Absolutely Honest Shirk is still on this list

[Guest guest]

oH, THAT Is definitely so funny.

I'm just sorry that we didn't have a cure

for opiatism back in the 1860's. Isn't that

something to think about? Ann

[Guest guest]

Dear 12-step free person:

Edgar Allan Poe was an opiate addict. He died from

his addiction. Also, absinthe at the time was a killer.

I'm just saying, if drinking is a philsosophy as some might

argue, than not-drinking must be a philosophy, not a religion.

Let's hope it is so.

Ann

[Guest guest]

I am not too concerned with what the poster meant... I don't remember

it now too well, but some of the middle steps did seem insulting...

however the last step is the only one that matters, and was very

good. The idea of using 12 steps at all is just ridiculous to me,

and so I took the post as an attempt at humor, nothing more. If the

guy is still a stepper, then my condolences to him, his family, and

anyone he interacts with (us included). It's his life.

> > I didn't find the post mocking... at points I wondered, but in

the

> > end it was good. Anyway.... where is this lamplighter group?

>

> It was indeed funny and might superficially seem inocuous, but it

was

> barbed in places. Lamplighters is found easy enough with a

search.

> However, it makers it clear its a CLOSED AA list. Unless you

> are an unprincipled Shitk you wont be able to join and keep your

> integrity. Although of course, as it goes by Tradition 3 you ought

to

> be free to join if you practise abstinence. As it happens I have

> applied to join but unlike Shirk I will be decent and *not* join,

> though I was thinking of asking the listowner (who lives here in

> London, oddly) to fwd a post asking members NOT to harass this

list.

> Some of the reponse dwelt on desire to STOP drinking as if a

presently

> abstinent person might not count - this is just my speculation. I

> wont mae the request because quite proably there is only one

> Lamplighters intruder and mentioning this list will likely just

have a

> " Please dont throw me in the briar patch " effect.

[Guest guest]

> Dear Group:

> I'm sure I did not mean to insult. I have a tendency to be

maudlin. That is,

> I guess, a character defect if it is not put to good use.

> Now, I have a question, how would Edgar Allan Poe have fit in

the AA

> structure?

> Would he have been robbed of his artistry, his poetry?

> If so, how can we stop this from happening again even though

it didn't happen

> in

> the first place?

> Hypothetically speaking and soon to be removed from the

12-step free zone and

> the 12-step not-so-free zone. Ann

Hi, Ann,

Edgar Poe, would be an interestin candidate for AA, to see

his response, what I would really like to see would be Mark

Twain's commentary on the 12-step program.

I'm curious, as to folks like yourself, who had long-term step

indoctrination, if you are able to isolate and identify the most

damaging aspects of the program. It would be different for

everyone. I've seen the sponsor as beeing a source of damaging

information for many. I, myself, never had a long-term sponsor, I

tried, just never worked out.

I've read and listened to many detailed accounts of people who

have left 12-step and other cults. One thing that I noticed is that

the folks who seem the most angry are the ones who were

scientology victims. All cults are bad news.

Have you considered any form of exit counseling? Some have

found it helpful, others not so much, I'm a firm believer that there

is no magic cure for anything.

Devin

[Guest guest]

Poe would have been too busy going to meetings to create anything.

What do you think we ought to do about it??

> Dear Group:

> I'm sure I did not mean to insult. I have a tendency to be

maudlin. That is,

> I guess, a character defect if it is not put to good use.

> Now, I have a question, how would Edgar Allan Poe have fit in the

AA

> structure?

> Would he have been robbed of his artistry, his poetry?

> If so, how can we stop this from happening again even though it

didn't happen

> in

> the first place?

> Hypothetically speaking and soon to be removed from the 12-step

free zone and

> the 12-step not-so-free zone. Ann

[Guest guest]

> Poe would have been too busy going to meetings to create anything.

>

> What do you think we ought to do about it??

Poe would not have been too busy going to meetings. I am sure he

would continue to sing and dance with his older siblings, Tinky Winky

(the bordoche with the handbag), Dipsy, and Laa Laa.

