craving and wants

> to drink/use despite the consequences. It's just a model.

>

> Perhaps I feel this way because I've never been able to drink/use in

> moderation. And my instincts tell me that the vast majority of people

> who've had a serious drinking/using problem are better off

> abstaining. If their problems were less serious, then they'd probably

> recover on their own, even without something like AVRT.

>

> Cheers,

>

[Guest guest]

Re: about Rational Recovery

And since Trimpey insists on declaring his mythology to be a "scientific" counterpoint to 12-step ideology, while at the same time rejecting and ridiculing any real scientific research, such discussions are entirely appropriate for people who wish to be critical thinkers. ~Rita

I think Trimpey correctly points out that scientific research doesn't have a lot to do with figuring out how to quit.

I also think Trimpey correctly questions why billions of dollars is spent on maintaining the Tower of Alcohol/Drug Studies Babel by selling the public on "solving" the "disease" of alcoholism problem.

What fits into "real scientific research" can be argued for a long time. Do you think the following abstracts generally describe useful scientific study?

http://www.drugs.indiana.edu/publications/ncadi/radar/rguides/studies457.html

ly, I have some ambivalence about them, because I have such curiosity in discovering causative relationships, but I believe that in social and psychological studies there are so many unaddressed factors that most studies are irrelevant.

Dave Trippel

[Guest guest]

Re: Re: about Rational Recovery

There used to be a show on TV called Hee Haw. Ever see it? They did a skit where a guy would see the doctor and say "doc it harts when I do that". The doc would smack him in the head and reply "well don't do that"! That Hee Haw doctor was more valuable to me than all the Bill s, Bradshaws and Psychiatrists combined.Best RegardsRay

Omigosh, you've found out the true source of Jack Trimpey's "puritanical", "traditional religious", "US Constitutional" "All American" "babbling". <nyuk nyuk nyuk>

[Guest guest]

Hi Rita & all,

You said:

" The problem is, Trimpey does not allow RR to simply be an

organization that promotes AVRT or do-it-yourself recovery in general

-- RR's " raison d'etre " is to politicize " recovery " issues and to be

a platform for Trimpey's personal rants and pseudo-scientific

babbling. "

I'll take your word for that. Considering myself as just one example

of someone encountering RR though ... I went to the website, skimmed

through various parts getting the flavor, but soon went to the AVRT

crash course, and that's the only thing I came away with. In fact I

got the distinct impression from the web site that I should absorb

AVRT and then go away.

With AVRT being such common sense, and being based on known

psychotherapy techniques, it's too bad *anyone* needs to " own " it. It

ought to be generically made public domain. If Trimpey's buzzwords

were removed, could that be done? I wonder.