Re: Absolutist Theories

[Guest guest]

Hi friends.

I've just read this mail, and I think it's worth some thoughts.

First of all.

It seems that all theories are absolutistic as a consequence of the laws of logic.

The philosopher Bertram tried to solve this problem by introducing the concept of "Metha Language".

This can be exemplified in the laws of grammar.

The complete legitimate sentence: "The Object is the Subject" is not possible without a difference in levels. The "Metha Language" (Grammar) can not be subjected to grammar.

This is analogue with the logical problem. "The Cretin that states that everybody from Crete is a liar".

And the problem with relativistic theories. Are they relative?

If they are, they must be absolutistic.

I think the main result of this is confusion. Every thought seems to be sentenced to death by it's own consequences.

No wonder God seems to be the only intelligent solution. He/she will then represent the Absolute, and by this replace the confusion created of the limitations of logic with certainty.

But then, of course. If there is a God. Then why this and that!

I can see no other solution than live in a permanent oscillation between belief and doubt. But this shouldn't make you lame. It is important and basic human to act on ones beliefs. If you demand absolute truth before you act you'll only be your own chain around your leg.

Well, after these introductory remarks I would like to present my conclusion regarding "the cause" for alcoholism.

For those who don't know me I should mention that I'm a psychologist since 1978, and have analyzed and tried to treat about 500 alcoholics/abusers (whatever the word).

I haven't done this the last 9 years, and I've no intention doing it in the future. Actually I think "Alcohol Treatment" is more a part of the problem rather than the solution.

And this is not as a result of failures. I've planned and conducted a treatment based on controlled drinking from 1982 until 1986, and our results showed that about 66% progressively diminished their problematic drinking through 6, 12 and 18 months interviews. Their general income was raised with 17% in a period with general depression, and their health was obvious better, as their relations with their surroundings.

By doing this I proved what I wanted to prove, and therefore it really don't interests me anymore.

But the basic question of causes can be reduced to this:

"Is behavior determined or not?"

I think it is, but there are two rules.

1. All behavior is determined on the individual basis.

2. The rules for every individual can not be applied as a general rule/law.

Hope this can clarify your dispute ;-).

Sincerely

Bjørn

Absolutist Theories

Hi,Well, last night I had my first sociology class. I'm excited aboutit (I've been out of school for 15 years) and chose it partly becauseit addresses social problems including drug use and alcoholism. I have already learned that I am a "deviant"...depending on who is doing the defining. There are two main types of theories regarding social problems; alsolutist and relativist. The four characteristics of an absolutist view: 1) Reliance on stereotypes to define people. For example, the mental image that comes to mind at the word "prostitute" may be a stereotypical image, then using that image for any analysis that follows. 2) Allege pathology - the absolutist views the individual as internally flawed in some way, for example biologically, psychologically or socially. There is something wrong with them. 3) There is moral indignation at the person or acts. 4) Evil causes evil. That evil can lead to good or good lead to evil is not part of an absolutist view. Also, things are black and white, either/or. There is an absense of gray area or middle ground.This could describe 100s of theories. I think it certainly describes disease theory, especially the "allege pathology" part. It also describes Ken Ragge's theory of abuse/trauma in childhood as the genesis of future alcohol abuse, especially the "evil causes evil" part. In his example, the evil of alcohol abuse must be caused bythe evil of childhood trauma or abuse. I'm using "evil" in the sense of "this is a bad thing" not that the person is "evil" which issomething that Ken is careful to avoid.Maybe this is part of the source of our disagreements and difficulty communicating. I don't have the class definition of "relativist"yet, but have an idea that my theories (or objections to Ken's theory)tend to fall in that definition.See you,

[Guest guest]

Hi friends.

I've just read this mail, and I think it's worth some thoughts.

First of all.

It seems that all theories are absolutistic as a consequence of the laws of logic.

The philosopher Bertram tried to solve this problem by introducing the concept of "Metha Language".

This can be exemplified in the laws of grammar.