The wind's getting up.... Uh Oh...

[Guest guest]

if you are going to say things that make no sense without a

reference, then please include one.

> oH, THAT Is definitely so funny.

> I'm just sorry that we didn't have a cure

> for opiatism back in the 1860's. Isn't that

> something to think about? Ann

[Guest guest]

> Dear 12-step free person:

> Edgar Allan Poe was an opiate addict. He died from

> his addiction. Also, absinthe at the time was a killer.

> I'm just saying, if drinking is a philsosophy as some might

> argue, than not-drinking must be a philosophy, not a religion.

> Let's hope it is so.

> Ann

Hi, ann,

I have some problems with this: You mention that we didn't have

a " cure " for opiate addiction then (Poe's time.) The fact is that we

don't have a " cure " for any kind of addiction now. Meaning that

there is nothing that will guarentee absolute abstinace for those

that wish for it. There is also no way of preventing an addictive

response, some have it, others don't.

I think that the idea that drinking is a phlosophy is absurd,

drinking is a behavior. Do all drinkers consider any one thing to

be true in regards to the behavior of drinking? Of couse not. So

the adhearance to a " philosophy " of non-drinking is also absurd.

The only way someone might come to that conclusion, that I can

see, is by believing in a strict, dogmatic adhearance to 12-step

bullshit.

The idea that one must have a " philosophy " that they adhear to

comes from religious fundementalism. The authoritarian fundie

has a basic need to label people and label the " philosophy to

which they subscribe. This enables the fundie to place

individuals on a hierachical level, so that the fundie " knows "

where the person " stands " in relationship to their own idiology.

For instance notice how fundies think the Atheism is a

" philosophy " that all Atheists adhear to? That is so they can

attempt to pinpoint the ideology, and conclude exactly how they

are " right " and the other is " wrong " the level of hierachy of

" rightness " is vital in this process. They can then determine who

might be " worth saving " and who shall just be condemned.

I, myself do not adhear to any particular philosphy, I do not

consider myself an " Athiest, " or " Agnostic, " or " secular

humanist, " I an much bigger than any of these tiny, tranparent

little labels that the authoritarian structure might attempt to put on

me. My thoughts, and feelings, and sense of who I am go far

beyond the limitations of any sort of philosophy, dogma, or

ideology. I do not fit in any of the rediculous little boxes that they

attempt to shove people into. My mind and thinking represents

that which is yet to be discovered, not the shallow strutures that

represent the failed attempt of history.

AA - same thing- first, label you " alcoholic " then attack your

" philosphy " and label it invalid. Present you with their

" philosophy " which it " right and true, " this is psychologically

damaging any way you slice it.

Devin

[Guest guest]

> The idea that one must have a " philosophy " that they adhear to

> comes from religious fundementalism. The authoritarian fundie

> has a basic need to label people and label the " philosophy to

> which they subscribe. This enables the fundie to place

> individuals on a hierachical level, so that the fundie " knows "

> where the person " stands " in relationship to their own idiology.

> For instance notice how fundies think the Atheism is a

> " philosophy " that all Atheists adhear to? That is so they can

> attempt to pinpoint the ideology, and conclude exactly how they

> are " right " and the other is " wrong " the level of hierachy of

> " rightness " is vital in this process. They can then determine who

> might be " worth saving " and who shall just be condemned.

>

> I, myself do not adhear to any particular philosphy, I do not

> consider myself an " Athiest, " or " Agnostic, " or " secular

> humanist, " I an much bigger than any of these tiny, tranparent

> little labels that the authoritarian structure might attempt to put

on

> me. My thoughts, and feelings, and sense of who I am go far

> beyond the limitations of any sort of philosophy, dogma, or

> ideology. I do not fit in any of the rediculous little boxes that

they

> attempt to shove people into. My mind and thinking represents

> that which is yet to be discovered, not the shallow strutures that

> represent the failed attempt of history.

