Re: Double Bookkeeping

[Guest guest]

This is a great theory Nate

I think it has a lot of validity .

I go to a docs and dentists group . Those who are well into AA act excatly as

you say . This defies belief from highly intelligent health professionals .

One chap who is a gp describes himself as ---addict , goes to NA .He was

worried for some time that he was not feeling well , mood swings etc .

His remedy for this was to go to more meetings as he thought he was not

working his programme properly . It turned out to be severe thyroid problems

and he had to stop working for a bit .

There is an old timer in AA who leads the sick dentists support scheme . He

believes in interventions , etc

He wrote some articles in a glossy magazine that was produced about

alcoholism which went to all members of the British Dental Association .

IT was full of AA stuff , no alternatives . He claimed AA had 90 % success

rate , and the scheme has 80% success rate , except for women !!!! THis man

is a 65 year old irish man .

In any other sphere of medicine making claims like that without any evidence

(its lies as well ) would attract a charge of serious professional misconduct

..

Instead he got an honour and is now st ph , His second name is MEE , ME

being the mode he operates in

[Guest guest]

This is a great theory Nate

I think it has a lot of validity .

I go to a docs and dentists group . Those who are well into AA act excatly as

you say . This defies belief from highly intelligent health professionals .

One chap who is a gp describes himself as ---addict , goes to NA .He was

worried for some time that he was not feeling well , mood swings etc .

His remedy for this was to go to more meetings as he thought he was not

working his programme properly . It turned out to be severe thyroid problems

and he had to stop working for a bit .

There is an old timer in AA who leads the sick dentists support scheme . He

believes in interventions , etc

He wrote some articles in a glossy magazine that was produced about

alcoholism which went to all members of the British Dental Association .

IT was full of AA stuff , no alternatives . He claimed AA had 90 % success

rate , and the scheme has 80% success rate , except for women !!!! THis man

is a 65 year old irish man .

In any other sphere of medicine making claims like that without any evidence

(its lies as well ) would attract a charge of serious professional misconduct

..

Instead he got an honour and is now st ph , His second name is MEE , ME

being the mode he operates in

[Guest guest]

Hi,

I can relate to that story about the dentist not feeling well and deciding to

go to more meetings and come to find out it was a medical condition.

I also think the double bookkeeping theory is a good one. Makes sense doesn't

it?

I mean on one hand you have the Nazis saying if you dont make the meetings

every week you are setting yourself up.

But the same Nazis at another meeting will say meetings are only the

fellowship part of the program and does not keep you sober. Your H.P. is

what is keeping you sober.

Which is it???////

]For me it is not attending meetings and doing what I find works for me.

Seeing my therapist, I start another semester at college tommorrow, so that

will take up alot of my time, and to be honest I have not thought about

drinking in over 4 years.

[Guest guest]

I would very much like feedback on the following. Has this been your experience? It's soon to be the newest addition to my sight, www.sobrietyfrontiers.com

Thanks.

Double Bookkeeping

Observing AA members both in and out of meetings one notices there are sharp people in Alcoholics Anonymous, people of degrees and accomplishment and people who have been around the block a few times not easily fooled in many areas of life. This being the case, it’s puzzling how such people could not ask the big questions about AA (Meetings and service work for the rest of one’s life for everyone? AA’s failure to evolve and improve itself despite its abysmal success rate) or any questions at all, for that matter. How could these people not see the obvious when it’s right in front of their eyes? The answer is quite simple: They do.

I have come to believe that many member of Alcoholics Anonymous have developed in their minds a system of double bookkeeping. Just as a shifty accountant might keep two sets of books: the hidden figures that show the actual situation of the company, and the public books he shows the owners or potential investors to keep them happy, members maintain two sets of beliefs about AA.

The first books are for their life in Alcoholics Anonymous. These books reflect for the most part the party line in AA, the views and opinions a good member of AA would hold. They may occasionally disagree with AA but not with core beliefs such as meetings for life and working the steps, and AA’s definition of alcoholism as a disease. The second set they keep to themselves or perhaps share with their most intimate friends. Here they form the private thoughts, beliefs, and opinions about alcoholism, sobriety, and Alcoholics Anonymous that enable a life lived in a system that often doesn’t make sense to a thinking person.

I believe that in their minds they come to terms with a lifetime of AA using a brand of game theory concerning their lifetime in the program. Trusting one’s own resources to achieve victory over their problem offers the greatest payoff, but the person is led to believe it carries the greatest and ultimate risk as well - jails, institutions, and death. In fact in the AA worldview this route is all but guaranteed to end in disaster. This being the case he chooses the route with a lower payoff, but lower risk as well. (Now the odds given to him are only really bad.) This seems to them the most rational path. Why take such a risk, particularly when friends, family, and employers are involved.

There is a bonding experience between people who share the same beliefs and have worked the same program who have grown to love and respect their fellow members who always show up on Monday nights. Such community as this is worth something in this world. In return for this loyalty, they keep their thoughts to themselves.

Lastly, having decided to spend their life in AA, it’s much easier to go with the flow than to cause waves. AA is not going to change because there is no mechanism for change. There are no reformers in AA. Those who might believe that AA is not necessary for a lifetime or question other practices end up practicing what they preach, removing those thoughts from the program.

This double bookkeeping theory remains attractive to me because it explains a lot. For starters, it explains how normally articulate people in meetings will often fall into a stream of pre-recorded AA sound-bytes. It's as if they push a button on themselves when they start talking. You can see them push it again and again. I maintain this happens when they see conflicts between the two sets of books they keep in their minds. Instead of speaking their mind they fall back on saying what a good AA would say. It explains why many do not aggressively carry the message in AA, despite that work being the highlight of the program. It’s difficult to profess to a newcomer “the truth” when it’s not in your heart. Speaking one’s mind would only confuse a person merely looking for a solution to the Boogeyman version of alcoholism. It’s much easier to leave that work for others who believe what they’re saying.

[Guest guest]

I would very much like feedback on the following. Has this been your experience? It's soon to be the newest addition to my sight, www.sobrietyfrontiers.com

Thanks.

