Re: Pleasure-Seeking

[Guest guest]

Or are you holding up your worst pain experiences as a badge to say you had "real" reasons to drink? I think that would trivialize many other people's pain.

I wasn't arguing that I had a "badge" to drink because my son was killed, and then his father left me immediately thereafter, followed by my "best friend" also abandoning me and stealing almost all of my money. I am quite sure that many others also have equally severe or even worse experiences (such as a matter recently on the local news in which a man who was away on a business trip lost his wife and all three children to a housefire).

My point is that I did not employ the devastating events that befell me as an "excuse" to drink for "pleasure." I drank for the anesthetic effect, because I LITERALLY could not abide being alone with my own thoughts and feelings, while sober, and without mental absorption to hold those thoughts and feelings at bay.

I know what happened to me, and I know exactly why I drank-- it was not as a pretext for finding pleasure in ETOH. Anyone who says it was is obscenely mistaken.

--Mona--

It's good that your personal threshold for bad

decision-making is high. Enviable, in fact. And presumably it makes you a good candidate for being able to drink moderately in these better times of your life. Nobody can invalidate your suffering, but I don't see it as useful to distinguish your choices from others.

I don't know that I even was in decison-making mode. Rather, I was operating at the level of raw pain somewhat like an animal whose leg is caught in a steel trap and so chews it off. There was little reflection, and just a quite mad rush to whatever (including lots of reading and promiscuous sex) would divert me and keep me from being alone with my own thoughts. The world seemed transformed to me, and it felt as if I'd entered an alternate universe that was nothing but pain, and which made no sense. Despairing, I drank.

And I do not intend to resume "moderate" drinking. I believe that is usually a very bad mistake. Not always, but usually.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Hi Mona & All,

[Mona - " Please understand that when you indicate a belief that I

began drinking so heavily simply because I was pleasure-seeking, that

feels like a trivialization of the worst events and most painful

trauma I have ever undergone. " ]

I too believe that all drinking/using is pleasure-seeking. Simply

because I see no other reason. But to me this doesn't trivialize

pain. In this context, I think of pain and pleasure as points on the

same scale. Such that pain-relief is the same decision-making

mechanism operating in the same direction as any other substance

abuser. Less pain = more pleasure.

Or are you holding up your worst pain experiences as a badge to say

you had " real " reasons to drink? I think that would trivialize many

other people's pain. It's good that your personal threshold for bad

decision-making is high. Enviable, in fact. And presumably it makes

you a good candidate for being able to drink moderately in these

better times of your life. Nobody can invalidate your suffering, but

I don't see it as useful to distinguish your choices from others.

Not meaning to offend,

[Guest guest]

It seems to me that some of the guys just don't get it.

It sounds to me as if some people see only two states; pain and pleasure. If

you aren't

feeling pleasure, then you're in pain. And if you're aren't in pain, then

you're feeling

pleasure.

writes, " Not meaning to offend. "

I am not offended, but I'm sitting here thinking, " Holy shit, doesn't this guy

get it? "

What is saying seems to me like such an oversimplification. " Keep it

simple. "

Perceive things in the most simple way, black or white, yes or no, one or the

other.

Either phony AA powerlessness, or complete control and choice. Freely choosing

to use

pain as an excuse to get drunk and seek pleasure.

It seems to me that there are other feeling-states besides just pain and

pleasure and the

continuum in between. It seems to me that not everything one does is a

" decision " . Some

things, I believe, are more of an automatic reaction.

It does seem to me that 's post trivializes Mona and invalidates her

experience.

Regards,

nz

[Guest guest]

For the most part, I agree with this. There is not one kind of

problem drinking, any more than there is one kind of cancer. People

are constituted differently, motivated differently, have different

pain thresholds (both physical and mental), and choose different ways

of dealing with the pain they face. And I'm sure there's a lot more

than that to it. I just haven't thought about it very long. This is

my off-the-cuff response.

These are issues that the Schalers of the world don't

perceive, or the Jack Trimpeys. In their way, they are just like the

Bob s.

> It seems to me that some of the guys just don't get it.

>

> It sounds to me as if some people see only two states; pain and

pleasure. If you aren't

> feeling pleasure, then you're in pain. And if you're aren't in

pain, then you're feeling

> pleasure.

>

> writes, " Not meaning to offend. "

>

> I am not offended, but I'm sitting here thinking, " Holy shit,

doesn't this guy get it? "

> What is saying seems to me like such an oversimplification.

" Keep it simple. "

> Perceive things in the most simple way, black or white, yes or no,

one or the other.

>

> Either phony AA powerlessness, or complete control and choice.

Freely choosing to use

> pain as an excuse to get drunk and seek pleasure.

>

> It seems to me that there are other feeling-states besides just pain

and pleasure and the

> continuum in between. It seems to me that not everything one does

is a " decision " . Some

> things, I believe, are more of an automatic reaction.

>

> It does seem to me that 's post trivializes Mona and

invalidates her experience.

