aa Spoken Here Community Group
Fellowship Where you can share your thoughts, feelings, stories and get support to gain and continue sobriety.
I know for my part I do strongly believe in the steps and the program. In fact I did not work them properly for my first five years and it took another life crisis to get me going.
It's the absolute , almost scripture like references to the old program and portions of the BB in what I percieve to be a "my way or the highway" tone that flat out turns people off.
In other words when people say things like "real acloholics" I just tense right up. "No defense against the first drink"? Who among us never stopped on his own for at least a few days? I've seen dyed in the wool DT drunks stop drinking ( often miserably, but stopped just the same) without setting foot in a church basement. I've seen people with seriuos drunkalogs not drink in AA until , or even without taking the steps.
It almost sounds like someone is sitting back saying "If you didn't do exactly what I did to get sober then you're not a real alcoholic"
Some alcoholics DO have some defense against the first drink and they are just as "real" as anyone else.
Clearly, the book generalizes even uses metaphor. I believe the bible is a great literary work, but I don't believe the planet is only 4,000 years old! Same principal.
For some the layers of the onion peel slowly. Faster for others, yet I cannot imagine taking the steps at light speed.
This post is not to insight arguement but rather to discuss the core differences here on a specific thread.
It's the absolute , almost scripture like references to the old program and portions of the BB in what I percieve to be a "my way or the highway" tone that flat out turns people off.
In other words when people say things like "real acloholics" I just tense right up. "No defense against the first drink"? Who among us never stopped on his own for at least a few days? I've seen dyed in the wool DT drunks stop drinking ( often miserably, but stopped just the same) without setting foot in a church basement. I've seen people with seriuos drunkalogs not drink in AA until , or even without taking the steps.
It almost sounds like someone is sitting back saying "If you didn't do exactly what I did to get sober then you're not a real alcoholic"
Some alcoholics DO have some defense against the first drink and they are just as "real" as anyone else.
Clearly, the book generalizes even uses metaphor. I believe the bible is a great literary work, but I don't believe the planet is only 4,000 years old! Same principal.
For some the layers of the onion peel slowly. Faster for others, yet I cannot imagine taking the steps at light speed.
This post is not to insight arguement but rather to discuss the core differences here on a specific thread.
Some think its my way or noway.
Very enlightening.
To Recovery
Personally, I take none whatsoever!
You cannot show even a single thread of evidence, Mr. Bear!!
I have *never* taken issue with *anyone's* path!!
For myself, that was a *very big" fear-based issue and resentment on my list. But after somebody finally showed us how ...
"When we drew near to Him He disclosed Himself to us!" (page 57)
That was not an easy hurdle to overcome mind you. It was in fact, the completion of my step 1 surrender.
I spent a year in a chatroom refusing to attend f2f AA because the guys in the chatroom kept telling me:
1) That I had no defence against the first drink;
2) That God was keeping them sober.
Both propositions were absolutely, completely and indisputably preposterous to me.
I would jump in and bounce back my indignant reponse of "Bullshit, I mean look at me I'm sober today and have been for the past 4 weeks and I even got to 8 months once" or "You guys are simnply a bunch of social misfits who cannot handle life and devolve all your problems to God, you fecking US evangelist bible-bashing pussies".
Their responses were often very reactive, and offended, however every now and again someone would come back with a stroke of genius in their simplistic logic, such as:
- "Well what happened at the end of the 8 months then?"
- "Ummm.... well I had girlfirned problems, life was getting to me, I lost my job" etc etc etc blah blah bullshitty blah.
So slowly the message started to sink in.
Now the final piece of the jogsaw fell into place when I actually read the Big Book carefully. Bill was very particular with his choice of words, I have come to discover.