Double Bookkeeping

Observing AA members both in and out of meetings one notices there are sharp people in Alcoholics Anonymous, people of degrees and accomplishment and people who have been around the block a few times not easily fooled in many areas of life. This being the case, it’s puzzling how such people could not ask the big questions about AA (Meetings and service work for the rest of one’s life for everyone? AA’s failure to evolve and improve itself despite its abysmal success rate) or any questions at all, for that matter. How could these people not see the obvious when it’s right in front of their eyes? The answer is quite simple: They do.

I have come to believe that many member of Alcoholics Anonymous have developed in their minds a system of double bookkeeping. Just as a shifty accountant might keep two sets of books: the hidden figures that show the actual situation of the company, and the public books he shows the owners or potential investors to keep them happy, members maintain two sets of beliefs about AA.

The first books are for their life in Alcoholics Anonymous. These books reflect for the most part the party line in AA, the views and opinions a good member of AA would hold. They may occasionally disagree with AA but not with core beliefs such as meetings for life and working the steps, and AA’s definition of alcoholism as a disease. The second set they keep to themselves or perhaps share with their most intimate friends. Here they form the private thoughts, beliefs, and opinions about alcoholism, sobriety, and Alcoholics Anonymous that enable a life lived in a system that often doesn’t make sense to a thinking person.

I believe that in their minds they come to terms with a lifetime of AA using a brand of game theory concerning their lifetime in the program. Trusting one’s own resources to achieve victory over their problem offers the greatest payoff, but the person is led to believe it carries the greatest and ultimate risk as well - jails, institutions, and death. In fact in the AA worldview this route is all but guaranteed to end in disaster. This being the case he chooses the route with a lower payoff, but lower risk as well. (Now the odds given to him are only really bad.) This seems to them the most rational path. Why take such a risk, particularly when friends, family, and employers are involved.

There is a bonding experience between people who share the same beliefs and have worked the same program who have grown to love and respect their fellow members who always show up on Monday nights. Such community as this is worth something in this world. In return for this loyalty, they keep their thoughts to themselves.

Lastly, having decided to spend their life in AA, it’s much easier to go with the flow than to cause waves. AA is not going to change because there is no mechanism for change. There are no reformers in AA. Those who might believe that AA is not necessary for a lifetime or question other practices end up practicing what they preach, removing those thoughts from the program.

This double bookkeeping theory remains attractive to me because it explains a lot. For starters, it explains how normally articulate people in meetings will often fall into a stream of pre-recorded AA sound-bytes. It's as if they push a button on themselves when they start talking. You can see them push it again and again. I maintain this happens when they see conflicts between the two sets of books they keep in their minds. Instead of speaking their mind they fall back on saying what a good AA would say. It explains why many do not aggressively carry the message in AA, despite that work being the highlight of the program. It’s difficult to profess to a newcomer “the truth” when it’s not in your heart. Speaking one’s mind would only confuse a person merely looking for a solution to the Boogeyman version of alcoholism. It’s much easier to leave that work for others who believe what they’re saying.

[Guest guest]

I would very much like feedback on the following. Has this been your experience? It's soon to be the newest addition to my sight, www.sobrietyfrontiers.com

Thanks.

Double Bookkeeping

Observing AA members both in and out of meetings one notices there are sharp people in Alcoholics Anonymous, people of degrees and accomplishment and people who have been around the block a few times not easily fooled in many areas of life. This being the case, it’s puzzling how such people could not ask the big questions about AA (Meetings and service work for the rest of one’s life for everyone? AA’s failure to evolve and improve itself despite its abysmal success rate) or any questions at all, for that matter. How could these people not see the obvious when it’s right in front of their eyes? The answer is quite simple: They do.

I have come to believe that many member of Alcoholics Anonymous have developed in their minds a system of double bookkeeping. Just as a shifty accountant might keep two sets of books: the hidden figures that show the actual situation of the company, and the public books he shows the owners or potential investors to keep them happy, members maintain two sets of beliefs about AA.

The first books are for their life in Alcoholics Anonymous. These books reflect for the most part the party line in AA, the views and opinions a good member of AA would hold. They may occasionally disagree with AA but not with core beliefs such as meetings for life and working the steps, and AA’s definition of alcoholism as a disease. The second set they keep to themselves or perhaps share with their most intimate friends. Here they form the private thoughts, beliefs, and opinions about alcoholism, sobriety, and Alcoholics Anonymous that enable a life lived in a system that often doesn’t make sense to a thinking person.

I believe that in their minds they come to terms with a lifetime of AA using a brand of game theory concerning their lifetime in the program. Trusting one’s own resources to achieve victory over their problem offers the greatest payoff, but the person is led to believe it carries the greatest and ultimate risk as well - jails, institutions, and death. In fact in the AA worldview this route is all but guaranteed to end in disaster. This being the case he chooses the route with a lower payoff, but lower risk as well. (Now the odds given to him are only really bad.) This seems to them the most rational path. Why take such a risk, particularly when friends, family, and employers are involved.

There is a bonding experience between people who share the same beliefs and have worked the same program who have grown to love and respect their fellow members who always show up on Monday nights. Such community as this is worth something in this world. In return for this loyalty, they keep their thoughts to themselves.

Lastly, having decided to spend their life in AA, it’s much easier to go with the flow than to cause waves. AA is not going to change because there is no mechanism for change. There are no reformers in AA. Those who might believe that AA is not necessary for a lifetime or question other practices end up practicing what they preach, removing those thoughts from the program.

This double bookkeeping theory remains attractive to me because it explains a lot. For starters, it explains how normally articulate people in meetings will often fall into a stream of pre-recorded AA sound-bytes. It's as if they push a button on themselves when they start talking. You can see them push it again and again. I maintain this happens when they see conflicts between the two sets of books they keep in their minds. Instead of speaking their mind they fall back on saying what a good AA would say. It explains why many do not aggressively carry the message in AA, despite that work being the highlight of the program. It’s difficult to profess to a newcomer “the truth” when it’s not in your heart. Speaking one’s mind would only confuse a person merely looking for a solution to the Boogeyman version of alcoholism. It’s much easier to leave that work for others who believe what they’re saying.

[Guest guest]

At 06:30 AM 1/15/01 -0600, Nate s wrote:

> It's soon to be the newest addition to my sight,

>www.sobrietyfrontiers.com Thanks. Double Bookkeeping

You've come up with several interesting analogies. I recall the 'box'

thing on your site as another.