>

> Regards,

>

> nz

[Guest guest]

Yup :-)

I've been reading some of this pleasure/pain stuff wondering if, perhaps,

there are people out there who have never experienced pleasure and actually

don't know what it is. To me, real pleasure only happens when the senses

and/or mind and imagination are engaged. Usually the more pleasurable things

involve activity. Just sitting there getting your neurons twitched doesn't

make it. Maybe there are some drugs that could make me think I was feeling

pleasure, but I never met any. One minor exception being marijuana, which

actually CAN wake up the senses and imagination to a limited degree. But

when I drank heavily the main thing was to tune out anxiety, getting some

relief by numbing mayself. The idea that 'deep pleasure,' as the RR folks

say, is a feeling of numbness, strikes me as thoroughly perverse.

Even in social drinking, the pleasure results from lowered inhibitions

leading to more conviviality. It isn't a direct effect of the alcohol on the

body & mind. Surely that is obvious to anyone but an AA member (or a member

of the variant alcohol-worshipping cults.)

--wally

Re: Re: Pleasure-Seeking

> It seems to me that some of the guys just don't get it.

>

> It sounds to me as if some people see only two states; pain and pleasure.

If you aren't

> feeling pleasure, then you're in pain. And if you're aren't in pain, then

you're feeling

> pleasure.

>

> writes, " Not meaning to offend. "

>

> I am not offended, but I'm sitting here thinking, " Holy shit, doesn't this

guy get it? "

> What is saying seems to me like such an oversimplification. " Keep

it simple. "

> Perceive things in the most simple way, black or white, yes or no, one or

the other.

>

> Either phony AA powerlessness, or complete control and choice. Freely

choosing to use

> pain as an excuse to get drunk and seek pleasure.

>

> It seems to me that there are other feeling-states besides just pain and

pleasure and the

> continuum in between. It seems to me that not everything one does is a

" decision " . Some

> things, I believe, are more of an automatic reaction.

>

> It does seem to me that 's post trivializes Mona and invalidates her

experience.

>

> Regards,

>

> nz

[Guest guest]

oh yeah, herion at the right dose -- that's pleasure. maybe I

should't say that, I gotta remember the shit times.....the overdoses,

the crimes. back to

caenemy

> Yup :-)

>

> I've been reading some of this pleasure/pain stuff wondering if,

perhaps,

> there are people out there who have never experienced pleasure and

actually

> don't know what it is. To me, real pleasure only happens when the

senses

> and/or mind and imagination are engaged. Usually the more

pleasurable things

> involve activity. Just sitting there getting your neurons twitched

doesn't

> make it. Maybe there are some drugs that could make me think I was

feeling

> pleasure, but I never met any. One minor exception being marijuana,

which

> actually CAN wake up the senses and imagination to a limited

degree. But

> when I drank heavily the main thing was to tune out anxiety,

getting some

> relief by numbing mayself. The idea that 'deep pleasure,' as the RR

folks

> say, is a feeling of numbness, strikes me as thoroughly perverse.

>

> Even in social drinking, the pleasure results from lowered

inhibitions

> leading to more conviviality. It isn't a direct effect of the

alcohol on the

> body & mind. Surely that is obvious to anyone but an AA member (or

a member

> of the variant alcohol-worshipping cults.)

>

> --wally

>

> Re: Re: Pleasure-Seeking

>

>

> > It seems to me that some of the guys just don't get it.

> >

> > It sounds to me as if some people see only two states; pain and

pleasure.

> If you aren't

> > feeling pleasure, then you're in pain. And if you're aren't in

pain, then

> you're feeling

> > pleasure.

> >

> > writes, " Not meaning to offend. "

> >

> > I am not offended, but I'm sitting here thinking, " Holy shit,

doesn't this

> guy get it? "

> > What is saying seems to me like such an

oversimplification. " Keep

> it simple. "

> > Perceive things in the most simple way, black or white, yes or

no, one or

> the other.

> >

> > Either phony AA powerlessness, or complete control and choice.

Freely

> choosing to use

> > pain as an excuse to get drunk and seek pleasure.

> >

> > It seems to me that there are other feeling-states besides just

pain and

> pleasure and the

> > continuum in between. It seems to me that not everything one

does is a

> " decision " . Some

> > things, I believe, are more of an automatic reaction.

> >

> > It does seem to me that 's post trivializes Mona and

invalidates her

> experience.

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > nz

[Guest guest]

Hi Again Mona, & All,

(Sorry, a little behind the list again

I certainly don't mean to trivialize Mona's past experiences - it all

sounds utterly horrendous. And in a way, yes, I am over-simplifying,

in an attempt to get to the essence of the choice to use or drink. I

still say " choice " no matter what; I don't think anyone had a gun to

Mona's head before she drank. She had learned at some previous point

what alcohol could do; that choice wasn't exactly instinctive.

Rather than use the words pain and pleasure, perhaps I should say all

problem drinking and using is an attempt to get from a less desirable

state to a more desirable one. Self-medication for reality avoidance.

The circumstances and emotions leading to this choice vary widely no

doubt. But I'm thinking it's a useful thing for problem drinkers and

users to acknowledge a universal factor ... " I chose to drink/use

because it seemed better than X situation " . I mean this in the spirit

of ownership of recovery. I know it helps me to remain aware of the

kinds of situations that might end up with me choosing to drink or

use. I don't consider it a disease, but I'm realistic about the

tendencies I have. Tendencies that may not change until I am

psychologically perfect(!).

If you feel this is totally contrary to your experience, I would

genuinely like to hear your take on it.