He uses certain caveats and qualifications that completely make sense to me know for example:
"We are unable, AT CERTAIN TIMES, to bring into our consciousness with sufficient force the memory of the suffering and humiliation of even a week or a month ago. We are without defense against the first drink."
or:
"SUDDENLY, the thought crossed my mind that if I were to put an ounce of whiskey in my milk it couldn't hurt me on a full stomach. I ordered a whiskey and poured it into the milk. I vaguely sense I was not being any too smart, but I reassured as I was taking the whiskey on a full stomach."
or:
"If you ask him why he started on that last bender, the chances are he will offer you any one of a hundred alibis. Sometimes these excuses have a certain plausibility, but none of them really makes sense in the light of the havoc an alcoholic´s drinking bout creates. They sound like the philosophy of the man who, having a headache, beats himself on the head with a hammer so that he can´t feel the ache. If you draw this fallacious reasoning to the attention of an alcoholic, he will laugh it off, or become irritated and refuse to talk. Once in a while he may tell the truth. And the truth, strange to say, is usually that he has no more idea why he took that first drink than you have."
or:
"I was much impressed with what you fellows said about alcoholism, and I frankly did not believe it would be possible for me to drink again. I rather appreciated your ideas about the subtle insanity which precedes the first drink, but I was confident it could not happen to me after what I had learned. ... I felt I had every right to be self-confident, that it would be only a matter of exercising my will power and keeping on guard. ... I went about my business and for a time all was well. I had no trouble refusing drinks, and began to wonder if I had not been making too hard work of a simple matter. ... As I crossed the threshold of the dining room, the thought came to mind that it would be nice to have a couple of cocktails with dinner. That was all. Nothing more. ... I had made no fight whatever against the first drink."
So, what these guys were saying was not a bold sweeping statement, informing me that I would crumble EVERY TIME a drink was passed my way or I walked past a pub or off-licence. They were actually talking about SPECIFIC moments - moments whgich occur at varying regularity and in which my head was totaly gone and I was, indeed mentally defenceless against the first drink.
They were also telling me, as they told Fred "they prophesied that if I had an alcoholic mind, the time and place would come-I would drink again. They had said that though I did raise a defense, it would one day give way before some trivial reason for having a drink"
The term "insanely trivial excuse" also caught me eye in the book. Yes, that was me - I had offered insanely trivial excuses for my 8 relapses, clinging onto the desperate delusion that I had actually made a rational choice to drink, despite the experience and knowledge and conseuqence to the contrary.
Yes these guys were talking about me.
And to this day I always share that I can say no to a drink 19 times out of 20...
Given that when I take a drink, the shortest period I ever drank for during a relapse was a week solid, 19/20 really doesn't cut it for me, especially as I was desperate to be free of alcohol, but just didn't have what it takes.
I am indeed, the proud possessor of an alcoholic mind and I can now confirm, at my longest ever period sober (and drug-free), that my 19 nos are long up, so something is keeping me sober - now who is that I wonder? Didn't those guys in the chat room say something about...
Donttread, i am a bit confused about what you are saying. If people quit drinking without the need for AA and the steps why do we need to consider them in the message we carry within AA, they do not need the message and are not there to hear it are they?
Surely we are interested in helping people that have found they cannot quit on their own power and therefore need a way to connect to a power greater than themselves as that is the solution that we have.
"A complete social misfit who could not handle life and had to hand everything over to God as you understand God in order to recover so I could stay sober" ... and the one thing that most forced me into admitting, accepting and doing those things was the fact I had somehow *always* ended up drinking again, and against even my own conscious will.
Is all of this "the absolute that it's been taken to mean?"
For me, yes. At age 24, I took my very first drink ever out of fear of what someone else might say or think if I did not accept it -- no effective mental defense -- and the identical thing happened about seven years later (near the end of my overall drinking career) at communion in a church about two months after I first sobered up -- no effective mental defense -- and then identically yet again over a glass of punch a grandmotherly neighbour had offered me at about a year -- no effective mental defense -- and then yet even one more time over what has since proved to be my last drink (a single drop insanely taken from a jar of those special cherries) on 10/22/82.
Was I ever able to effectively say "No" to a drink after I had decided to stop for good and all?
Yes, usually for about 3 days at the end of each successive drunk over a period of about five months ... and that was when, where and while I was unknowingly getting my "Don't drink, one day at a time, sweet 'Jesus'" days out of the way just before I finally got to A.A.
Don't get me wrong, as I said I believe in the steps and all the aspects of the program but not the absolute rigid interpretations of the Big Book.