The complete legitimate sentence: "The Object is the Subject" is not possible without a difference in levels. The "Metha Language" (Grammar) can not be subjected to grammar.

This is analogue with the logical problem. "The Cretin that states that everybody from Crete is a liar".

And the problem with relativistic theories. Are they relative?

If they are, they must be absolutistic.

I think the main result of this is confusion. Every thought seems to be sentenced to death by it's own consequences.

No wonder God seems to be the only intelligent solution. He/she will then represent the Absolute, and by this replace the confusion created of the limitations of logic with certainty.

But then, of course. If there is a God. Then why this and that!

I can see no other solution than live in a permanent oscillation between belief and doubt. But this shouldn't make you lame. It is important and basic human to act on ones beliefs. If you demand absolute truth before you act you'll only be your own chain around your leg.

Well, after these introductory remarks I would like to present my conclusion regarding "the cause" for alcoholism.

For those who don't know me I should mention that I'm a psychologist since 1978, and have analyzed and tried to treat about 500 alcoholics/abusers (whatever the word).

I haven't done this the last 9 years, and I've no intention doing it in the future. Actually I think "Alcohol Treatment" is more a part of the problem rather than the solution.

And this is not as a result of failures. I've planned and conducted a treatment based on controlled drinking from 1982 until 1986, and our results showed that about 66% progressively diminished their problematic drinking through 6, 12 and 18 months interviews. Their general income was raised with 17% in a period with general depression, and their health was obvious better, as their relations with their surroundings.

By doing this I proved what I wanted to prove, and therefore it really don't interests me anymore.

But the basic question of causes can be reduced to this:

"Is behavior determined or not?"

I think it is, but there are two rules.

1. All behavior is determined on the individual basis.

2. The rules for every individual can not be applied as a general rule/law.

Hope this can clarify your dispute ;-).

Sincerely

Bjørn

Absolutist Theories

Hi,Well, last night I had my first sociology class. I'm excited aboutit (I've been out of school for 15 years) and chose it partly becauseit addresses social problems including drug use and alcoholism. I have already learned that I am a "deviant"...depending on who is doing the defining. There are two main types of theories regarding social problems; alsolutist and relativist. The four characteristics of an absolutist view: 1) Reliance on stereotypes to define people. For example, the mental image that comes to mind at the word "prostitute" may be a stereotypical image, then using that image for any analysis that follows. 2) Allege pathology - the absolutist views the individual as internally flawed in some way, for example biologically, psychologically or socially. There is something wrong with them. 3) There is moral indignation at the person or acts. 4) Evil causes evil. That evil can lead to good or good lead to evil is not part of an absolutist view. Also, things are black and white, either/or. There is an absense of gray area or middle ground.This could describe 100s of theories. I think it certainly describes disease theory, especially the "allege pathology" part. It also describes Ken Ragge's theory of abuse/trauma in childhood as the genesis of future alcohol abuse, especially the "evil causes evil" part. In his example, the evil of alcohol abuse must be caused bythe evil of childhood trauma or abuse. I'm using "evil" in the sense of "this is a bad thing" not that the person is "evil" which issomething that Ken is careful to avoid.Maybe this is part of the source of our disagreements and difficulty communicating. I don't have the class definition of "relativist"yet, but have an idea that my theories (or objections to Ken's theory)tend to fall in that definition.See you,

[Guest guest]

Hi Bjorn,

>

> But the basic question of causes can be reduced to this:

> " Is behavior determined or not? "

>

> I think it is, but there are two rules.

>

> 1. All behavior is determined on the individual basis.

>

> 2. The rules for every individual can not be applied as a general

rule/law.

>

> Hope this can clarify your dispute ;-).

He, he, he, he!

I wondered if anyone would call me on that aspect of it - the

paradox of absolutism vs relativism. If I say I am a " relativist, " I

am an " absolutist. "

However, I do think that, relatively speaking, Ken's theories are

absolutist.

See you,

[Guest guest]

Hi Bjorn,

>

> But the basic question of causes can be reduced to this:

> " Is behavior determined or not? "

>

> I think it is, but there are two rules.