I've seen and been a part of this 'double bookkeeping', though it

was called something different. This may not quite be the same thing

you're talking about, but I think there's a lot of overlap.

AA speaker Bob Earl talks about putting on his 'AA Personality' and

how he learned it from seeing examples of others doing it. You see Joe

in a meeting and say " Hi, Joe, how are you? " Joe answers " Fine, I'm

doing just fine. " A few minutes later you see your good friend Jim who

says " Did you hear about Joe? He wrecked his car, he was fired from his

job, and his wife left him! " So whenever Bob went to meetings he learned

to say he was " Fine " even though he felt like crap. What Bob didn't say

was that there was strong discouragement of expressing any feeling,

whether it was the joy of a success in life (which would indicate an

overinflated ego and heading towards a drunk), or the disappointments

of Joe (if he mentions these things, then he must be sad about them and

on his pity pot, and he will surely drink). Even for that matter, I've

heard the word 'fine' acronym-ized in AA into " F---ed-up, Insecure,

Neurotic and Emotionaly unstable. "

I've also read in cult books that people develop their 'cult personality'

where they act in acceptable ways to other members of the cult. Even before

reading about this, I was aware of these things. When I picked up my third

year medallion I of course introduced myself as " My name is Ben Bradley and

I'm a Grateful Recovering Alcoholic. " I went on: " One thing I've learned in

the last year is that I can say I'm a Grateful Recovering Alcoholic

regardless of how I actually feel. " A few people (the more 'liberal' ones,

the ones I considered to be friends) laughed a little, but none of the

hard-liners and old-timers even cracked a smile (but then they never did).

I was just saying out loud what I suspected most people did, saying how

grateful they are, even though they may feel like crap. In this sense,

'growing' in the program means learning what to say and what not to say,

so you don't get accused of being on a dry drunk, or on your 'pity pot',

or anything else the group uses to shame expression of 'inappropriate'

feelings.

-----

http://listen.to/benbradley

[Guest guest]

At 06:30 AM 1/15/01 -0600, Nate s wrote:

> It's soon to be the newest addition to my sight,

>www.sobrietyfrontiers.com Thanks. Double Bookkeeping

You've come up with several interesting analogies. I recall the 'box'

thing on your site as another.

I've seen and been a part of this 'double bookkeeping', though it

was called something different. This may not quite be the same thing

you're talking about, but I think there's a lot of overlap.

AA speaker Bob Earl talks about putting on his 'AA Personality' and

how he learned it from seeing examples of others doing it. You see Joe

in a meeting and say " Hi, Joe, how are you? " Joe answers " Fine, I'm

doing just fine. " A few minutes later you see your good friend Jim who

says " Did you hear about Joe? He wrecked his car, he was fired from his

job, and his wife left him! " So whenever Bob went to meetings he learned

to say he was " Fine " even though he felt like crap. What Bob didn't say

was that there was strong discouragement of expressing any feeling,

whether it was the joy of a success in life (which would indicate an

overinflated ego and heading towards a drunk), or the disappointments

of Joe (if he mentions these things, then he must be sad about them and

on his pity pot, and he will surely drink). Even for that matter, I've

heard the word 'fine' acronym-ized in AA into " F---ed-up, Insecure,

Neurotic and Emotionaly unstable. "

I've also read in cult books that people develop their 'cult personality'

where they act in acceptable ways to other members of the cult. Even before

reading about this, I was aware of these things. When I picked up my third

year medallion I of course introduced myself as " My name is Ben Bradley and

I'm a Grateful Recovering Alcoholic. " I went on: " One thing I've learned in

the last year is that I can say I'm a Grateful Recovering Alcoholic

regardless of how I actually feel. " A few people (the more 'liberal' ones,

the ones I considered to be friends) laughed a little, but none of the

hard-liners and old-timers even cracked a smile (but then they never did).

I was just saying out loud what I suspected most people did, saying how

grateful they are, even though they may feel like crap. In this sense,

'growing' in the program means learning what to say and what not to say,

so you don't get accused of being on a dry drunk, or on your 'pity pot',

or anything else the group uses to shame expression of 'inappropriate'

feelings.

-----

http://listen.to/benbradley

[Guest guest]

At 06:30 AM 1/15/01 -0600, Nate s wrote:

> It's soon to be the newest addition to my sight,

>www.sobrietyfrontiers.com Thanks. Double Bookkeeping

You've come up with several interesting analogies. I recall the 'box'

thing on your site as another.

I've seen and been a part of this 'double bookkeeping', though it

was called something different. This may not quite be the same thing

you're talking about, but I think there's a lot of overlap.

AA speaker Bob Earl talks about putting on his 'AA Personality' and

how he learned it from seeing examples of others doing it. You see Joe

in a meeting and say " Hi, Joe, how are you? " Joe answers " Fine, I'm

doing just fine. " A few minutes later you see your good friend Jim who

says " Did you hear about Joe? He wrecked his car, he was fired from his

job, and his wife left him! " So whenever Bob went to meetings he learned

to say he was " Fine " even though he felt like crap. What Bob didn't say

was that there was strong discouragement of expressing any feeling,

whether it was the joy of a success in life (which would indicate an

overinflated ego and heading towards a drunk), or the disappointments

of Joe (if he mentions these things, then he must be sad about them and

on his pity pot, and he will surely drink). Even for that matter, I've

heard the word 'fine' acronym-ized in AA into " F---ed-up, Insecure,

Neurotic and Emotionaly unstable. "

I've also read in cult books that people develop their 'cult personality'

where they act in acceptable ways to other members of the cult. Even before

reading about this, I was aware of these things. When I picked up my third

year medallion I of course introduced myself as " My name is Ben Bradley and

I'm a Grateful Recovering Alcoholic. " I went on: " One thing I've learned in

the last year is that I can say I'm a Grateful Recovering Alcoholic

regardless of how I actually feel. " A few people (the more 'liberal' ones,

the ones I considered to be friends) laughed a little, but none of the

hard-liners and old-timers even cracked a smile (but then they never did).

I was just saying out loud what I suspected most people did, saying how

grateful they are, even though they may feel like crap. In this sense,

'growing' in the program means learning what to say and what not to say,

so you don't get accused of being on a dry drunk, or on your 'pity pot',

or anything else the group uses to shame expression of 'inappropriate'

feelings.

-----

http://listen.to/benbradley

[Guest guest]

its double think,a term inveted by george orwell.

Orwell On Doublethink:

" Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory

beliefs in ones mind simultaneously, and accepting both of

them. "

" ...are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy.

They are deliberate exercises in doublethink "

" But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt

thought. "

" To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete

truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold

simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing them

to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic

against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to

believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was

the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary

to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment

when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and

above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that

was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce

unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become

unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even

to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of

doublethink. "

" In a way, the world-view of the Party imposed itself most

successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could

be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because

they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of

them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to

notice what was happening. By lack of understanding they

remained sane. They simply swallowed everything, and what

they swallowed did them no harm, because it left no residue

behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through the

body of a bird. "

" Day and night the telescreens bruised your ears with statistics

proving that people today had more food, more clothes, better

houses, better recreations -- that they lived longer, worked

shorter hours, were bigger, healthier, stronger, happier, more

intelligent, better educated, than the people of fifty years ago. Not

a word of it could ever be proved or disproved. "

" For the ordinary man is passive. Within a narrow circle (home

life, and perhaps the trade unions or local politics) he feels

himself master of his fate, but against major events he is as

helpless as against the elements. So far from endeavoring to

influence the future, he simply lies down and lets things happen

to him. "

- Orwell

[Guest guest]

its double think,a term inveted by george orwell.

Orwell On Doublethink:

" Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory

beliefs in ones mind simultaneously, and accepting both of

them. "

" ...are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy.

They are deliberate exercises in doublethink "

" But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt

thought. "

" To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete

truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold

simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing them

to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic

against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to

believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was

the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary

to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment

when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and

above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that

was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce

unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become

unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even

to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of

doublethink. "

" In a way, the world-view of the Party imposed itself most

successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could

be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because

they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of

them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to

notice what was happening. By lack of understanding they

remained sane. They simply swallowed everything, and what

they swallowed did them no harm, because it left no residue

behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through the

body of a bird. "

" Day and night the telescreens bruised your ears with statistics

proving that people today had more food, more clothes, better

houses, better recreations -- that they lived longer, worked

shorter hours, were bigger, healthier, stronger, happier, more

intelligent, better educated, than the people of fifty years ago. Not

a word of it could ever be proved or disproved. "

" For the ordinary man is passive. Within a narrow circle (home

life, and perhaps the trade unions or local politics) he feels

himself master of his fate, but against major events he is as

helpless as against the elements. So far from endeavoring to

influence the future, he simply lies down and lets things happen

to him. "

- Orwell

[Guest guest]

this is something i had wrritten about this:

" Often steppers will claim the steps are only " suggestions " as

way of defusing rational criticism of their content.

proposes this idea here:

" Who first suggested the actual compromise words I do not

know, but they are words well-known throughout the length and

breadth of AA today: In Step Two we decided to describe God as

a " Power greater than ourselves. " In Steps Three and Eleven we

inserted the words " God as we understood him. " From Step

Seven we deleted the expression " on our knees. " And, as a

lead-in sentence to all the steps we wrote the words: " Here are

the steps we took which are suggested as a Program of

Recovery. " AA's Twelve Steps were to be suggestions only.

Such were the final concessions to those of little or no faith; this

was the great contribution of our atheists and agnostics. They

had widened our gateway so that all who suffer might pass

through, regardless of their belief or lack of belief. "

-- Bill , from " The Three Legacies of Alcoholics

Anonymous: Service "

in Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age, page 167

" Suggestions " ? contradicts himself in the very same

book when he says (suggests?) the opposite:

" unless each AA member follows to the best of his ability our

suggested Twelve Steps of recovery, he almost certainly signs

his own death warrant . . . We must obey certain principles or we

die. "

, W.] (1957). Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age, New

York:

Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc., page 119

and in the Alcoholics Anonymous Big Book, " We Agnostics "

" To one who feels he is an atheist or agnostic such an

experience seems impossible, but to continue as he is means

disaster, especially if he is an alcoholic of the hopeless variety.

To be doomed to an alcoholic death or to live on a spiritual basis

are not always easy alternatives to face. "

These same principles he claims are mearly " suggested " to

newcommers must be obeyed or " we die " Not much of a choice

there in these so called " suggestions " . nor is it much of a

" concessions to those of little or no faith " . This is clearly double

think. Double think is a concept termed by Orwell. It is

language and thought which is designed for miscommunication

and distortion. Orwell wrote the following, " Doublethink means

the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in ones mind

simultaneously, and accepting both of them. "

[Guest guest]

Nate,

You're quite right. The steppers have a slogan: "fake it 'til you make it." The reality is that you are s'posed to fake it 'til you lose track of the difference between fakery and honesty.

Your description of the mentality behind AA involvement as a bit of game theory also is right on. Have you ever read about 'Pascal's Wager'? If you go back to the original, which is only a few pages in book 2 of the Pensees, you'll find that Blaise Pascal laid out this crucial feature of AA recruitment technique in considerable detail half a millennium ago!

--wally

Re: Double Bookkeeping

I would very much like feedback on the following. Has this been your experience? It's soon to be the newest addition to my sight, www.sobrietyfrontiers.com

Thanks.

Double Bookkeeping

Observing AA members both in and out of meetings one notices there are sharp people in Alcoholics Anonymous, people of degrees and accomplishment and people who have been around the block a few times not easily fooled in many areas of life. This being the case, it’s puzzling how such people could not ask the big questions about AA (Meetings and service work for the rest of one’s life for everyone? AA’s failure to evolve and improve itself despite its abysmal success rate) or any questions at all, for that matter. How could these people not see the obvious when it’s right in front of their eyes? The answer is quite simple: They do.

I have come to believe that many member of Alcoholics Anonymous have developed in their minds a system of double bookkeeping. Just as a shifty accountant might keep two sets of books: the hidden figures that show the actual situation of the company, and the public books he shows the owners or potential investors to keep them happy, members maintain two sets of beliefs about AA.

The first books are for their life in Alcoholics Anonymous. These books reflect for the most part the party line in AA, the views and opinions a good member of AA would hold. They may occasionally disagree with AA but not with core beliefs such as meetings for life and working the steps, and AA’s definition of alcoholism as a disease. The second set they keep to themselves or perhaps share with their most intimate friends. Here they form the private thoughts, beliefs, and opinions about alcoholism, sobriety, and Alcoholics Anonymous that enable a life lived in a system that often doesn’t make sense to a thinking person.