When I first came to the program different members presented different philosophies. While I wish I had worked steps 4-12 sooner, it was I who choose which of the paths to follow.
I respect all your sobriety and enjoy these debates. I also think some of you may have to deal with a lot more court ordered individuals and people who don't want to be there than I ever have.
Obviously, different paths have worked for many of us to arrive at long term sobriety, but also I know most of the core tennannts are eventually the same.
I really don;t think the book is saying it's impossible to stay sober for some period without the solution it trys to sell. In fact it actually says:
"Whether such a person can quit upon a nonspiritual basis depends upon the extent to which he has already lost the power to choose whether he will drink or not. Many of us felt that we had plenty of character. There was a tremendous urge to cease forever. Yet we found it impossible. This is the baffling feature of alcoholism as we know it-this utter inability to leave it alone, no matter how great the necessity or the wish.
How then shall we help our readers determine, to their own satisfaction, whether they are one of us? The experiment of quitting for a period of time will be helpful, but we think we can render an even greater service to alcoholic sufferers and perhaps to the medical fraternity. So we shall describe some of the mental states that precede a relapse into drinking, for obviously this is the crux of the problem."
I've cited some of the mental states they propose in my previous thread. I think they match a lot of alkie's experiences.
The book does also give the unusual example of a chap who stayed sober for over 25 years, as he wanted to be successful in business.
I think you will admit that he is one of the few that are able to stay dry for 25 years on will power alone, wouldn't you?
The book is not talking about temporary solutions, as I read it. It is talking about permanent freedom from alcohol. That's the amzing thing about it.
But I've seen these quotes repeatedly about "No defense against the first drink" and " Real alcoholics" presented in absolutes .
The BB , like the bible, may actually contradict itself as it's written to several "layers of the onion" or different approaches at different times .
I know for sure that most times I had absolutely no defense once I picked up drink one, . But once in awhile there was an exception to even that.
Loss of control = alcoholism= disaster.
I repect you guys and enjoy these debates. I think , slightly toned down, ( like your last post) the BB message needs to be heard. But we must always remember the traditions, How it works and that for the newcomer some AA is better than none!
I'm quoting you for clarity - here goes:
"I understand that we are compelled to drink, even more so after taking the first."
That is the spiritual and physical malady combined, yep.
"But it seems to me that people here are saying that no alcoholic can stop even temporarily until they do the steps and that simply isn't true! "
Correct. As I understand the truth of it is only end stage/real/chronic alcoholics are like that - not all alcoholics.
"Then. I'm hearing that those of us who did not plunge into the steps on day one are somehow not "real alcoholics" which of course is also untrue."
I don't know. I only know that was true for me. My sponsor 12 Stepped me as I was detoxing, we prayed, I prayed, as soon as my mind was clear we went over it again and launched into vigorous action as suggested by the Big Book.
That was my experience. A Power greater than myself relieved my alcoholism. I don't know how or why.
I don't really think we're all that far apart , perhaps it's partly a matter of presentation.
Also when I said those statements were untrue, I meant scientifically and with antedotal evidence we can refute them. I in no way meant to accuse anyone of misrepresenting the truth , I think the "thumpers " strongly believe these things, sometimes without questioning the logic.
How that has sounded is understandable, yet no such understanding has ever been intended. Rather, and at least in my own case, the intent was to hopefully end up right here where it can now be clear as to why the "in the Fellowship" idea of A.A. even possibly being about just not drinking one day at a time is ... oh, dare I say "nonsense"?
At a late point in their initial conversations with "A.A." Number Three", Bill and Dr. Bob clearly asked him, Bill D., a rhetorical question:
"Surely you can stay sober for twenty-fours hours, can't you?"
They already knew he likely could, of course, because they knew their own experience Huw has so eloquently passed along as his own and they had just spent a lot of time finding out all about Bill D.'s particular case of alcoholism. However, they also knew he would eventually drink again, but that was not an immediate issue. Rather, they had just presented to him the idea of "trust in God and clean house in order to recover", and they were now giving him (or maybe even "buying him") a little time to decide about that as a permanent solution.