[Guest guest]

The " you choose to... " argument is absolutely de-humanizing when taken to

the extreme. It has, for instance, been used as a rape defense -- particularly

when there is no " gun to the head " , but merely the threat of being beaten up by

a burly, menacing man -- the rapist will insist the sex was " consensual " , that

the woman " chose " to have sex, therefore there was no rape.

In the world of the " you chose to... " types, there is no such thing as

coercion, because coercion means there is no choice, and there is always choice.

A person could " choose " to go to jail or lose custody of their child instead of

going to AA. A person can " choose " to try to fight off three muggers instead of

" choosing " to give over their bicycle, wallet, etc. A woman can " choose " to be

beaten or killed instead of being raped. Etc.

One cannot take things to the other extreme either, especially claiming

that they have no choice in their behavior because of a " disease " or a

" dysfunctional childhood " .

But a therapist telling a client that they can simply " choose " to stop

being depressed or stop having panic attacks, etc., is in my opinion incompetent

as well as insensitive. Therapy should be a place where someone feels safe

expressing their pain and learning how to take action to overcome it, not being

invalidated by a snotty comment like, " You can choose not to feel

hurt/fearful/etc. "

~Rita

> wrote, " I still say " choice " no matter what; I don't think anyone had a

gun to

> Mona's head before she drank. "

>

> Oh, I hate to be a bitch, but right now I am. I jumped on just the

other day, and

> here I go again. I keep picking on , it looks like. :-)

>

> I have *never* liked that argument, " Nobody had a gun to your head. "

>

> I am getting a flashback to a particularly obnoxious stepper, full of her own

> righteousness, telling other people what to do. She'd become a counselor

<sigh> like so

> many do, and could wallow in her own stuff by projecting on to other people

and wallowing

> in their stuff. And I remember her sanctimonious, superior voice and the smug

look on her

> face as she pronounced, " Nobody put a gun to your head. " Telling other people

what to do,

> putting other people down. " Nobody put a gun to your head. "

>

> What do guns have to do with it?

>

> And then there was the therapist I had this argument with. He overused the

word " choice " .

> He preceded every verb with " You choose to... " You choose to feel, you choose

to do, you

> choose to believe, you choose to think, you choose to ____. And he made it

sound as if

> this choice existed in a vacuum, as if there were no influencing factors

whatsoever.

> Finally I got really annoyed with this constant " You choose to ____, " and I

said, " But

> suppose you were a clerk in a convenience market, and it was 2 AM? And

suppose someone

> came in and pointed a gun at you and said, 'Your money or your life!' " The

therapist

> responded, " It's your choice. You chose to work there. And even if someone

puts a gun to

> your head you still choose whether to give him the money or get shot. It's

your choice.

> You choose. "

>

> That was back in the late '70's. I saw this therapist again, now that I've

moved back

> here. We're both old geezers now, and by the living jingo, he *still* has

that same

> speech mannerism. " You choose to ____. " I thought that one went out of style

years ago

> with bell bottoms and granny glasses.

>

> Some day, some day if I get off my dead ass, I am going to write a rant

concerning the

> word " choice " , because it see it as a far, far more complex situation than the

way most

> people seem to portray it. But not now. I'm way behind in e-mail, and I want

to announce

> that I'm starting a new 12-step group, " Electrons Anonymous " , an offshoot of

Clutter

> Anonymous. I have electrons and bandwidth piled up in this computer, creating

as much

> virtual clutter as I have paper clutter piled up in the house. I admitted I

am powerless

> over e-mail lists, and my computer has become unmanageable.

>

> Sorry to pick on you, , of course. I'm ranting, but there's no

animosity or ill

> will. :-)

>

> Cheers,

>

> nz

[Guest guest]

--- rita66@... wrote:

>

> In the world of the " you chose to... " types,

> there is no such thing as coercion, because coercion

> means there is no choice, and there is always

> choice. A person could " choose " to go to jail or

> lose custody of their child instead of going to AA.

> A person can " choose " to try to fight off three

> muggers instead of " choosing " to give over their

> bicycle, wallet, etc. A woman can " choose " to be

> beaten or killed instead of being raped. Etc.

I need further clarification on just exactly who the

" you chose to... " types are? I strongly believe in the

concept of choice, but I think that coersion and

choice are not mutually exclusive principles. I think

that a person can be coerced into choices that would

be horrible for them. If a woman submits to rape to

save her own life, that is a horrible thing for her to

go through, but it's also a choice that she was

coerced into making. No matter what she does here, she

is a victim of terrible brutality.

Now, am I part of the " ilk " in the category you

referred to above?

Therapy should

> be a place where someone feels safe expressing their

> pain and learning how to take action to overcome it,

> not being invalidated by a snotty comment like, " You

> can choose not to feel hurt/fearful/etc. "

IMO, it's not possible to choose feelings. They just

happen.

Ron

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Nor did these pompous windbags ever tell me

*how* to go about "choosing" something different.

I accept CBT and RET to a very great extent, and do believe we can largely control, i.e., choose how we feel. But not entirely. Anyone who thinks they can control how they feel when their child dies is deluded, and has not endured the experience. It *immediately affects you in every cell of your body, inducing a numbed state in which the texture of reality feels bizarre and foreign. It is not an experience that is immediately amenable to reason.

A very rational friend of mine was diagnosed with one of the most malignant forms of cancer at age 34. Going into her mastectomy, she was advised there was an 80% chance it had already metastasized to her liver and other areas that spelled a virtual death warrant.

She was on Xanax almost nonstop in the 3 days before the surgery (weak "pleasure-seeker" that she is). Guess she should have just disputed her self-talk, eh? There must haver been "rational" alternatives to fearing profound pain and disfigurement as the optimal outcome, and death in less than six months as the more likely prognosis.

Some folks need to get real.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Hi Rita

As welll as giving the overdue reply to Mike as to why coerced AA is

not acceptable, you give me the opportunity to mention again the

stupid contradictions that my old rehab-running sponsor indulges in.

He is supported by Glasser, of Reality Therapy, who pushes

very,v ery hard that you always choose your suffering , no matter how

bad it is, and that in therapy, never consider yourself sick. This is

of course the exact opposite of steppism that says that you are sick

and powerless over your disease. In addition, Glasser believes that no

more than about 1 in 10,000 ppl have some kind of brain chemistry

problem that causes them problems, but my ex-sponsor claims that 10%

have biochemical " addictive disease " and another 10% biochemical

co-addiction. One thing he has changed on; he used to believe

homosexuality was biochemical and encourage repressed gay ppl to

come out - he insisted that I was " more gay than straight " and

should " look at it " . Now he follows Glassers' homophobic line, to

the poin that one client instigated suing over it. Yet these two

completely contradictory theorists are in bed with each other. Why?

Because they are both authoritarians of course.

P.

>

> > wrote, " I still say " choice " no matter what; I don't think

anyone had a gun to

> > Mona's head before she drank. "

> >

> > Oh, I hate to be a bitch, but right now I am. I jumped on

just the other day, and

> > here I go again. I keep picking on , it looks like. :-)

> >

> > I have *never* liked that argument, " Nobody had a gun to your

head. "

> >

> > I am getting a flashback to a particularly obnoxious stepper, full

of her own

> > righteousness, telling other people what to do. She'd become a

counselor <sigh> like so

> > many do, and could wallow in her own stuff by projecting on to

other people and wallowing

> > in their stuff. And I remember her sanctimonious, superior voice

and the smug look on her

> > face as she pronounced, " Nobody put a gun to your head. " Telling

other people what to do,

> > putting other people down. " Nobody put a gun to your head. "

> >

> > What do guns have to do with it?

> >

> > And then there was the therapist I had this argument with. He

overused the word " choice " .

> > He preceded every verb with " You choose to... " You choose to

feel, you choose to do, you

> > choose to believe, you choose to think, you choose to ____. And

he made it sound as if

> > this choice existed in a vacuum, as if there were no influencing

factors whatsoever.

> > Finally I got really annoyed with this constant " You choose to

____, " and I said, " But

> > suppose you were a clerk in a convenience market, and it was 2 AM?

And suppose someone

> > came in and pointed a gun at you and said, 'Your money or your

life!' " The therapist

> > responded, " It's your choice. You chose to work there. And even

if someone puts a gun to

> > your head you still choose whether to give him the money or get

shot. It's your choice.

> > You choose. "

> >

> > That was back in the late '70's. I saw this therapist again, now

that I've moved back

> > here. We're both old geezers now, and by the living jingo, he

*still* has that same

> > speech mannerism. " You choose to ____. " I thought that one went

out of style years ago

> > with bell bottoms and granny glasses.

> >

> > Some day, some day if I get off my dead ass, I am going to write a

rant concerning the

> > word " choice " , because it see it as a far, far more complex

situation than the way most

> > people seem to portray it. But not now. I'm way behind in

e-mail, and I want to announce

> > that I'm starting a new 12-step group, " Electrons Anonymous " , an

offshoot of Clutter

> > Anonymous. I have electrons and bandwidth piled up in this

computer, creating as much

> > virtual clutter as I have paper clutter piled up in the house. I

admitted I am powerless

> > over e-mail lists, and my computer has become unmanageable.

> >

> > Sorry to pick on you, , of course. I'm ranting, but there's

no animosity or ill

> > will. :-)

> >

> > Cheers,

> >

> > nz

[Guest guest]

> IMO, it's not possible to choose feelings. They just

> happen.

Tu tut Ron! complete failure at both Reality Therapy and steppism.

You *choose* your feelings of course! Or at least you do on Monday,

Wednesdays and Fridays, but on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays you

get depressed bacuase you have " addictvie disease " .

(This is what I got fed on).

P.

[Guest guest]

Pete:

I tried steppism of the Al-Anon variety over a decade

ago. I never agreed with how SOME otherwise appealing

philosophical principles were convoluted to fit addict

and family issues. And other principles, as espoused

by the steppers, smelled like a lot of bullshit to me.

But at that time I was a misery " junky " and I found

the best congregation imaginable of like-minded (or

should I say dis-like minded) people. Thank God, this

was a short lived period of my life.

Never has failure ever felt so rewarding.

Ron

--- watts_pete@... wrote:

>

>

> > IMO, it's not possible to choose feelings. They

> just

> > happen.

>

> Tu tut Ron! complete failure at both Reality Therapy

> and steppism.

> You *choose* your feelings of course! Or at least

> you do on Monday,

> Wednesdays and Fridays, but on Tuesdays, Thursdays

> and Saturdays you

> get depressed bacuase you have " addictvie disease " .

>

> (This is what I got fed on).

>

> P.

>

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Pete writes, " He is supported by Glasser, of Reality Therapy, who pushes

very,v ery hard that you always choose your suffering , no matter how

bad it is... "

What on earth does this mean? Yes, yes, I've heard, " You choose to feel... " so

many times

I want to puke. But I could never get an answer from these advocates of choice

just what

it is they mean by " choice " , and how it would be that someone would choose to be

unhappy

when all they have to do is choose happiness. Nor did these pompous windbags

ever tell me

*how* to go about " choosing " something different.

<sigh>

Cheers,

nz

[Guest guest]

>

> > IMO, it's not possible to choose feelings. They just

> > happen.

>

> Tu tut Ron! complete failure at both Reality Therapy and steppism.

> You *choose* your feelings of course! Or at least you do on Monday,

> Wednesdays and Fridays, but on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays

you

> get depressed bacuase you have " addictvie disease " .

>

> (This is what I got fed on).

>

>

P.

That's good....... i like that. cracks me way up-----but really

that's not funny. Now this is serious sh*t.

caenemy

[Guest guest]

Hi

Glasser claims ppl choose to get migraine too. At my old rehab, folks

were encouraged to say " X is migraining " rather than " X has migraine " .

Yep, he says no matter how deep the shit youre suffering,

schizophrenia (complete with hallucinations), bipolar, whatever, youre

actively choosing it.

How do you choose different? You just choose it!

Glasser accepts that physiological responses to anxiety are

prety well impossible to change, and feelings very difficult to

change. However, he maintains that actions are easiest to do and hence

you try to make changes by changing your behaviors, a reasonable

suggestion in itself. However, imo the suggestion is ridiculously

overstated. I dont for the life of me believe that someone can choose

to stop having migraines.

It is also worth noting that he admits to getting depressed himself,

but he limits himslef to half and hour a day. Why any time at all?

Ellis's comments about response to bereavement have already bere noted

and reviled. Galsser is not quite so extreme, but if he really

believes what he says, why does he not agree with Ellis. ( He says

wone should not sympathise with " depressing " patients becasue that

only increases their sense of worthlessness).

Glasser talks about how he would counsel a bereaved woman. Basically

he says what most ppl would say, that he would initially be very

sympathetic toward her grief but after a long time, say a year or so,

he would increasingly suggest she try to put it behind her. This is

hardly radical stuff. What I find odd though, is if we choose our

feelings, why doesnt he suggest that the woman cheer up immediately?

P.

> Pete writes, " He is supported by Glasser, of Reality

Therapy, who pushes

> very,v ery hard that you always choose your suffering , no matter

how

> bad it is... "

>

> What on earth does this mean? Yes, yes, I've heard, " You choose to

feel... " so many times

> I want to puke. But I could never get an answer from these

advocates of choice just what

> it is they mean by " choice " , and how it would be that someone would

choose to be unhappy

> when all they have to do is choose happiness. Nor did these pompous

windbags ever tell me

> *how* to go about " choosing " something different.

>

> <sigh>

>

> Cheers,

>

> nz

[Guest guest]

I think reading " Lolita " (Vladimir Nabokov) offers a good anwer to

your question.

> Pete writes, " He is supported by Glasser, of Reality

Therapy, who pushes

> very,v ery hard that you always choose your suffering , no matter

how

> bad it is... "

>

> What on earth does this mean? Yes, yes, I've heard, " You choose to

feel... " so many times

> I want to puke. But I could never get an answer from these

advocates of choice just what

> it is they mean by " choice " , and how it would be that someone would

choose to be unhappy

> when all they have to do is choose happiness. Nor did these pompous

windbags ever tell me

> *how* to go about " choosing " something different.

>

> <sigh>

>

> Cheers,

>

> nz

[Guest guest]

Feelings don't " just happen. "

But it is also true that individuals do not consciously choose

their feelings.

Consider a believing Hindu. Revulsion over the cooking of beef,

or the eating thereof, can be so extreme as to result in nausea.

Why? Does this " just happen " ? Clearly, individuals do not

consciously " choose " to be nauseous. Yet, we can see the cultural

and social roots of the taboo upon beef-eating, and the severe

emotional reaction which taboo-violation stimulates.

It would be ridiculous to trace the nausea which results in a

Hindu from observing the cooking and eating of beef to some

presumed " genetic " cause. It would be ridiculous to assume that a

believing Hindu has a " spiritual disease " which makes it impossible

for him to eat beef. And would be equally ridiculous to assume that

the individual rationally 'chooses' to feel antipathy towards beef

consumption.

The taboo upon beef in India is a socially-learned custom, with

associated emotional responses. These phenomena can only be rightly

understood socially, and not by individualistic or genetic analysis..

>

> > IMO, it's not possible to choose feelings. They just

> > happen.

>

> Tu tut Ron! complete failure at both Reality Therapy and steppism.

> You *choose* your feelings of course! Or at least you do on Monday,

> Wednesdays and Fridays, but on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays

you

> get depressed bacuase you have " addictvie disease " .

>

> (This is what I got fed on).

>

> P.

[Guest guest]

--- ernst17us@... wrote:

>

>

> But it is also true that individuals do not

> consciously choose

> their feelings.

That was my point, ernst.

Ron

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Hello Kayleigh,

I dont follow this. Which of 's questions does " Lolita " provide

an answer to, and what is it?

P.

> > Pete writes, " He is supported by Glasser, of Reality

> Therapy, who pushes

> > very,v ery hard that you always choose your suffering , no matter

> how

> > bad it is... "

> >

> > What on earth does this mean? Yes, yes, I've heard, " You choose

to

> feel... " so many times

> > I want to puke. But I could never get an answer from these

> advocates of choice just what

> > it is they mean by " choice " , and how it would be that someone

would

> choose to be unhappy

> > when all they have to do is choose happiness. Nor did these

pompous

> windbags ever tell me

> > *how* to go about " choosing " something different.

> >

> > <sigh>

> >

> > Cheers,

> >

> > nz

[Guest guest]

The question is, " How would someone choose to be unhappy when all they

have to do is choose happiness? " Humbert Humbert describes in

excruciating detail why he has chosen unhappiness (as it were).

> > > Pete writes, " He is supported by Glasser, of Reality

> > Therapy, who pushes

> > > very,v ery hard that you always choose your suffering , no

matter

> > how

> > > bad it is... "

> > >

> > > What on earth does this mean? Yes, yes, I've heard, " You choose

> to

> > feel... " so many times

> > > I want to puke. But I could never get an answer from these

> > advocates of choice just what

> > > it is they mean by " choice " , and how it would be that someone

> would

> > choose to be unhappy

> > > when all they have to do is choose happiness. Nor did these

> pompous

> > windbags ever tell me

> > > *how* to go about " choosing " something different.

> > >

> > > <sigh>

> > >

> > > Cheers,

> > >

> > > nz

[Guest guest]

<great big sigh> My books are in boxes in the attic. I have no place to put

them.

There are no bookshelves in this house, and my partner is in the room in which I

would

have put bookshelves and had my library.

So Lolita lies buried up there with all sorts of other stuph. I'd seen the

original

Mason movie, and then just a couple years ago another Lolita movie came out. I

went with

my neighbor who is a professor in the theater department at Ithaca College. I

really

liked the movie, and I found the book in a used book store. But I haven't read

it yet.

So many books, so little time...

And although movies can show us all sorts of neat visuals, and although there

are certain

things that are better shown than described, generally a book is so much better

than a

movie. A book can show thoughts and inner states in ways a movie never can.

So eventually I will read the book and find out how it came to be that Humbert

chose

unhappiness. If I can't wade through all those boxes in the attic (and I want

you guys to

know that I am powerless over books, and part of what made moving unmanageable

was

schlepping all those books to PA, a job I did myself to save money on the cost

of moving)

I could go to the library, or I could go to the local used book store and see if

they have

a copy.

I'd like to know why Humbert made his choice. Back in the '70's I was in

therapy, and the

therapist kept insisting that I chose to feel. I had such a problem with

depression and

profound unhappiness. I did not want to be depressed or unhappy. The shrink

kept telling

me I was just choosing to be depressed, choosing to be unhappy. I cried in

frustration,

" Then tell me how to un-choose! How do I un-choose depression? I want to

choose

happiness! I want to choose something other than this relentless misery! HOW,

HOW do I

un-choose depression and choose happiness? "

The shrink couldn't tell me. He could only repeat the " You choose to feel "

mantra, the

" Nobody can make you do, you choose to do " litany. He meant well. His

intention was to

empower me, to give me an awareness of self-efficacy. But it didn't work. All

it did was

leave me feeling bewildered and frustrated in addition to feeling depressed.

Mind you, I'd think a life of nothing but the bluebird of happiness relentlessly

chirping

his merry tune all day, every day would be unsatisfactory. Constant happiness

would be a

bore, I'd think, and I'm reminded of my aunt who lived in California, but she'd

come back

home to Pennsylvania in October to visit because she wanted so badly to see the

season

change. There's great beauty in tragedies. There's great depth of emotion in

sorrow.

There's really terrific music composed in the form of sad songs. And I would

not want to

be without that range of emotion that sorrow allows.

But severe and constant depression is another thing. Nothing beautiful about

that that I

can see. No great range of emotion, nothing esthetic about constant, wearing,

grinding

depression. It just wears one down, saps one's energy. And I still don't know

how to

simply snap my fingers and just choose my way out of it.

Does this Glasser guy tell us specifically and clearly how to un-choose

misery and

suffering, and how to choose happiness and self-efficacy? Does he do anything

besides run

that " You're choosing, you're choosing " stuff at people? I don't find it

particularly

helpful when a shrink sits there in his comfortable chair, looks at me and says

with some

smugness, " That's your choice; you choose to feel that way, " but can't say one

mumblin'

word about how to choose otherwise.

And I even would go so far as to opine that it's a cop-out on the part of the

shrink.

Mind you, I am not saying that we are nothing but helpless, powerless victims

who cannot

choose anything. I do think we have a partial choice (and I do not want to go

into

details at present). Rather, I think running this " You choose " stuff is a good

way for a

shrink to cover up incompetence and lack of any real ability to help.

Cheers,

nz

[Guest guest]

At 07:00 AM 6/21/01 -0400, wrote:

><great big sigh> My books are in boxes in the attic. I have no place to

put them.

>There are no bookshelves in this house, and my partner is in the room in

which I would

>have put bookshelves and had my library.

I moved 900 miles a year ago. I moved into a house by myself. It took

about six months to make five or six bookshelves (in addition to the

eight to ten I already had) and get my books off the floor, at least for

downstairs in the living and dining rooms, upstairs is still a mess, but

at least I know where most any book is.

>So eventually I will read the book and find out how it came to be that

Humbert chose

>unhappiness. If I can't wade through all those boxes in the attic (and I

want you guys to

>know that I am powerless over books, and part of what made moving

unmanageable was

>schlepping all those books to PA, a job I did myself to save money on the

cost of moving)

>I could go to the library, or I could go to the local used book store and

see if they have

>a copy.

Since you're powerless over books, telling you about

<http://www.bookfinder.com> would be like giving an alcoholic the keys

to a fully loaded liquor delivery truck, so I won't. And I won't tell you

that if you can't find a book there, there are mailing lists such as

<http://www.bibliophilegroup.com/> that are read by hundreds of used

booksellers who read want-to-buy posts for all those books they have

for sale but haven't had the time to put into online databases. I won't

tell you that I've found the $30/year subscription price to Bibliophile

to be worth it.

But if I were to give you any such information, it would still be

your choice whether and how you use it.

>

>I'd like to know why Humbert made his choice. Back in the '70's I was in

therapy, and the

>therapist kept insisting that I chose to feel.

I'm gonna play armchair shrink, and this may well be more about me

'projecting' my feelings on you than anything about what you went

through, so you may learn more about me than anything else by reading

this, but what the heck.

I think you were trying to choose NOT to feel, since the therapist

was digging at you with the " you CHOOSE to feel that way " stuff, but the

feelings would not be denied, so you were desperately trying to convince

the therapist how badly it hurt. The problem was the therapist was not a

human being and couldn't/wouldn't empathize, sympathize or understand in

any meaningful way.

So there - I normally wouldn't have told you that much about myself.

>I had such a problem with depression and

>profound unhappiness. I did not want to be depressed or unhappy. The

shrink kept telling

>me I was just choosing to be depressed, choosing to be unhappy. I cried

in frustration,

> " Then tell me how to un-choose! How do I un-choose depression? I want to

choose

>happiness! I want to choose something other than this relentless misery!

HOW, HOW do I

>un-choose depression and choose happiness? "

>

>The shrink couldn't tell me. He could only repeat the " You choose to

feel " mantra, the

> " Nobody can make you do, you choose to do " litany. He meant well. His

intention was to

>empower me, to give me an awareness of self-efficacy. But it didn't work.

All it did was

>leave me feeling bewildered and frustrated in addition to feeling depressed.

Seriously, I find this enlighning in a small way, specifically the

words " He meant well " . I could go into a long dissertation - many lecturing

AA'ers " meant well " (many others were just control freaks, sharing their

" ES & H " at me an others), but they still didn't know jack shit about what

I or anyone else 'needs' as far as emotional or 'spiritual' help.

>Mind you, I'd think a life of nothing but the bluebird of happiness

relentlessly chirping

>his merry tune all day, every day would be unsatisfactory. Constant

happiness would be a

>bore, I'd think, and I'm reminded of my aunt who lived in California, but

she'd come back

>home to Pennsylvania in October to visit because she wanted so badly to

see the season

>change. There's great beauty in tragedies. There's great depth of

emotion in sorrow.

>There's really terrific music composed in the form of sad songs. And I

would not want to

>be without that range of emotion that sorrow allows.

I've heard a couple of times " you have to feel the sadness as well as

the happiness " , which seems to ring true for me. However, it's easy to get

stuck in sadness when you're around people who are saying " You choose to

feel that way. Get off your pity pot. " I always found myself reacting to

them, and not only is such a statement not helpful, it adds another layer

of shit for me to dig through.

I have to give myself credit for quitting 12-step meetings. I would

always lose the game of being helped (my last years I became a 'Grateful

Recovering Alcoholic and sarcastically spouted slogans rather than share

anything about myself that others could use to 'help' me), so I quit going

there.

>But severe and constant depression is another thing. Nothing beautiful

about that that I

>can see. No great range of emotion, nothing esthetic about constant,

wearing, grinding

>depression. It just wears one down, saps one's energy. And I still don't

know how to

>simply snap my fingers and just choose my way out of it.

>

>Does this Glasser guy tell us specifically and clearly how to

un-choose misery and

I've got his " Reality Therapy " and I think another book by him, but I

haven't read it (perhaps a good thing). A man in Al-Anon recommended it

to me.

>suffering, and how to choose happiness and self-efficacy? Does he do

anything besides run

>that " You're choosing, you're choosing " stuff at people? I don't find it

particularly

>helpful when a shrink sits there in his comfortable chair, looks at me and

says with some

>smugness, " That's your choice; you choose to feel that way, " but can't say

one mumblin'

>word about how to choose otherwise.

Al-Anon has, as part of their Official Literature, a bookmark with little

quotes and sayings on it. One is attributed to Abraham Lincoln and goes

something like: " Most people are about as happy as they choose to be. "

I've seen many obviously unhappy people in Al-Anon, AA, and other

programs, but I've never heard one say " I'm choosing to be unhappy right

now. "

----------

http://listen.to/benbradley

[Guest guest]

Mind you, , I am not saying that what Humbert Humbert " chose " was

within his conscious control. It's more like what he got stuck with.

> <great big sigh> My books are in boxes in the attic. I have no

place to put them.

> There are no bookshelves in this house, and my partner is in the

room in which I would

> have put bookshelves and had my library.

>

> So Lolita lies buried up there with all sorts of other stuph. I'd

seen the original

> Mason movie, and then just a couple years ago another Lolita movie

came out. I went with

> my neighbor who is a professor in the theater department at Ithaca

College. I really

> liked the movie, and I found the book in a used book store. But I

haven't read it yet.

> So many books, so little time...

>

> And although movies can show us all sorts of neat visuals, and

although there are certain

> things that are better shown than described, generally a book is so

much better than a

> movie. A book can show thoughts and inner states in ways a movie

never can.

>

> So eventually I will read the book and find out how it came to be

that Humbert chose

> unhappiness. If I can't wade through all those boxes in the attic

(and I want you guys to

> know that I am powerless over books, and part of what made moving

unmanageable was

> schlepping all those books to PA, a job I did myself to save money

on the cost of moving)

> I could go to the library, or I could go to the local used book

store and see if they have

> a copy.

>

> I'd like to know why Humbert made his choice. Back in the '70's I

was in therapy, and the

> therapist kept insisting that I chose to feel. I had such a problem

with depression and

> profound unhappiness. I did not want to be depressed or unhappy.

The shrink kept telling

> me I was just choosing to be depressed, choosing to be unhappy. I

cried in frustration,

> " Then tell me how to un-choose! How do I un-choose depression? I

want to choose

> happiness! I want to choose something other than this relentless

misery! HOW, HOW do I

> un-choose depression and choose happiness? "

>

> The shrink couldn't tell me. He could only repeat the " You choose

to feel " mantra, the

> " Nobody can make you do, you choose to do " litany. He meant well.

His intention was to

> empower me, to give me an awareness of self-efficacy. But it didn't

work. All it did was

> leave me feeling bewildered and frustrated in addition to feeling

depressed.

>

> Mind you, I'd think a life of nothing but the bluebird of happiness

relentlessly chirping

> his merry tune all day, every day would be unsatisfactory. Constant

happiness would be a

> bore, I'd think, and I'm reminded of my aunt who lived in

California, but she'd come back

> home to Pennsylvania in October to visit because she wanted so badly

to see the season

> change. There's great beauty in tragedies. There's great depth of

emotion in sorrow.

> There's really terrific music composed in the form of sad songs.

And I would not want to

> be without that range of emotion that sorrow allows.

>

> But severe and constant depression is another thing. Nothing

beautiful about that that I

> can see. No great range of emotion, nothing esthetic about

constant, wearing, grinding

> depression. It just wears one down, saps one's energy. And I still

don't know how to

> simply snap my fingers and just choose my way out of it.

>

> Does this Glasser guy tell us specifically and clearly how

to un-choose misery and

> suffering, and how to choose happiness and self-efficacy? Does he

do anything besides run

> that " You're choosing, you're choosing " stuff at people? I don't

find it particularly

> helpful when a shrink sits there in his comfortable chair, looks at

me and says with some

> smugness, " That's your choice; you choose to feel that way, " but

can't say one mumblin'

> word about how to choose otherwise.

>

> And I even would go so far as to opine that it's a cop-out on the

part of the shrink.

> Mind you, I am not saying that we are nothing but helpless,

powerless victims who cannot

> choose anything. I do think we have a partial choice (and I do not

want to go into

> details at present). Rather, I think running this " You choose "

stuff is a good way for a

> shrink to cover up incompetence and lack of any real ability to

help.

>

> Cheers,

>

> nz

[Guest guest]

> Mind you, , I am not saying that what Humbert Humbert " chose "

>was within his conscious control. It's more like what he got stuck

>with.

Aha. Now this is what I expected. Are you talking about his

explanation of his pedophilia? ( I think technically " hebephilia " - he

was attracted to adolescents rather than pre-adolescents). Lolita is a

brilliant work imo. Youre right that the book is much better

than either film for exactly the reasons you give - this book in

particular is all about the internal world of Humbert Humbert which

can never be conveyed on to screen. The screenplay of the first film

was written by Nabokov and he tried to make up for this in a number of

ways which are quite succesful but it's still a pale imitation of the

book itself. The later film is weaker in a number of ways - it shows

Humbert striking Lolita, which iirc does not occur in the book and I

would say is out of character ( Arent I going to look daft if someone

can remember that in fact he does!).

I think this is the rub when ppl are chroncally unhappy, like, I am

sorry to say, I am. We are stuck with things that are too deep to

change. That is why I object to that supposed " slf-pity " question in

the Macs scale. Somtimes problems are of a nature that the best

one can do is live with them - Serenity to accept the things one

cannot change and all that. Some folks think that they cant drink

moderately and have to accept it and forego drinking for life. Anyone

got a problem w that?

P.