>

> AA - same thing- first, label you " alcoholic " then attack your

> " philosphy " and label it invalid. Present you with their

> " philosophy " which it " right and true, " this is psychologically

> damaging any way you slice it.

>

> Devin

Hi Devin,

Really enjoyed reading this!

Lately, been trying to figure out which 'philosophy' I fit into.

And its been driving me bonkers - My whole world got tipped up-side

down and in-side out. Don't believe in anything anymore. Want to,

cause its more comforting, but I don't...its just not there. Thats

totally opposite of less then a year ago. According to what you

wrote....don't have to worry about it.

That would be nice.

netty

[Guest guest]

>

> Hi Devin,

> Really enjoyed reading this!

> Lately, been trying to figure out which 'philosophy' I fit into.

> And its been driving me bonkers - My whole world got tipped

up-side

> down and in-side out. Don't believe in anything anymore. Want

to,

> cause its more comforting, but I don't...its just not there. Thats

> totally opposite of less then a year ago. According to what you

> wrote....don't have to worry about it.

> That would be nice.

> netty

'Zactly, Netty,

" Fitting in " to a particular philosophy does not serve the

purposes of the individual, it only serves the puposes of

authority. The idea that we must choose and adhere to

something only limits your thinking. The mind of a single person

is much more complex than all the computers in the world

combined. Imagine your mind as somethig without bounderies,

like the universe, itself, stretching out infinitly in every direction,

with absolutely no limitations. Your mind encopasses all

philosophies that exist, they just fall into the vast depth of your

thoughts and vanish, as a drop of rain falls into the ocean.

No one has the ability to label your ideas any more than they

have the ability to point to a cubic inch of wind and tell you what it

looks like.

Devin

[Guest guest]

> >

> > Hi Devin,

> > Really enjoyed reading this!

> > Lately, been trying to figure out which 'philosophy' I fit

into.

> > And its been driving me bonkers - My whole world got tipped

> up-side

> > down and in-side out. Don't believe in anything anymore. Want

> to,

> > cause its more comforting, but I don't...its just not there.

Thats

> > totally opposite of less then a year ago. According to what you

> > wrote....don't have to worry about it.

> > That would be nice.

> > netty

>

> 'Zactly, Netty,

>

> " Fitting in " to a particular philosophy does not serve the

> purposes of the individual, it only serves the puposes of

> authority. The idea that we must choose and adhere to

> something only limits your thinking. The mind of a single person

> is much more complex than all the computers in the world

> combined. Imagine your mind as somethig without bounderies,

> like the universe, itself, stretching out infinitly in every

direction,

> with absolutely no limitations. Your mind encopasses all

> philosophies that exist, they just fall into the vast depth of your

> thoughts and vanish, as a drop of rain falls into the ocean.

>

> No one has the ability to label your ideas any more than they

> have the ability to point to a cubic inch of wind and tell you what

it

> looks like.

>

> Devin

Devin,

I can picture that, see it, feel it, experience it.

It's beautiful.

netty

[Guest guest]

Re: "Absolutely Honest" Shirk is still on this list

> Dear 12-step free person:> Edgar Allan Poe was an opiate addict. He died from> his addiction. Also, absinthe at the time was a killer.> I'm just saying, if drinking is a philsosophy as some might> argue, than not-drinking must be a philosophy, not a religion.> Let's hope it is so.> AnnHi, ann,I have some problems with this: You mention that we didn't have a "cure" for opiate addiction then (Poe's time.) The fact is that we don't have a "cure" for any kind of addiction now. Meaning that there is nothing that will guarentee absolute abstinace for those that wish for it.

[As I see it, the preceding sentence is based on a belief that free will is subservient to animal nature, and represents a pessimistic philosophy about the human condition. I believe that across this country hundreds (maybe thousands) of people per day are guaranteeing to themselves (and in some cases to others as well) that they will remain absolutely abstinent for the rest of their lives and that is a cure.]