I believe that in their minds they come to terms with a lifetime of AA using a brand of game theory concerning their lifetime in the program. Trusting one’s own resources to achieve victory over their problem offers the greatest payoff, but the person is led to believe it carries the greatest and ultimate risk as well - jails, institutions, and death. In fact in the AA worldview this route is all but guaranteed to end in disaster. This being the case he chooses the route with a lower payoff, but lower risk as well. (Now the odds given to him are only really bad.) This seems to them the most rational path. Why take such a risk, particularly when friends, family, and employers are involved.

There is a bonding experience between people who share the same beliefs and have worked the same program who have grown to love and respect their fellow members who always show up on Monday nights. Such community as this is worth something in this world. In return for this loyalty, they keep their thoughts to themselves.

Lastly, having decided to spend their life in AA, it’s much easier to go with the flow than to cause waves. AA is not going to change because there is no mechanism for change. There are no reformers in AA. Those who might believe that AA is not necessary for a lifetime or question other practices end up practicing what they preach, removing those thoughts from the program.

This double bookkeeping theory remains attractive to me because it explains a lot. For starters, it explains how normally articulate people in meetings will often fall into a stream of pre-recorded AA sound-bytes. It's as if they push a button on themselves when they start talking. You can see them push it again and again. I maintain this happens when they see conflicts between the two sets of books they keep in their minds. Instead of speaking their mind they fall back on saying what a good AA would say. It explains why many do not aggressively carry the message in AA, despite that work being the highlight of the program. It’s difficult to profess to a newcomer “the truth” when it’s not in your heart. Speaking one’s mind would only confuse a person merely looking for a solution to the Boogeyman version of alcoholism. It’s much easier to leave that work for others who believe what they’re saying.

[Guest guest]

Nate,

You're quite right. The steppers have a slogan: "fake it 'til you make it." The reality is that you are s'posed to fake it 'til you lose track of the difference between fakery and honesty.

Your description of the mentality behind AA involvement as a bit of game theory also is right on. Have you ever read about 'Pascal's Wager'? If you go back to the original, which is only a few pages in book 2 of the Pensees, you'll find that Blaise Pascal laid out this crucial feature of AA recruitment technique in considerable detail half a millennium ago!

--wally

Re: Double Bookkeeping

I would very much like feedback on the following. Has this been your experience? It's soon to be the newest addition to my sight, www.sobrietyfrontiers.com

Thanks.

Double Bookkeeping

Observing AA members both in and out of meetings one notices there are sharp people in Alcoholics Anonymous, people of degrees and accomplishment and people who have been around the block a few times not easily fooled in many areas of life. This being the case, it’s puzzling how such people could not ask the big questions about AA (Meetings and service work for the rest of one’s life for everyone? AA’s failure to evolve and improve itself despite its abysmal success rate) or any questions at all, for that matter. How could these people not see the obvious when it’s right in front of their eyes? The answer is quite simple: They do.

I have come to believe that many member of Alcoholics Anonymous have developed in their minds a system of double bookkeeping. Just as a shifty accountant might keep two sets of books: the hidden figures that show the actual situation of the company, and the public books he shows the owners or potential investors to keep them happy, members maintain two sets of beliefs about AA.

The first books are for their life in Alcoholics Anonymous. These books reflect for the most part the party line in AA, the views and opinions a good member of AA would hold. They may occasionally disagree with AA but not with core beliefs such as meetings for life and working the steps, and AA’s definition of alcoholism as a disease. The second set they keep to themselves or perhaps share with their most intimate friends. Here they form the private thoughts, beliefs, and opinions about alcoholism, sobriety, and Alcoholics Anonymous that enable a life lived in a system that often doesn’t make sense to a thinking person.

I believe that in their minds they come to terms with a lifetime of AA using a brand of game theory concerning their lifetime in the program. Trusting one’s own resources to achieve victory over their problem offers the greatest payoff, but the person is led to believe it carries the greatest and ultimate risk as well - jails, institutions, and death. In fact in the AA worldview this route is all but guaranteed to end in disaster. This being the case he chooses the route with a lower payoff, but lower risk as well. (Now the odds given to him are only really bad.) This seems to them the most rational path. Why take such a risk, particularly when friends, family, and employers are involved.

There is a bonding experience between people who share the same beliefs and have worked the same program who have grown to love and respect their fellow members who always show up on Monday nights. Such community as this is worth something in this world. In return for this loyalty, they keep their thoughts to themselves.

Lastly, having decided to spend their life in AA, it’s much easier to go with the flow than to cause waves. AA is not going to change because there is no mechanism for change. There are no reformers in AA. Those who might believe that AA is not necessary for a lifetime or question other practices end up practicing what they preach, removing those thoughts from the program.

This double bookkeeping theory remains attractive to me because it explains a lot. For starters, it explains how normally articulate people in meetings will often fall into a stream of pre-recorded AA sound-bytes. It's as if they push a button on themselves when they start talking. You can see them push it again and again. I maintain this happens when they see conflicts between the two sets of books they keep in their minds. Instead of speaking their mind they fall back on saying what a good AA would say. It explains why many do not aggressively carry the message in AA, despite that work being the highlight of the program. It’s difficult to profess to a newcomer “the truth” when it’s not in your heart. Speaking one’s mind would only confuse a person merely looking for a solution to the Boogeyman version of alcoholism. It’s much easier to leave that work for others who believe what they’re saying.

[Guest guest]

Yep, Doublethink.

Ppl call themselves atheists and no-religious while surrendering to

God.

The claim that addiction is genetically caused whle praising cognitive

models and therapies, and showing interst in demographics and social

factors; that is not psychosocially caused but can be alleviated by

the psychosocial intervention of XA.

That one is 0% responsible for one's 'disease' but 100% responsible

for one's 'recovery.'

That one is powerless to stop using but must stop using in order to

recover. That we are also powerless over depression as part of the

disease but that we choose to get depressed.

The list goes on and on.

P.

> its double think,a term inveted by george orwell.

>

>

> Orwell On Doublethink:

>

>

> " Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory

> beliefs in ones mind simultaneously, and accepting both of

> them. "

>

> " ...are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy.