>

> 1. All behavior is determined on the individual basis.

>

> 2. The rules for every individual can not be applied as a general

rule/law.

>

> Hope this can clarify your dispute ;-).

He, he, he, he!

I wondered if anyone would call me on that aspect of it - the

paradox of absolutism vs relativism. If I say I am a " relativist, " I

am an " absolutist. "

However, I do think that, relatively speaking, Ken's theories are

absolutist.

See you,

[Guest guest]

Hi Bjorn,

>

> But the basic question of causes can be reduced to this:

> " Is behavior determined or not? "

>

> I think it is, but there are two rules.

>

> 1. All behavior is determined on the individual basis.

>

> 2. The rules for every individual can not be applied as a general

rule/law.

>

> Hope this can clarify your dispute ;-).

He, he, he, he!

I wondered if anyone would call me on that aspect of it - the

paradox of absolutism vs relativism. If I say I am a " relativist, " I

am an " absolutist. "

However, I do think that, relatively speaking, Ken's theories are

absolutist.

See you,

[Guest guest]

> Oh .

>

> You've got the same name as my eldest daughter. I just had to

mention. She's 26 and studies to be a social anthropologist, which I

rather wanted to be myself. But when she is doing it, it kind of

relaxes me. I just had to make this digression!

I like that - that it relaxes you. I wonder if my children will ever

relax me...? Maybe the feeling, " ahhh they are doing well, doing

things I am interested in yet do not need me every minute... " It

seems so far away as they are only babies now.

>

> But what I really wanted to direct your attention to was the proverb

" Confusion is the Mother of Knowledge " .

Maybe this is why I never seemed to " get " those Buddhist sayings

(there is a word for them but it is escaping me). What a comforting

proverb! Surely I am gaining a great deal of knowledge...

>

> Actually I think knowledge is above logic, but is suppressed by the

forced necessity of representing itself in logical terms.

Wow. That is a big one to think on.

>

> Bjørn.

>

> P.S.

>

> I really don't know Ken's theory.

> Could you describe it for me?

I think Ken believes that all severe alcohol abusers were abused or

traumatized as young children. He wrote a book called " The Real AA "

that debunks the " alcoholism as disease " theory and is a critical

analysis of the AA group experience. I agree with nearly everything

else in the book except the analysis of why adults drink, which I

believe is impossible to determine with any type of accuracy. I

objected to the emphasis on early childhood primarily because of my

experiences parenting young children and feel that the examples he

gives do not prove his point (and I'm tired of hearing that parents

are the cause of every negative in the world, so do have a stake in

it). ;^)

Quite possibly Ken sees his theory differently than this. We have

been arguing about it for the last week, but I am ready to give up and

move onto something else.

Thanks for responding!

[Guest guest]

> Oh .

>

> You've got the same name as my eldest daughter. I just had to

mention. She's 26 and studies to be a social anthropologist, which I

rather wanted to be myself. But when she is doing it, it kind of

relaxes me. I just had to make this digression!

I like that - that it relaxes you. I wonder if my children will ever

relax me...? Maybe the feeling, " ahhh they are doing well, doing

things I am interested in yet do not need me every minute... " It

seems so far away as they are only babies now.

>

> But what I really wanted to direct your attention to was the proverb

" Confusion is the Mother of Knowledge " .

Maybe this is why I never seemed to " get " those Buddhist sayings

(there is a word for them but it is escaping me). What a comforting

proverb! Surely I am gaining a great deal of knowledge...

>

> Actually I think knowledge is above logic, but is suppressed by the

forced necessity of representing itself in logical terms.

Wow. That is a big one to think on.

>

> Bjørn.

>

> P.S.

>

> I really don't know Ken's theory.

> Could you describe it for me?

I think Ken believes that all severe alcohol abusers were abused or

traumatized as young children. He wrote a book called " The Real AA "

that debunks the " alcoholism as disease " theory and is a critical

analysis of the AA group experience. I agree with nearly everything

else in the book except the analysis of why adults drink, which I

believe is impossible to determine with any type of accuracy. I

objected to the emphasis on early childhood primarily because of my

experiences parenting young children and feel that the examples he

gives do not prove his point (and I'm tired of hearing that parents

are the cause of every negative in the world, so do have a stake in

it). ;^)

Quite possibly Ken sees his theory differently than this. We have

been arguing about it for the last week, but I am ready to give up and

move onto something else.

Thanks for responding!

[Guest guest]

> Oh .

>

> You've got the same name as my eldest daughter. I just had to

mention. She's 26 and studies to be a social anthropologist, which I

rather wanted to be myself. But when she is doing it, it kind of

relaxes me. I just had to make this digression!

I like that - that it relaxes you. I wonder if my children will ever

relax me...? Maybe the feeling, " ahhh they are doing well, doing

things I am interested in yet do not need me every minute... " It

seems so far away as they are only babies now.

>

> But what I really wanted to direct your attention to was the proverb

" Confusion is the Mother of Knowledge " .

Maybe this is why I never seemed to " get " those Buddhist sayings

(there is a word for them but it is escaping me). What a comforting

proverb! Surely I am gaining a great deal of knowledge...

>

> Actually I think knowledge is above logic, but is suppressed by the

forced necessity of representing itself in logical terms.

Wow. That is a big one to think on.

>

> Bjørn.

>

> P.S.

>

> I really don't know Ken's theory.

> Could you describe it for me?

I think Ken believes that all severe alcohol abusers were abused or

traumatized as young children. He wrote a book called " The Real AA "

that debunks the " alcoholism as disease " theory and is a critical

analysis of the AA group experience. I agree with nearly everything

else in the book except the analysis of why adults drink, which I

believe is impossible to determine with any type of accuracy. I

objected to the emphasis on early childhood primarily because of my

experiences parenting young children and feel that the examples he

gives do not prove his point (and I'm tired of hearing that parents

are the cause of every negative in the world, so do have a stake in

it). ;^)

Quite possibly Ken sees his theory differently than this. We have

been arguing about it for the last week, but I am ready to give up and

move onto something else.

Thanks for responding!

[Guest guest]

> I concur with your intimation that parents are often seen as the

cause of

> everything. I am a psychiatric nurse in addiction services and I too

am tired

> of constant reference to family of origin stuff. It's all a bit

tired and

> trite if you ask me.

> Just thought I'ld let you know.

Thanks!

[Guest guest]

> Actually I think this discussion is very interesting and important,

but the answers are not easy fetched, why I think armed positions are

counterproductive for recognition.

>

> Here are my thougts on the subject.

> First of all. The cultural aspect cannot be unerestimated.

> In a cultural sense all infants, no matter of race, could be

considered " tabula rasa " 's. The genes determining the color of the

skin are for example only four, and the genetic similiarity between a

right wing WASP could easily be more alike that of a person from

Rwanda than from a person within his own breed. The number of genes of

the human race is only twice the number of genes in the banany fly.

And then the flower (Danish translation) " Easter Lilly " has more than

the double of human genes.

> The main conclusion among experts after finishing " The Human Genome

Project " is that genes have a lower explanatory value than thought

before. In their conclusions

>

> they explicit mention " Alcoholism " as an example of what genes can

not explain.

>

> This means that every child on earth is completely innocent and

without guilt born into a cultur and a social context.

> It is my conviction that the experiences through the first 5 to 6

years moulds the child decisively in more respects than we are able to

mention.

>

> In that sense, of course, childhood experiences in a broad sense are

very important.

>

> From this of course follows that a specific behavior cannot result

in specific consequences.

>

> For example.

>

> There is difference in consequence between being beated as a child

in Denmark, USA, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Italy and Borneo.

>

> In USA and Denmark it is statistically attached to " Alcoholism " , but

not in Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

> In Turkey physical punishment is a part of the cultural codex, and

alcohol is strictly forbidden in Saudi Arabia.

>

> But within what we could could call Westerns countries, childhood

experiences seems to have a tremendous effect on outcomes concerning

alcohol and drug problems.

>

> Therefore there is no facit list, but every single person must have

to be understood differently. Culture and experience.

Hi,

Thanks for writing this. I concur that childhood experiences are very

important and that abuse and trauma can and do lead to disasterous

consequences in some people (although not all), including alcoholism.

However, from this I can not infer that every alcoholic was an abused

or traumatized child.

In sociology class I am currently taking, there has been a discussion

of the theories and methods to the study of " deviance " which obviously

means different things in different contexts. The text is

specifically interested in criminal deviance, murder, rape, robbery,

etc. In all of the studies over all of the years no one has been able

to formulate a theory that held up! Criminal deviance could not be

explained by phrenology (study of the shape of the skull), heriditary

factors, evolution, social factors, parental influences, economic

factors or any other distinct " cause. " Yet the conclusions, or

non-conclusions, reached by " failed science " have been used against

various groups ever since the beginning.

Another objection I have to Ken's theory is that because he asserts

that the majority of the " abuse " occurs during the first 3 years,

there is no way for people to prove or disprove that assertion, since

a baby would not be able to remember what happened. This is the same

criticism that has been leveled at psychotherapy, and rightly so.

However, if the alcoholic believes Ken's theory, he may very well

believe that he was abused as a child. It can not be proved either

way, unless there was a formal procedure at some point and there was a

record. If it isn't true, great damage can be caused to the

parent-child relationship. If the alcoholic is herself a parent,

there is really no information about how to avoid the negative

results. Many of the examples Ken gives are verbal sanctions and do

not even involve beatings. The text of the first few paragraphs is

quoted in a previous post.

Not in " The Real AA " but in several other of Ken's posts, he makes

comparisons to other cultures that do not have high alcoholism rates.

He has chosen to focus his attention on the childrearing practices in

those cultures, especially natural birth, carrying the infant and

co-sleeping, and lack of circumcision. Yet, there may be 1,000 other

reasons why that culture does not produce alcoholics to the same

extent we do! Maybe there are greater sanctions, less access to drugs

or alcohol, no media attention, greater attention needed to be paid to

the daily tasks of living and so on. I think it is biased to single

out this one area to attribute the culture's relative success to.

I haven't read it yet, but there is a book by sociologist Jessie

Bernard called " The Future of Motherhood " where she analyzes

childrearing in many other cultures and concludes that " the isolation

of the American mother is unique. " We do live in a highly mobile and

complicated society and many of us live great distances from our

parents. I think it can be the loss of community and connectedness,

and very high expectations placed on mothers that can also contribute

to frustration and alcoholism.

Another huge contributing factor to alcoholism in the adult may be the

powerlessness that is taught through AA. It is very hard to shake

that lesson when you have been indroctinated into the cult. It may

stick even after all else has been rejected. This idea, and the idea

that alcoholism is a disease are widely believed in the US, even in

the general culture.

As you say, there is no facile list.

My final criticism of Ken's theory is that it is determinist. It

basically says that what happened to you as a baby has determined that

you are an alcoholic adult (and you didn't have much do with it). I

believe that an individual does have free will and participates in the

decisions affecting his own life.

I do agree that it is an important topic, but I've " beat it to death "

already here and in the previous posts.

See you,

[Guest guest]

> Actually I think this discussion is very interesting and important,

but the answers are not easy fetched, why I think armed positions are

counterproductive for recognition.

>

> Here are my thougts on the subject.

> First of all. The cultural aspect cannot be unerestimated.

> In a cultural sense all infants, no matter of race, could be

considered " tabula rasa " 's. The genes determining the color of the

skin are for example only four, and the genetic similiarity between a

right wing WASP could easily be more alike that of a person from

Rwanda than from a person within his own breed. The number of genes of

the human race is only twice the number of genes in the banany fly.

And then the flower (Danish translation) " Easter Lilly " has more than

the double of human genes.

> The main conclusion among experts after finishing " The Human Genome

Project " is that genes have a lower explanatory value than thought

before. In their conclusions

>

> they explicit mention " Alcoholism " as an example of what genes can

not explain.

>

> This means that every child on earth is completely innocent and

without guilt born into a cultur and a social context.

> It is my conviction that the experiences through the first 5 to 6

years moulds the child decisively in more respects than we are able to

mention.

>

> In that sense, of course, childhood experiences in a broad sense are

very important.

>

> From this of course follows that a specific behavior cannot result

in specific consequences.

>

> For example.

>

> There is difference in consequence between being beated as a child

in Denmark, USA, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Italy and Borneo.

>

> In USA and Denmark it is statistically attached to " Alcoholism " , but

not in Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

> In Turkey physical punishment is a part of the cultural codex, and

alcohol is strictly forbidden in Saudi Arabia.

>

> But within what we could could call Westerns countries, childhood

experiences seems to have a tremendous effect on outcomes concerning

alcohol and drug problems.

>

> Therefore there is no facit list, but every single person must have

to be understood differently. Culture and experience.

Hi,

Thanks for writing this. I concur that childhood experiences are very

important and that abuse and trauma can and do lead to disasterous

consequences in some people (although not all), including alcoholism.

However, from this I can not infer that every alcoholic was an abused

or traumatized child.

In sociology class I am currently taking, there has been a discussion

of the theories and methods to the study of " deviance " which obviously

means different things in different contexts. The text is

specifically interested in criminal deviance, murder, rape, robbery,

etc. In all of the studies over all of the years no one has been able

to formulate a theory that held up! Criminal deviance could not be

explained by phrenology (study of the shape of the skull), heriditary

factors, evolution, social factors, parental influences, economic

factors or any other distinct " cause. " Yet the conclusions, or

non-conclusions, reached by " failed science " have been used against

various groups ever since the beginning.

Another objection I have to Ken's theory is that because he asserts

that the majority of the " abuse " occurs during the first 3 years,

there is no way for people to prove or disprove that assertion, since

a baby would not be able to remember what happened. This is the same

criticism that has been leveled at psychotherapy, and rightly so.

However, if the alcoholic believes Ken's theory, he may very well

believe that he was abused as a child. It can not be proved either

way, unless there was a formal procedure at some point and there was a

record. If it isn't true, great damage can be caused to the

parent-child relationship. If the alcoholic is herself a parent,

there is really no information about how to avoid the negative

results. Many of the examples Ken gives are verbal sanctions and do

not even involve beatings. The text of the first few paragraphs is

quoted in a previous post.

Not in " The Real AA " but in several other of Ken's posts, he makes

comparisons to other cultures that do not have high alcoholism rates.

He has chosen to focus his attention on the childrearing practices in

those cultures, especially natural birth, carrying the infant and

co-sleeping, and lack of circumcision. Yet, there may be 1,000 other

reasons why that culture does not produce alcoholics to the same

extent we do! Maybe there are greater sanctions, less access to drugs

or alcohol, no media attention, greater attention needed to be paid to

the daily tasks of living and so on. I think it is biased to single

out this one area to attribute the culture's relative success to.

I haven't read it yet, but there is a book by sociologist Jessie

Bernard called " The Future of Motherhood " where she analyzes

childrearing in many other cultures and concludes that " the isolation

of the American mother is unique. " We do live in a highly mobile and

complicated society and many of us live great distances from our

parents. I think it can be the loss of community and connectedness,

and very high expectations placed on mothers that can also contribute

to frustration and alcoholism.

Another huge contributing factor to alcoholism in the adult may be the

powerlessness that is taught through AA. It is very hard to shake

that lesson when you have been indroctinated into the cult. It may

stick even after all else has been rejected. This idea, and the idea

that alcoholism is a disease are widely believed in the US, even in

the general culture.

As you say, there is no facile list.

My final criticism of Ken's theory is that it is determinist. It

basically says that what happened to you as a baby has determined that

you are an alcoholic adult (and you didn't have much do with it). I

believe that an individual does have free will and participates in the

decisions affecting his own life.

I do agree that it is an important topic, but I've " beat it to death "

already here and in the previous posts.

See you,