[DT]

There is also no way of preventing an addictive response, some have it, others don't. I think that the idea that drinking is a phlosophy is absurd, drinking is a behavior. Do all drinkers consider any one thing to be true in regards to the behavior of drinking? Of couse not. So the adhearance to a "philosophy" of non-drinking is also absurd. The only way someone might come to that conclusion, that I can see, is by believing in a strict, dogmatic adhearance to 12-step bullshit. The idea that one must have a "philosophy" that they adhear to comes from religious fundementalism. The authoritarian fundie has a basic need to label people and label the "philosophy to which they subscribe. This enables the fundie to place individuals on a hierachical level, so that the fundie "knows" where the person "stands" in relationship to their own idiology. For instance notice how fundies think the Atheism is a "philosophy" that all Atheists adhear to? That is so they can attempt to pinpoint the ideology, and conclude exactly how they are "right" and the other is "wrong" the level of hierachy of "rightness" is vital in this process. They can then determine who might be "worth saving" and who shall just be condemned.I, myself do not adhear to any particular philosphy, I do not consider myself an "Athiest," or " Agnostic," or "secular humanist," I an much bigger than any of these tiny, tranparent little labels that the authoritarian structure might attempt to put on me. My thoughts, and feelings, and sense of who I am go far beyond the limitations of any sort of philosophy, dogma, or ideology. I do not fit in any of the rediculous little boxes that they attempt to shove people into. My mind and thinking represents that which is yet to be discovered, not the shallow strutures that represent the failed attempt of history.AA - same thing- first, label you "alcoholic" then attack your "philosphy" and label it invalid. Present you with their "philosophy" which it "right and true," this is psychologically damaging any way you slice it.Devin

[Guest guest]

Devin, that was beautiful.

> > Dear 12-step free person:

> > Edgar Allan Poe was an opiate addict. He died from

> > his addiction. Also, absinthe at the time was a killer.

> > I'm just saying, if drinking is a philsosophy as some might

> > argue, than not-drinking must be a philosophy, not a religion.

> > Let's hope it is so.

> > Ann

>

> Hi, ann,

>

> I have some problems with this: You mention that we didn't have

> a " cure " for opiate addiction then (Poe's time.) The fact is that

we

> don't have a " cure " for any kind of addiction now. Meaning that

> there is nothing that will guarentee absolute abstinace for those

> that wish for it. There is also no way of preventing an addictive

> response, some have it, others don't.

>

> I think that the idea that drinking is a phlosophy is absurd,

> drinking is a behavior. Do all drinkers consider any one thing to

> be true in regards to the behavior of drinking? Of couse not. So

> the adhearance to a " philosophy " of non-drinking is also absurd.

> The only way someone might come to that conclusion, that I can

> see, is by believing in a strict, dogmatic adhearance to 12-step

> bullshit.

>

> The idea that one must have a " philosophy " that they adhear to

> comes from religious fundementalism. The authoritarian fundie

> has a basic need to label people and label the " philosophy to

> which they subscribe. This enables the fundie to place

> individuals on a hierachical level, so that the fundie " knows "

> where the person " stands " in relationship to their own idiology.

> For instance notice how fundies think the Atheism is a

> " philosophy " that all Atheists adhear to? That is so they can

> attempt to pinpoint the ideology, and conclude exactly how they

> are " right " and the other is " wrong " the level of hierachy of

> " rightness " is vital in this process. They can then determine who

> might be " worth saving " and who shall just be condemned.

>

> I, myself do not adhear to any particular philosphy, I do not

> consider myself an " Athiest, " or " Agnostic, " or " secular

> humanist, " I an much bigger than any of these tiny, tranparent

> little labels that the authoritarian structure might attempt to put

on

> me. My thoughts, and feelings, and sense of who I am go far

> beyond the limitations of any sort of philosophy, dogma, or

> ideology. I do not fit in any of the rediculous little boxes that

they

> attempt to shove people into. My mind and thinking represents

> that which is yet to be discovered, not the shallow strutures that

> represent the failed attempt of history.