> They are deliberate exercises in doublethink "

>

> " But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt

> thought. "

>

>

> " To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete

> truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold

> simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing them

> to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic

> against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to

> believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was

> the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary

> to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment

> when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and

> above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that

> was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce

> unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become

> unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even

> to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of

> doublethink. "

>

> " In a way, the world-view of the Party imposed itself most

> successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could

> be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because

> they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of

> them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to

> notice what was happening. By lack of understanding they

> remained sane. They simply swallowed everything, and what

> they swallowed did them no harm, because it left no residue

> behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through the

> body of a bird. "

>

> " Day and night the telescreens bruised your ears with statistics

> proving that people today had more food, more clothes, better

> houses, better recreations -- that they lived longer, worked

> shorter hours, were bigger, healthier, stronger, happier, more

> intelligent, better educated, than the people of fifty years ago.

Not

> a word of it could ever be proved or disproved. "

>

>

> " For the ordinary man is passive. Within a narrow circle (home

> life, and perhaps the trade unions or local politics) he feels

> himself master of his fate, but against major events he is as

> helpless as against the elements. So far from endeavoring to

> influence the future, he simply lies down and lets things happen

> to him. "

>

> - Orwell

[Guest guest]

Yep, Doublethink.

Ppl call themselves atheists and no-religious while surrendering to

God.

The claim that addiction is genetically caused whle praising cognitive

models and therapies, and showing interst in demographics and social

factors; that is not psychosocially caused but can be alleviated by

the psychosocial intervention of XA.

That one is 0% responsible for one's 'disease' but 100% responsible

for one's 'recovery.'

That one is powerless to stop using but must stop using in order to

recover. That we are also powerless over depression as part of the

disease but that we choose to get depressed.

The list goes on and on.

P.

> its double think,a term inveted by george orwell.

>

>

> Orwell On Doublethink:

>

>

> " Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory

> beliefs in ones mind simultaneously, and accepting both of

> them. "

>

> " ...are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy.

> They are deliberate exercises in doublethink "

>

> " But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt

> thought. "

>

>

> " To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete

> truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold

> simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing them

> to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic

> against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to

> believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was

> the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary

> to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment

> when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and

> above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that

> was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce

> unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become

> unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even

> to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of

> doublethink. "

>

> " In a way, the world-view of the Party imposed itself most

> successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could

> be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because

> they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of

> them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to

> notice what was happening. By lack of understanding they

> remained sane. They simply swallowed everything, and what

> they swallowed did them no harm, because it left no residue

> behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through the

> body of a bird. "

>

> " Day and night the telescreens bruised your ears with statistics

> proving that people today had more food, more clothes, better

> houses, better recreations -- that they lived longer, worked

> shorter hours, were bigger, healthier, stronger, happier, more

> intelligent, better educated, than the people of fifty years ago.

Not

> a word of it could ever be proved or disproved. "

>

>

> " For the ordinary man is passive. Within a narrow circle (home

> life, and perhaps the trade unions or local politics) he feels

> himself master of his fate, but against major events he is as

> helpless as against the elements. So far from endeavoring to

> influence the future, he simply lies down and lets things happen

> to him. "

>

> - Orwell

[Guest guest]

Yep, Doublethink.

Ppl call themselves atheists and no-religious while surrendering to

God.

The claim that addiction is genetically caused whle praising cognitive

models and therapies, and showing interst in demographics and social

factors; that is not psychosocially caused but can be alleviated by

the psychosocial intervention of XA.

That one is 0% responsible for one's 'disease' but 100% responsible

for one's 'recovery.'

That one is powerless to stop using but must stop using in order to

recover. That we are also powerless over depression as part of the

disease but that we choose to get depressed.

The list goes on and on.

P.

> its double think,a term inveted by george orwell.

>

>

> Orwell On Doublethink:

>

>

> " Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory

> beliefs in ones mind simultaneously, and accepting both of

> them. "

>

> " ...are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy.

> They are deliberate exercises in doublethink "

>

> " But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt

> thought. "

>

>

> " To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete

> truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold

> simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing them

> to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic

> against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to

> believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was

> the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary

> to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment

> when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and

> above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that

> was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce

> unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become

> unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even

> to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of

> doublethink. "

>

> " In a way, the world-view of the Party imposed itself most

> successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could

> be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because

> they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of

> them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to

> notice what was happening. By lack of understanding they

> remained sane. They simply swallowed everything, and what

> they swallowed did them no harm, because it left no residue

> behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through the

> body of a bird. "

>

> " Day and night the telescreens bruised your ears with statistics

> proving that people today had more food, more clothes, better

> houses, better recreations -- that they lived longer, worked

> shorter hours, were bigger, healthier, stronger, happier, more

> intelligent, better educated, than the people of fifty years ago.

Not

> a word of it could ever be proved or disproved. "

>

>

> " For the ordinary man is passive. Within a narrow circle (home

> life, and perhaps the trade unions or local politics) he feels

> himself master of his fate, but against major events he is as

> helpless as against the elements. So far from endeavoring to

> influence the future, he simply lies down and lets things happen

> to him. "

>

> - Orwell

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the below Dave. I remember this being brought up in the past but

I couldn't remember who brought it up.

Already put it to good use today. :0)

> Re: Double Bookkeeping

>

>

>its double think,a term inveted by george orwell.

>

>

> Orwell On Doublethink:

>

>

> " Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory

>beliefs in ones mind simultaneously, and accepting both of

>them. "

>

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the below Dave. I remember this being brought up in the past but

I couldn't remember who brought it up.

Already put it to good use today. :0)

> Re: Double Bookkeeping

>

>

>its double think,a term inveted by george orwell.

>

>

> Orwell On Doublethink:

>

>

> " Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory

>beliefs in ones mind simultaneously, and accepting both of

>them. "

>

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the below Dave. I remember this being brought up in the past but

I couldn't remember who brought it up.

Already put it to good use today. :0)

> Re: Double Bookkeeping

>

>

>its double think,a term inveted by george orwell.

>

>

> Orwell On Doublethink:

>

>

> " Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory

>beliefs in ones mind simultaneously, and accepting both of

>them. "

>

>

[Guest guest]

Apple,

In my opinion, that very paragraph is the backbone of the treatment industry

scam...i.e., " it works if you work it. " My statement is: " Never have I seen a

treatment center admit that a patient didn't succeed because they were not given

the proper treatment. It is always the responsibility of the patient. They

accept many patients for six, seven, even more admissions, because they have the

disease of addiction, which is characterized by repeated relapses. " Only in the

addiction treatment field, a scam filled with so many grey areas which are

cloaked by the spiritual principles of anonymity, could they get away with this

self-serving, inhumane garbage.

It is a simple program, so is the Moonies, they're even more adamant about

alcohol abstinence! Of course, that's why as a cult they wouldn't attract as

many people-the meeting people love it when people keep drinking and still

coming to meetings, it shows that it " keeps it green " and eventually mabye

they'll " surrender. "

I threw me into a fit when a close friend of mind committed suicide on step

four. The details are too painful for me to think about right now, but yea, it

makes me angry as hell!! Especially because I went through two treatments with

her, and she was doing great in the first one, the first she did great, it was

more mental health based with not much 12-step stuff, the second one was more of

a Synanon communal type, and she, of course, went downhill quickly. Does AA

kill? In this case, to this girl, AA killed her, and I saved a copy of her

suicide note to remember the pain she went through with her dictatorial sponsor

and the abusive treatment staff. I wish this treatment center would be

profiled, maybe on Fransway's page where she includes a " Freedom Hater

of the Month " . The doc-guru that runs it, Frances, out to be

quarantined for the disease of sadism. Some people call this place " The Betty

Ford of the East " because it attracts so many rich people, some !

of whom are just bored housewive

s who think it might be nifty to be diagnosed with some personality disorder

that they don't really have, but this hospital loves that kind of stuff. Dr.

Frances has even written some of the most inaccurate yet most professionally

presented text on " the disease of alcoholism " , one of his books just recently

came out and I'm trying to get a copy of it.

Sorry, I'm rambling. = ) Anyways, Apple, I've been meaning to e-mail you for a

long time, if you're not too busy I'd like to chat with you, could you send me

your e-mail address? Mine is NKCT1980@.... And I owe you a tremendous THANK

YOU, by the way, it's a long story, but if it weren't for your website and Jack

Trimpey I wouldn't be starting college next week and living a happier life.

Hope I get a chance to write to you directly soon.

Best,

Nick

[Guest guest]

Apple,

In my opinion, that very paragraph is the backbone of the treatment industry

scam...i.e., " it works if you work it. " My statement is: " Never have I seen a

treatment center admit that a patient didn't succeed because they were not given

the proper treatment. It is always the responsibility of the patient. They

accept many patients for six, seven, even more admissions, because they have the

disease of addiction, which is characterized by repeated relapses. " Only in the

addiction treatment field, a scam filled with so many grey areas which are

cloaked by the spiritual principles of anonymity, could they get away with this

self-serving, inhumane garbage.

It is a simple program, so is the Moonies, they're even more adamant about

alcohol abstinence! Of course, that's why as a cult they wouldn't attract as

many people-the meeting people love it when people keep drinking and still

coming to meetings, it shows that it " keeps it green " and eventually mabye

they'll " surrender. "

I threw me into a fit when a close friend of mind committed suicide on step

four. The details are too painful for me to think about right now, but yea, it

makes me angry as hell!! Especially because I went through two treatments with

her, and she was doing great in the first one, the first she did great, it was

more mental health based with not much 12-step stuff, the second one was more of

a Synanon communal type, and she, of course, went downhill quickly. Does AA

kill? In this case, to this girl, AA killed her, and I saved a copy of her

suicide note to remember the pain she went through with her dictatorial sponsor

and the abusive treatment staff. I wish this treatment center would be

profiled, maybe on Fransway's page where she includes a " Freedom Hater

of the Month " . The doc-guru that runs it, Frances, out to be

quarantined for the disease of sadism. Some people call this place " The Betty

Ford of the East " because it attracts so many rich people, some !

of whom are just bored housewive

s who think it might be nifty to be diagnosed with some personality disorder

that they don't really have, but this hospital loves that kind of stuff. Dr.

Frances has even written some of the most inaccurate yet most professionally

presented text on " the disease of alcoholism " , one of his books just recently

came out and I'm trying to get a copy of it.

Sorry, I'm rambling. = ) Anyways, Apple, I've been meaning to e-mail you for a

long time, if you're not too busy I'd like to chat with you, could you send me

your e-mail address? Mine is NKCT1980@.... And I owe you a tremendous THANK

YOU, by the way, it's a long story, but if it weren't for your website and Jack

Trimpey I wouldn't be starting college next week and living a happier life.

Hope I get a chance to write to you directly soon.

Best,

Nick

[Guest guest]

Apple,

In my opinion, that very paragraph is the backbone of the treatment industry

scam...i.e., " it works if you work it. " My statement is: " Never have I seen a

treatment center admit that a patient didn't succeed because they were not given

the proper treatment. It is always the responsibility of the patient. They

accept many patients for six, seven, even more admissions, because they have the

disease of addiction, which is characterized by repeated relapses. " Only in the

addiction treatment field, a scam filled with so many grey areas which are

cloaked by the spiritual principles of anonymity, could they get away with this

self-serving, inhumane garbage.

It is a simple program, so is the Moonies, they're even more adamant about

alcohol abstinence! Of course, that's why as a cult they wouldn't attract as

many people-the meeting people love it when people keep drinking and still

coming to meetings, it shows that it " keeps it green " and eventually mabye

they'll " surrender. "

I threw me into a fit when a close friend of mind committed suicide on step

four. The details are too painful for me to think about right now, but yea, it

makes me angry as hell!! Especially because I went through two treatments with

her, and she was doing great in the first one, the first she did great, it was

more mental health based with not much 12-step stuff, the second one was more of

a Synanon communal type, and she, of course, went downhill quickly. Does AA

kill? In this case, to this girl, AA killed her, and I saved a copy of her

suicide note to remember the pain she went through with her dictatorial sponsor

and the abusive treatment staff. I wish this treatment center would be

profiled, maybe on Fransway's page where she includes a " Freedom Hater

of the Month " . The doc-guru that runs it, Frances, out to be

quarantined for the disease of sadism. Some people call this place " The Betty

Ford of the East " because it attracts so many rich people, some !

of whom are just bored housewive

s who think it might be nifty to be diagnosed with some personality disorder

that they don't really have, but this hospital loves that kind of stuff. Dr.

Frances has even written some of the most inaccurate yet most professionally

presented text on " the disease of alcoholism " , one of his books just recently

came out and I'm trying to get a copy of it.

Sorry, I'm rambling. = ) Anyways, Apple, I've been meaning to e-mail you for a

long time, if you're not too busy I'd like to chat with you, could you send me

your e-mail address? Mine is NKCT1980@.... And I owe you a tremendous THANK

YOU, by the way, it's a long story, but if it weren't for your website and Jack

Trimpey I wouldn't be starting college next week and living a happier life.

Hope I get a chance to write to you directly soon.

Best,

Nick

[Guest guest]

I would add the text of " How it Works " to this as well Dave.

http://www.addictions.org/aa/works.htm

Notice the use of the words... " *rarely* have we seen a person fail who

has *thoroughly* followed our path "

Those who do not recover are people who will not *completely* give

themselves to this *simple* program, usually men and women who are

constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves.

Some of have tried to hold on to our old ideas and the result was

nill until we *let go absolutely*

Here are the steps we took, which are *suggested* as a program of

recovery:.

That one always baffled me. So which is it? Take what you need & leave

the rest or take it all or die? Let go absolutely or it's all

suggestive?

Apple

> this is something i had wrritten about this:

>

> " Often steppers will claim the steps are only " suggestions " as

> way of defusing rational criticism of their content.

> proposes this idea here:

>

> " Who first suggested the actual compromise words I do not

> know, but they are words well-known throughout the length and

> breadth of AA today: In Step Two we decided to describe God as

> a " Power greater than ourselves. " In Steps Three and Eleven we

> inserted the words " God as we understood him. " From Step

> Seven we deleted the expression " on our knees. " And, as a

> lead-in sentence to all the steps we wrote the words: " Here are

> the steps we took which are suggested as a Program of

> Recovery. " AA's Twelve Steps were to be suggestions only.

>

> Such were the final concessions to those of little or no faith; this

> was the great contribution of our atheists and agnostics. They

> had widened our gateway so that all who suffer might pass

> through, regardless of their belief or lack of belief. "

>

> -- Bill , from " The Three Legacies of Alcoholics

> Anonymous: Service "

> in Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age, page 167

>

>

> " Suggestions " ? contradicts himself in the very same

> book when he says (suggests?) the opposite:

>

> " unless each AA member follows to the best of his ability our

> suggested Twelve Steps of recovery, he almost certainly signs

> his own death warrant . . . We must obey certain principles or we

> die. "

>

> , W.] (1957). Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age, New

> York:

> Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc., page 119

>

>

> and in the Alcoholics Anonymous Big Book, " We Agnostics "

> " To one who feels he is an atheist or agnostic such an

> experience seems impossible, but to continue as he is means

> disaster, especially if he is an alcoholic of the hopeless variety.

> To be doomed to an alcoholic death or to live on a spiritual basis

> are not always easy alternatives to face. "

>

>

> These same principles he claims are mearly " suggested " to

> newcommers must be obeyed or " we die " Not much of a choice

> there in these so called " suggestions " . nor is it much of a

> " concessions to those of little or no faith " . This is clearly double

> think. Double think is a concept termed by Orwell. It is

> language and thought which is designed for miscommunication

> and distortion. Orwell wrote the following, " Doublethink means

> the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in ones mind

> simultaneously, and accepting both of them. "

[Guest guest]

I would add the text of " How it Works " to this as well Dave.

http://www.addictions.org/aa/works.htm

Notice the use of the words... " *rarely* have we seen a person fail who

has *thoroughly* followed our path "

Those who do not recover are people who will not *completely* give

themselves to this *simple* program, usually men and women who are

constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves.

Some of have tried to hold on to our old ideas and the result was

nill until we *let go absolutely*

Here are the steps we took, which are *suggested* as a program of

recovery:.

That one always baffled me. So which is it? Take what you need & leave

the rest or take it all or die? Let go absolutely or it's all

suggestive?

Apple

> this is something i had wrritten about this:

>

> " Often steppers will claim the steps are only " suggestions " as

> way of defusing rational criticism of their content.

> proposes this idea here:

>

> " Who first suggested the actual compromise words I do not

> know, but they are words well-known throughout the length and

> breadth of AA today: In Step Two we decided to describe God as

> a " Power greater than ourselves. " In Steps Three and Eleven we

> inserted the words " God as we understood him. " From Step

> Seven we deleted the expression " on our knees. " And, as a

> lead-in sentence to all the steps we wrote the words: " Here are

> the steps we took which are suggested as a Program of

> Recovery. " AA's Twelve Steps were to be suggestions only.

>

> Such were the final concessions to those of little or no faith; this

> was the great contribution of our atheists and agnostics. They

> had widened our gateway so that all who suffer might pass

> through, regardless of their belief or lack of belief. "

>

> -- Bill , from " The Three Legacies of Alcoholics

> Anonymous: Service "

> in Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age, page 167

>

>

> " Suggestions " ? contradicts himself in the very same

> book when he says (suggests?) the opposite:

>

> " unless each AA member follows to the best of his ability our

> suggested Twelve Steps of recovery, he almost certainly signs

> his own death warrant . . . We must obey certain principles or we

> die. "

>

> , W.] (1957). Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age, New

> York:

> Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc., page 119

>

>

> and in the Alcoholics Anonymous Big Book, " We Agnostics "

> " To one who feels he is an atheist or agnostic such an

> experience seems impossible, but to continue as he is means

> disaster, especially if he is an alcoholic of the hopeless variety.

> To be doomed to an alcoholic death or to live on a spiritual basis

> are not always easy alternatives to face. "

>

>

> These same principles he claims are mearly " suggested " to

> newcommers must be obeyed or " we die " Not much of a choice

> there in these so called " suggestions " . nor is it much of a

> " concessions to those of little or no faith " . This is clearly double

> think. Double think is a concept termed by Orwell. It is

> language and thought which is designed for miscommunication

> and distortion. Orwell wrote the following, " Doublethink means

> the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in ones mind

> simultaneously, and accepting both of them. "