Guest guest Posted January 24, 2001 Report Share Posted January 24, 2001 its for same reasons your always " recovering " and never recovered. its setting up a state of mind in people, in effect (no pun) its establishing the " incurable disease " with language. its just as insane as abstinent people saying " im an alcoholic " or " i have alcoholism " . slogans also reinforce this: sobriety is a journey ..........not a destination aa is an education without graduation why recovery never ends: the disease is alcoholISm, not alcoholWASM! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2001 Report Share Posted January 24, 2001 its for same reasons your always " recovering " and never recovered. its setting up a state of mind in people, in effect (no pun) its establishing the " incurable disease " with language. its just as insane as abstinent people saying " im an alcoholic " or " i have alcoholism " . slogans also reinforce this: sobriety is a journey ..........not a destination aa is an education without graduation why recovery never ends: the disease is alcoholISm, not alcoholWASM! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2001 Report Share Posted January 24, 2001 its for same reasons your always " recovering " and never recovered. its setting up a state of mind in people, in effect (no pun) its establishing the " incurable disease " with language. its just as insane as abstinent people saying " im an alcoholic " or " i have alcoholism " . slogans also reinforce this: sobriety is a journey ..........not a destination aa is an education without graduation why recovery never ends: the disease is alcoholISm, not alcoholWASM! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2001 Report Share Posted January 24, 2001 Good question. I think basically the idea is to co-opt the language into presuming the 'progressive disease' model. It reinforces the fiction that an 'alcoholic' is always in some identifiable phase of alcoholism. And there may also be a sort of 'finite-state-machine' metaphor going on there, pre-emptively denying that humans have free will and are sometimes able to find creative individual solutions to their unique problems. People do talk about being 'in remission' from cancer and other real diseases. Odd, though, that AA members never talk about being 'in remission' from alcoholism, which would be more appropriate than 'in recovery' if alcoholism were a real disease. Could it be that they wish to claim that by being 'in recovery' they are really 'in control?' Could this be a ploy to have it both ways, powerless but (ahem) paradoxically in control at the same time? --wally Why, " in " > Dear fellow anti-steppers: > > I have thought alot but haven't been able to come up with a > satisfactory answer to the following question: Why do groupers use > the word, " in " in their recovery-speak expressions when the standard > usage for the same or similar expressions doesn't? > > Examples: > > " in treatment " , " in denial " , " in recovery " > > I've never heard someone say, " He's 'in repression' " or " I'm 'in > recovery' from cancer. " > > I believe that seemingly innocent preposition might express something > baleful. Any thoughts? > > . > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2001 Report Share Posted January 24, 2001 Good question. I think basically the idea is to co-opt the language into presuming the 'progressive disease' model. It reinforces the fiction that an 'alcoholic' is always in some identifiable phase of alcoholism. And there may also be a sort of 'finite-state-machine' metaphor going on there, pre-emptively denying that humans have free will and are sometimes able to find creative individual solutions to their unique problems. People do talk about being 'in remission' from cancer and other real diseases. Odd, though, that AA members never talk about being 'in remission' from alcoholism, which would be more appropriate than 'in recovery' if alcoholism were a real disease. Could it be that they wish to claim that by being 'in recovery' they are really 'in control?' Could this be a ploy to have it both ways, powerless but (ahem) paradoxically in control at the same time? --wally Why, " in " > Dear fellow anti-steppers: > > I have thought alot but haven't been able to come up with a > satisfactory answer to the following question: Why do groupers use > the word, " in " in their recovery-speak expressions when the standard > usage for the same or similar expressions doesn't? > > Examples: > > " in treatment " , " in denial " , " in recovery " > > I've never heard someone say, " He's 'in repression' " or " I'm 'in > recovery' from cancer. " > > I believe that seemingly innocent preposition might express something > baleful. Any thoughts? > > . > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2001 Report Share Posted January 24, 2001 Good question. I think basically the idea is to co-opt the language into presuming the 'progressive disease' model. It reinforces the fiction that an 'alcoholic' is always in some identifiable phase of alcoholism. And there may also be a sort of 'finite-state-machine' metaphor going on there, pre-emptively denying that humans have free will and are sometimes able to find creative individual solutions to their unique problems. People do talk about being 'in remission' from cancer and other real diseases. Odd, though, that AA members never talk about being 'in remission' from alcoholism, which would be more appropriate than 'in recovery' if alcoholism were a real disease. Could it be that they wish to claim that by being 'in recovery' they are really 'in control?' Could this be a ploy to have it both ways, powerless but (ahem) paradoxically in control at the same time? --wally Why, " in " > Dear fellow anti-steppers: > > I have thought alot but haven't been able to come up with a > satisfactory answer to the following question: Why do groupers use > the word, " in " in their recovery-speak expressions when the standard > usage for the same or similar expressions doesn't? > > Examples: > > " in treatment " , " in denial " , " in recovery " > > I've never heard someone say, " He's 'in repression' " or " I'm 'in > recovery' from cancer. " > > I believe that seemingly innocent preposition might express something > baleful. Any thoughts? > > . > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2001 Report Share Posted January 24, 2001 Hi Wally/ I've actually heard them refer to themselves has being " in remission " which as you note does serve to reinforce the disease charade. Sort of imparts a sense of being immediacy doesn't it? In treatment, in denial. Kind of goes hand in hand with one day at a time. Besides if they name the problem they've got a leg up on convincing you they've got the solution. In the NOW! No Now! No Now, Now, Now, Now, Now..... AA so busy chasing their own tail they manage to fix the problem by accident but keep you chasing the tail. > Re: Why, " in " > > >Good question. I think basically the idea is to co-opt the language into >presuming the 'progressive disease' model. It reinforces the >fiction that an >'alcoholic' is always in some identifiable phase of alcoholism. And there >may also be a sort of 'finite-state-machine' metaphor going on there, >pre-emptively denying that humans have free will and are sometimes able to >find creative individual solutions to their unique problems. > >People do talk about being 'in remission' from cancer and other real >diseases. Odd, though, that AA members never talk about being 'in >remission' >from alcoholism, which would be more appropriate than 'in recovery' if >alcoholism were a real disease. Could it be that they wish to claim that by >being 'in recovery' they are really 'in control?' Could this be a ploy to >have it both ways, powerless but (ahem) paradoxically in control >at the same >time? > >--wally > > Why, " in " > > >> Dear fellow anti-steppers: >> >> I have thought alot but haven't been able to come up with a >> satisfactory answer to the following question: Why do groupers use >> the word, " in " in their recovery-speak expressions when the standard >> usage for the same or similar expressions doesn't? >> >> Examples: >> >> " in treatment " , " in denial " , " in recovery " >> >> I've never heard someone say, " He's 'in repression' " or " I'm 'in >> recovery' from cancer. " >> >> I believe that seemingly innocent preposition might express something >> baleful. Any thoughts? >> >> . >> >> >> >> > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2001 Report Share Posted January 24, 2001 Hi Wally/ I've actually heard them refer to themselves has being " in remission " which as you note does serve to reinforce the disease charade. Sort of imparts a sense of being immediacy doesn't it? In treatment, in denial. Kind of goes hand in hand with one day at a time. Besides if they name the problem they've got a leg up on convincing you they've got the solution. In the NOW! No Now! No Now, Now, Now, Now, Now..... AA so busy chasing their own tail they manage to fix the problem by accident but keep you chasing the tail. > Re: Why, " in " > > >Good question. I think basically the idea is to co-opt the language into >presuming the 'progressive disease' model. It reinforces the >fiction that an >'alcoholic' is always in some identifiable phase of alcoholism. And there >may also be a sort of 'finite-state-machine' metaphor going on there, >pre-emptively denying that humans have free will and are sometimes able to >find creative individual solutions to their unique problems. > >People do talk about being 'in remission' from cancer and other real >diseases. Odd, though, that AA members never talk about being 'in >remission' >from alcoholism, which would be more appropriate than 'in recovery' if >alcoholism were a real disease. Could it be that they wish to claim that by >being 'in recovery' they are really 'in control?' Could this be a ploy to >have it both ways, powerless but (ahem) paradoxically in control >at the same >time? > >--wally > > Why, " in " > > >> Dear fellow anti-steppers: >> >> I have thought alot but haven't been able to come up with a >> satisfactory answer to the following question: Why do groupers use >> the word, " in " in their recovery-speak expressions when the standard >> usage for the same or similar expressions doesn't? >> >> Examples: >> >> " in treatment " , " in denial " , " in recovery " >> >> I've never heard someone say, " He's 'in repression' " or " I'm 'in >> recovery' from cancer. " >> >> I believe that seemingly innocent preposition might express something >> baleful. Any thoughts? >> >> . >> >> >> >> > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2001 Report Share Posted January 24, 2001 Hi Wally/ I've actually heard them refer to themselves has being " in remission " which as you note does serve to reinforce the disease charade. Sort of imparts a sense of being immediacy doesn't it? In treatment, in denial. Kind of goes hand in hand with one day at a time. Besides if they name the problem they've got a leg up on convincing you they've got the solution. In the NOW! No Now! No Now, Now, Now, Now, Now..... AA so busy chasing their own tail they manage to fix the problem by accident but keep you chasing the tail. > Re: Why, " in " > > >Good question. I think basically the idea is to co-opt the language into >presuming the 'progressive disease' model. It reinforces the >fiction that an >'alcoholic' is always in some identifiable phase of alcoholism. And there >may also be a sort of 'finite-state-machine' metaphor going on there, >pre-emptively denying that humans have free will and are sometimes able to >find creative individual solutions to their unique problems. > >People do talk about being 'in remission' from cancer and other real >diseases. Odd, though, that AA members never talk about being 'in >remission' >from alcoholism, which would be more appropriate than 'in recovery' if >alcoholism were a real disease. Could it be that they wish to claim that by >being 'in recovery' they are really 'in control?' Could this be a ploy to >have it both ways, powerless but (ahem) paradoxically in control >at the same >time? > >--wally > > Why, " in " > > >> Dear fellow anti-steppers: >> >> I have thought alot but haven't been able to come up with a >> satisfactory answer to the following question: Why do groupers use >> the word, " in " in their recovery-speak expressions when the standard >> usage for the same or similar expressions doesn't? >> >> Examples: >> >> " in treatment " , " in denial " , " in recovery " >> >> I've never heard someone say, " He's 'in repression' " or " I'm 'in >> recovery' from cancer. " >> >> I believe that seemingly innocent preposition might express something >> baleful. Any thoughts? >> >> . >> >> >> >> > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2001 Report Share Posted January 24, 2001 Perhaps, to steal a line from an old Mamas & Papas song, they want to remind us they're " in with the 'in' crowd? " > Dear fellow anti-steppers: > > I have thought alot but haven't been able to come up with a > satisfactory answer to the following question: Why do groupers use > the word, " in " in their recovery-speak expressions when the standard > usage for the same or similar expressions doesn't? > > Examples: > > " in treatment " , " in denial " , " in recovery " > > I've never heard someone say, " He's 'in repression' " or " I'm 'in > recovery' from cancer. " > > I believe that seemingly innocent preposition might express something > baleful. Any thoughts? > > . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2001 Report Share Posted January 24, 2001 Perhaps, to steal a line from an old Mamas & Papas song, they want to remind us they're " in with the 'in' crowd? " > Dear fellow anti-steppers: > > I have thought alot but haven't been able to come up with a > satisfactory answer to the following question: Why do groupers use > the word, " in " in their recovery-speak expressions when the standard > usage for the same or similar expressions doesn't? > > Examples: > > " in treatment " , " in denial " , " in recovery " > > I've never heard someone say, " He's 'in repression' " or " I'm 'in > recovery' from cancer. " > > I believe that seemingly innocent preposition might express something > baleful. Any thoughts? > > . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2001 Report Share Posted January 24, 2001 We.. We got what you need. But we say we're just your friends... Ya we say we're just your friends.. > Re: Why, " in " > > >Perhaps, to steal a line from an old Mamas & Papas song, they want to >remind us they're " in with the 'in' crowd? " > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2001 Report Share Posted January 24, 2001 We.. We got what you need. But we say we're just your friends... Ya we say we're just your friends.. > Re: Why, " in " > > >Perhaps, to steal a line from an old Mamas & Papas song, they want to >remind us they're " in with the 'in' crowd? " > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2001 Report Share Posted January 24, 2001 We.. We got what you need. But we say we're just your friends... Ya we say we're just your friends.. > Re: Why, " in " > > >Perhaps, to steal a line from an old Mamas & Papas song, they want to >remind us they're " in with the 'in' crowd? " > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2001 Report Share Posted January 25, 2001 ineptitude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2001 Report Share Posted January 25, 2001 ineptitude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2001 Report Share Posted January 25, 2001 ineptitude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2001 Report Share Posted January 27, 2001 its for same reasons your always "recovering" and never recovered Yeah, I had to almost laugh, and would have if it hadnt been so sad, but this woman on one of my depression lists for manic depressives recently sent a post in saying that she was "recovered" and "cured" from her depression and so she was unsubbing. Sue A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2001 Report Share Posted January 27, 2001 its for same reasons your always "recovering" and never recovered Yeah, I had to almost laugh, and would have if it hadnt been so sad, but this woman on one of my depression lists for manic depressives recently sent a post in saying that she was "recovered" and "cured" from her depression and so she was unsubbing. Sue A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2001 Report Share Posted January 27, 2001 its for same reasons your always "recovering" and never recovered Yeah, I had to almost laugh, and would have if it hadnt been so sad, but this woman on one of my depression lists for manic depressives recently sent a post in saying that she was "recovered" and "cured" from her depression and so she was unsubbing. Sue A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2001 Report Share Posted January 30, 2001 In a message dated 1/25/01 6:58:30 PM Pacific Standard Time, sparkydawg69@... writes: << ineptitude >> LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2001 Report Share Posted February 1, 2001 In a message dated 1/24/01 12:23:24 PM Pacific Standard Time, wagt@... writes: << People do talk about being 'in remission' from cancer and other real diseases. Odd, though, that AA members never talk about being 'in remission' from alcoholism, which would be more appropriate than 'in recovery' if alcoholism were a real disease. Could it be that they wish to claim that by being 'in recovery' they are really 'in control?' Could this be a ploy to have it both ways, powerless but (ahem) paradoxically in control at the same time? --wally >> I understand exactly whereof you speak (and it always makes me smile). The question I have is: what fundamental motives do we have here in addition to recuitment of new members to a religion. Does this continual " recovery " " into " notion give insurance against a breakthrough of the absurdity of the paradox they have put their money on, and keep them cognitively consonant? I know there is so much more here. The both ways hypothesis isn't bad lol. Still just looking for the right questions to ask to understand this phenomenon that has caused me more than one pain in the ass in my life. thanks wally. piper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2001 Report Share Posted February 1, 2001 In a message dated 1/24/01 12:23:24 PM Pacific Standard Time, wagt@... writes: << People do talk about being 'in remission' from cancer and other real diseases. Odd, though, that AA members never talk about being 'in remission' from alcoholism, which would be more appropriate than 'in recovery' if alcoholism were a real disease. Could it be that they wish to claim that by being 'in recovery' they are really 'in control?' Could this be a ploy to have it both ways, powerless but (ahem) paradoxically in control at the same time? --wally >> I understand exactly whereof you speak (and it always makes me smile). The question I have is: what fundamental motives do we have here in addition to recuitment of new members to a religion. Does this continual " recovery " " into " notion give insurance against a breakthrough of the absurdity of the paradox they have put their money on, and keep them cognitively consonant? I know there is so much more here. The both ways hypothesis isn't bad lol. Still just looking for the right questions to ask to understand this phenomenon that has caused me more than one pain in the ass in my life. thanks wally. piper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2001 Report Share Posted February 1, 2001 In a message dated 1/24/01 12:23:24 PM Pacific Standard Time, wagt@... writes: << People do talk about being 'in remission' from cancer and other real diseases. Odd, though, that AA members never talk about being 'in remission' from alcoholism, which would be more appropriate than 'in recovery' if alcoholism were a real disease. Could it be that they wish to claim that by being 'in recovery' they are really 'in control?' Could this be a ploy to have it both ways, powerless but (ahem) paradoxically in control at the same time? --wally >> I understand exactly whereof you speak (and it always makes me smile). The question I have is: what fundamental motives do we have here in addition to recuitment of new members to a religion. Does this continual " recovery " " into " notion give insurance against a breakthrough of the absurdity of the paradox they have put their money on, and keep them cognitively consonant? I know there is so much more here. The both ways hypothesis isn't bad lol. Still just looking for the right questions to ask to understand this phenomenon that has caused me more than one pain in the ass in my life. thanks wally. piper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.