>

> AA - same thing- first, label you " alcoholic " then attack your

> " philosphy " and label it invalid. Present you with their

> " philosophy " which it " right and true, " this is psychologically

> damaging any way you slice it.

>

> Devin

[Guest guest]

<unsnipped for your pleasure>

> > The idea that one must have a " philosophy " that they adhear to

> > comes from religious fundementalism. The authoritarian fundie

> > has a basic need to label people and label the " philosophy to

> > which they subscribe. This enables the fundie to place

> > individuals on a hierachical level, so that the fundie " knows "

> > where the person " stands " in relationship to their own idiology.

> > For instance notice how fundies think the Atheism is a

> > " philosophy " that all Atheists adhear to? That is so they can

> > attempt to pinpoint the ideology, and conclude exactly how they

> > are " right " and the other is " wrong " the level of hierachy of

> > " rightness " is vital in this process. They can then determine who

> > might be " worth saving " and who shall just be condemned.

> >

> > I, myself do not adhear to any particular philosphy, I do not

> > consider myself an " Athiest, " or " Agnostic, " or " secular

> > humanist, " I an much bigger than any of these tiny, tranparent

> > little labels that the authoritarian structure might attempt to

put

> on

> > me. My thoughts, and feelings, and sense of who I am go far

> > beyond the limitations of any sort of philosophy, dogma, or

> > ideology. I do not fit in any of the rediculous little boxes that

> they

> > attempt to shove people into. My mind and thinking represents

> > that which is yet to be discovered, not the shallow strutures

that

> > represent the failed attempt of history.

> >

> > AA - same thing- first, label you " alcoholic " then attack your

> > " philosphy " and label it invalid. Present you with their

> > " philosophy " which it " right and true, " this is psychologically

> > damaging any way you slice it.

> >

> >

Devin

>

>

> Hi Devin,

> Really enjoyed reading this!

> Lately, been trying to figure out which 'philosophy' I fit

into.

> And its been driving me bonkers - My whole world got tipped up-side

> down and in-side out. Don't believe in anything anymore. Want to,

> cause its more comforting, but I don't...its just not there. Thats

> totally opposite of less then a year ago. According to what you

> wrote....don't have to worry about it.

> That would be nice.

> netty

Netty when I was young I was a grifter... and one of my mentors told

me something that has stuck with me ever since. We were having a

beliefs and identity discussion (argument actually). I tried to find

words to describe myself, and he picked words that fit somewhat but

not perfectly and I got pissed. And so I asked him what he was, and

he saimply said, " I'm the whole thing. " I don't think you can find

one or two words ever that will fully describe you. You won't find a

single philosophy that encompasses all your beliefs. It was just

amazing that someone so young could have said something so profound

and that I would be fortunate enough to remember that.

[Guest guest]

Dear Devin:

Thank you for your reply.

Usermr4414@...

[Guest guest]

I understand..... Don't really want to tread in these waters to be honest.

lisak

Re: " Absolutely Honest " Shirk is still on this list

> Hello

>

> It is unfortunate that Shirk actually gave valuable information to you

> imo, and if his activites were restricted to that then imo there is no

> problem. I even said to him that I thought his removal from 12sf was

> unfair at that point. However the fact that he resubscribed

> despite the wishes of the listowner makes it clear he does not respect

> this list. And he calls me a troll.

>

> P.

>

>

> > > > Man, I'm really out of the loop here. Who is this person Shirk

> and

> > > what has he done? If

> > > > he's lurking, how is that a problem?

> > > >

> > > > Cheers,

> > > >

> > > >

> > > nz

> > >

> > >

> > > Hi nz,

> > > If it's who I think it is - I'm trying to find out - someone who

> is

> > > brushing up on their manipulating skills.

> > > BTW-loved your 'ranting'! It's great to do that now and then.

> Gets

> > > the old blood flowing - sometimes I feel like a ass after I rant

> and

> > > rave - but shit, sure does feel good at the time. Helps me to get

> a

> > > new perspective of things too. Anyway, I thought it was cool.

> > > netty

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >