RATIONAL RECOVERY....what is this jibberish?????

iguana

iguana wrote: »

That is not in anyway what I am saying and I really don't know how anyone is reading that into what I've written. It's honestly like people are picking and choosing from the words on the screen and assigning their own meaning to them instead of actually reading what is written.

I am saying that there is nothing wrong with giving it a shot, people could easily find something good about it. That even if they don't find that good right away give it a fair chance but if it's still not working for you not to give up hope, there are so many alternatives. In fact maybe you'll decide at some point to try it again and get some benefit then.

The reason it does more harm than good is not because of what goes on at meetings, but because of the way the greater organisation runs itself and the message it sends out. Manoeuvring themselves into positions of huge influence and power, having their organisation pushed into the penal system, applying pressure to the US Supreme Court to refuse to hear legal challenges based on religious freedoms. Publishing literature condemning use of medication in treatment, conducting studies where they find there are problems with some of their methods but ignoring these findings instead of taking the opportunity to find out what's not working and improve their service. Stating categorically that those who can not work their steps are flawed on a biological level. All of that is underhanded behaviour which does a lot of harm to a lot of people, apparently more than they help.

Try comparing it to this analogy. The Catholic church disgusts me, they have committed crimes of abuse and covered them up, they have preached discrimination and had many negative influences on state policy in many countries. The problems are institutional and were only allowed to continue because of the policy coming from the top. However I have met loads of lovely priests, nuns and monks, great people who would bend over backwards to help the people who look for it. Who provide comfort and celebration for those who need it. Who give the lonely and the frightened time and respect. Who are really just good people who do good for others. And as much as I would love to see big, big changes to the Catholic church I admire many of their representatives because many people's live would be poorer and I'm glad they are there for those who need them.

It's like that with the AA. Of course someone who has an addiction problem should try AA (though if their addiction is chronic seeking medical advice should always be the first step - cold turkey is physically very dangerous). It could easily be enough to get them to a better place. But if it isn't they need to know there are alternatives. The people in AA at ground level are great, have a lot to offer and they come from a very genuine place. But the policies of those running the organisation are in many serious cases awful and the policy and political influence they assert are awfully damaging.

See what you've done there?

I really have never heard anything about AA as an organisation putting itself into a position of power or authority. Quite the opposite in fact. My understanding is that AA was used as a free outlet to treat alcoholic criminals instead of locking them up as opposed to AA having any influence in the decision.

Now if you've got any evidence of AA going out of it's way to obtain "power and influence" I'd like to see the links. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that you should back up what you're saying.

Does "AA HQ" even have any authority over individual groups? I never thought it did. I mean, there is no sort of pope or vatican type council which throws out orders.


I'd just like to add that nobody is attacking you Iguana...so it'd be nice to stop treating us like we're some sort of evil cult that's attacking you. We're just normal people who go to meetings to help us stay sober - that's all!

CDfm

@rojo you shouldn't feel obliged to defend whatever works for you.

And Iguana -if you have a beef with religion or the catholic church or a group or a particular study say it. God only knows how you managed to drag the catholic church and the US Supreme Court in to a thread on methods for giving up drink.

iguana

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Quite the opposite in fact. My understanding is that AA was used as a free outlet to treat alcoholic criminals instead of locking them up as opposed to AA having any influence in the decision.

Then your understanding is wrong. The AA is hugely wealthy and pays very high salaries to their staff. Starting with Bill Wilson who was utterly destitute at the time he came up with AA. He was a fraudster in his professional life who was responsible for a lot of people's financial ruin on the run up to the Wall St Crash. He utterly destroyed many of his business associates, friends and all of wife's family on a financial level. At the point where he was in recovery this continued with him borrowing money left, right and centre and ultimately losing the Burnham (Lois's) family home when he caused for it to be re-mortgaged but never made any payments on it.

However within under about a decade he was a multi-millionaire by today's standards. He brought his old confidence trickster talents to the fore and told lie after lie to publishers, doctors and politicians to gain support and finances for his organisation. Much of the money he gained was kept for himself. He also really pushed himself greatly, revelling in the fame and notoriety, taking credit for much which he had no part in and ideas he'd stolen from others on the committee. 32 people wrote the Big Book as a committee, yet Wilson claimed sole ownership and copyright and earned many, many millions. Even today in some countries (like Germany due to the copyright infringement cases in the next post) Dr Bob Smith's family is contesting the copyright ownership). He also, as I earlier mentioned, used the meetings as a pick-up joint, using his celebrity to take advantage of a great number of vulnerable women.

And if it was a case of; ok so this man was a horrible person who did what he did through twisted intentions but what has grown from his creation is a good thing, none of his story would really matter. And in many ways that is the case, like I keep saying I think the groups and ordinary member do great work. But the organisation from on high is still run as it originated. This is really long so I'm going to start a new post.

iguana

I understand you have great faith in the organisation so this won't be easy reading but if you really want to know why I despise them so much (the leadership) read on. This is all info from the last decade, I'm typing it from hardcopy.

The national leadership of A.A., Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc. (AAWS), has been committing perjury and causing grievous harm to foreign A.A. members for the "crime" of making cheap copies of old, copyright-expired versions of the Big Book available to poor people in foreign countries like Mexico, Germany, and Sweden.

In Mexico, their perjury got an innocent man — an A.A. member — sentenced to prison for a year. In Germany, they shut down a pro-A.A. web site, and sued for enough of a fortune to destroy the A.A. member who was carrying the message, as well as banning the member from ever giving away another A.A. book to anyone. And now that German A.A. member is facing paying a fine of €2.75 Million or going to prison... (The final verdict was supposed to be issued August 5, 2003, but the case is still dragging on.)

AAWS did that just to protect its own profits. The A.A. headquarters currently has $6,000,000 of cash reserves in the bank (as of their 2002 financial statement), but AAWS seems to want even more, and they are willing to even put innocent people, including A.A. members, in prison to get it.

The individual meetings are run independently, however to call themselves AA they are supposed to follow certain guidelines or the groups can risk being sued, which is similar to the German case. The quote which I have referenced many times here about how their steps rarely fail is supposed to be read at the beginning of each meeting. I have been to quite a number of open-meetings and it has always been read (at al-anon too). If a group fails to read that, they are in breach in terms of use of the name AA and can be sued for copyright theft.

The main reason they are run independently is that it keeps the organisation itself free from liability in cases of suicides, drug dealer infiltration of NA and sexual predators of the vulnerable newcomers (what's known as 13th stepping since Wilson's day).

CDFM, I brought the US Supreme court into the topic due to the pressures the AA has applied to the courts on many occasions. The Paul Cox cases from a few years back and the current ongoing issues of religious freedoms in the penal system which has been pretty big news recently. The Catholic church thing was an analogy which I qualified before writing it.

CDfm

So you get people enforcing copywrite on books written by their forebearer and you get an organisation protecting its trade name and copywritting material. Nothing daminng there really.

Is the material available for free on the internet?

You get addicts commiting suicide - it kind of goes with the territory and the sex thing well it reminds me of this joke

A young couple was golfing one day on a very exclusive course lined with million-dollar houses. On the third tee, the wife sliced her shot right through the large front window of the biggest house along the course. They walked up, knocked on the door and heard a voice say, "Come on in."

When they opened the door, they saw glass everywhere and a broken bottle lying on the floor. A man on the couch said, "Are you the people who broke my window?"

The husband began to apologize, but the man cut him off, "Actually, I want to thank you, I'm a genie who was trapped in that bottle, and your wayward shot released me. I'm allowed to grant three wishes, so what I'd like to do is give each of you one wish, and I'll keep last one for myself."

"Fantastic!" said the husband. "I want a million dollars a year for the rest of my life." "No problem," said the genie, "it's the least I can do."

"I want a house in every country in the world," said the wife. "Consider it done," said the genie, "and now for my wish. Because I've been trapped in that bottle, I haven't had sex in a really long time. My wish is to sleep with your wife."

The husband looked over at his wife and said, "Well, we did get a lot of money and all those houses...If you don't mind honey, I don't either." The wife agreed.

The genie took her upstairs and ravished her for 3 hours. After he was through, the genie looked at the wife and asked, "How old is you husband, anyway?"

"Twenty-five," said the wife.

"And he still believes in genies?"

Now I dont know what happens but unless you are really stupid you don't fall for something like that.

iguana

CDfm wrote: »

So you get people enforcing copywrite on books written by their forebearer and you get an organisation protecting its trade name and copywritting material. Nothing daminng there really.

You don't think that a 'non-profit' organisation, whose supposed purpose is to help alcoholics, having their own member sent to prison for distributing out of print books to poor, homeless alcoholics isn't damning? Really?

If they owned the copyright it might have been legal but it is sure as hell immoral. And as it happened they don't own the copyright for the books, that ownership went to Lois Wilson after her husband's death (in part, 10% was left to his favourite mistress) and she did not will that ownership to AAWS. They committed perjury in claiming ownership and have been doing for quite a long time. It's why there is so much legal wrangling as to who owns copyright, it's been ongoing for decades.

CDfm wrote: »

Is the material available for free on the internet?

No it isn't. The German group published sections online, as they believed in them and wanted to get the message out, and have been sued and at least one member faced a 7 figure fine or imprisonment. (I haven't found out the case's current status yet).

And even if it was free online that might be helpful to those with net access but it would be as helpful to the homeless of Mexico as a chocolate fireguard.

mathepac

iguana wrote: »

... however to call themselves AA they are supposed to follow certain guidelines or the groups can risk being sued, which is similar to the German case. ...

Interesting, I hadn't encountered that requirement before.

AA friends tell me that on page 565 of Alcoholics Anonymous, 3rd Edition, 1976, the Twelve Traditions, Long Form, states in part :

" ... 3. _ Our membership ought to include all who suffer from alcoholism. Hence we may refuse none who wish to recover. Nor ought A.A. membership ever depend on money or conformity. Any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an A.A. group, provided that, as a group, they have no other affiliation ... " Copyright A.A. World Services, Inc.

The reason I've used the 3rd Edition is that you seem to have access to a copy. It has of course been superseded, but that statement still appears in the 4th edition AFAIK and has not been withdrawn.

To me the simple statement quoted above seems crystal clear and unambiguous, however you state things have changed.

CDfm

iguana wrote: »

You don't think that a 'non-profit' organisation, whose supposed purpose is to help alcoholics, having their own member sent to prison for distributing out of print books to poor, homeless alcoholics isn't damning? Really?

Actually -no -even the catholic mass leaflets on Sunday are copywrited.

If they owned the copyright it might have been legal but it is sure as hell immoral. And as it happened they don't own the copyright for the books, that ownership went to Lois Wilson after her husband's death (in part, 10% was left to his favourite mistress) and she did not will that ownership to AAWS. They committed perjury in claiming ownership and have been doing for quite a long time. It's why there is so much legal wrangling as to who owns copyright, it's been ongoing for decades.

That sort of happens in all organisations and I seem to remember a singer suing Disney when DVds and CDs came out.

Reproducing copywrited material without permission and I dont know the case -but normally -you get asked not to do it again. If you dont cease and desist -you get hardball. Thats life.

Even Sesame Street a PBS show in the States sues.

You cant just decide to ignore legal niceties whenever you want and if ome person does it it makes a precedent etc.

iguana

CDfm wrote: »

Reproducing copywrited material without permission

The material used in both cases were first and second editions which are public domain. The AA book's copyright registration was allowed to lapse both on the First Edition and Second Edition. It has been proven that indeed, there never was a valid copyright on the AA book. Several independent Intellectual Property lawyers were consulted and they have found that since the original Multilith Manuscript was published, distributed and sold without any notice of copyright or notice that it was a review or loan copy, it was immediately placed in the public domain since early 1939. According to the Copyright Act of 1909, any publication that was published without these notices forfeited the right of copyright. That's why I wrote that the AAWS perjured themselves.

And even if they did have legal right on their side they are supposed to be in the business of helping alcoholics. Any organisation truly interested in that would never ever have recovering alcoholics, their own members, sent to jail for trying to help other alcoholics. It's not how people who's priority is getting people sober would work.

From what I can see about said case, the German guy in question had actually changed some of the wording (removing any spiritual references) while still using the AA name and this is why they moved against him.

iguana

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

From what I can see about said case, the German guy in question had actually changed some of the wording (removing any spiritual references) while still using the AA name and this is why they moved against him.

In order to help atheist alcoholics to quit drinking.

If the AAWS really cared about getting people sober they wouldn't go after someone who tries to use their tools to help those who haven't yet been reached. Instead they took legal action and perjured themselves in order to protect their finances.

iguana

iguana wrote: »

In order to help atheist alcoholics to quit drinking.

If the AAWS really cared about getting people sober they wouldn't go after someone who tries to use their tools to help those who haven't yet been reached. Instead they took legal action and perjured themselves in order to protect their finances.

Yeah it does indeed seem like a stupid move. But that said, they were protecting their name from a message which essentially isn't theirs.

There's lots of atheists in the group I go to.

CDfm

iguana wrote: »

In order to help atheist alcoholics to quit drinking.

If the AAWS really cared about getting people sober they wouldn't go after someone who tries to use their tools to help those who haven't yet been reached. Instead they took legal action and perjured themselves in order to protect their finances.

I disagree with you here Iguana because if what rojo is saying is that he took material and altered it.

Its like the difference between champagne & champagne method sparkling wine or chinese counterfeit harry potter

http://www.athenaalliance.org/weblog/archives/2007/08/counterfeit_har.html

In other words -the issue seems to be that it was a" knock-off " and people may have felt that the use of "knock -off" material that was substantially edited would harm its work and confuse its members who expect a generic version.

Now you mentioned your hubby attends and finds it helpful. So why should someone who travels to Germany and expects to get the universal version get this other German Guys version.

That seems to be what the issue was about as far as I can see. No wonder they got upset.

Its like going into KFC and finding Big Macs -its not what you have gone there for and would really upset Hungry Hindu's . Or placing an advert in what you think is the Evening Herald only to find out its Corks Evening Echo.

Imagine the outcry if he got hold of Linda McCartneys Foods and decided to add meat- I'd buy the lasagne.

iguana

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Yeah it does indeed seem like a stupid move. But that said, they were protecting their name from a message which essentially isn't theirs.

Except what they have done has done a lot more damage to their name than someone who thought that the jist of their message was good passing on his favourite parts of it. It was a case about money, look at the amount of damages they sought? And the fact that they perjured themselves and the fact that the information that was altered was public domain but they made claims about the translation.

And while I think the situation in Germany was bad the one in Mexico was somewhat worse. A recovering alcoholic who believed in AA because of the help he got and he wanted to share that message with other was put in jail due to the actions of the organisation he believed in. A lot of relapses happen in jail as it stands, in this case I fear the odds of him losing his sobriety are incredibly high.

And I know lots of atheists go to AA but a lot will be put off by any hint of spirituality. I'm an atheist, I really believe that all spirituality is just fairy stories and I feel very uncomfortable in it's presence. I've used al-anon at times when I have been at very low points an desperate to talk to others who understand but in general I can't be around it. I would definitely go to meeting more often without the spiritual side. In London (where I lived until a few months ago) I attended an NHS group that I was a lot more comfortable in and I went at least weekly. But the spirituality of al-anon often leaves me feeling much worse. The difference is I'm not an alcoholic, if I feel like crap I just feel like crap for a bit and then I get on with life. I do believe that there is likely to be at least as many alcoholic atheists who feel worse in the presence of spirituality than those who can ignore it. If having entirely non-spiritual information helped just 5 people that's enough. Isn't 'take what you need and leave the rest' long standing AA advice? So if someone thought some information could be passed on, while leaving the rest' would help people he did nothing anyone needs to protect their name from.

iguana

CDfm wrote: »

I disagree with you here Iguana because if what rojo is saying is that he took material and altered it.

He altered public domain material. Public domain, it belongs to everyone on earth to do whatever the hell they want with it, AAWS had no right to it and they perjured themselves while claiming it.

It's the equivalent of AAWS suing me for this:

Jingle Bells, Batman smells,
Robin laid an egg,
I changed the words of public domain,
And I was threatened with jail.

mathepac

iguana wrote: »

... Isn't 'take what you need and leave the rest' long standing AA advice? ....

No, because AA's entire programme is suggested.

CDfm

iguana wrote: »

He altered public domain material. Public domain, it belongs to everyone on earth to do whatever the hell they want with it, AAWS had no right to it and they perjured themselves while claiming it.

It's the equivalent of AAWS suing me for this:

Jingle Bells, Batman smells,
Robin laid an egg,
I changed the words of public domain,
And I was threatened with jail.

I think you are hitching your wagon to a lame horse here by going down the hippy free speech trail.

You get a german guy who takes a bunch of material and cherry picks the stuff he likes and sub edits everything else out. He releases it and claims its the same,he does this because he is an atheist. He uses the logos and everything.

Does he use the flying spaghetti monster -well who knows and maybe he will in the reprint

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=33895On

Now the group he does this to havw been around for a bit less than 100 years and in that time they have set up a network of groups world wide. Their literature can get thru customs into many countries and is not on the banned list for political or religious reasons to most countries.

They get a tad upset at this turn of events and say that they believe they have a stronger claim and that their menbers in many countries who use their method and material could easily get confused and this could have an impact on them.

Now the bunch of people he has picked on believe in the method and do not want him messing with it. They feel the changes are too great.

That the material is in the public domain is one issue -there is also another public health and promotion issue for people using the method currently.

Weighing it up the courts find for the existing group.

Nothing wrong with any of that.

mathepac

+1 with CDfm above.

It's interesting that most of the information about the German court case(s) etc appears as a series of linked articles on the About.com:Alcoholism web-site in pretty much the same format as Iguana presents it. However, it seems to me there are certain key facts missing from what she presented. Decided for yourselves. Have a wander around the linked articles at the bottom of the page above.

For example in relation to the multilith / public domain /copyright issue regarding A.A.'s Big Book, the only legal information given is the unsupported opinion of a single unidentified lawyer in the US. It is not specified who requested this opinion or who if anyone paid for it, but it is clear that copyright has not been adjudicated on fully in court.

Is it a bit strange that Iguana apparently decided to edit this material and re-present it rather than just present links in her posts, as I have here.

BTW, for anyone interested, there are several key A.A. publications available to download free from A.A.'s official web-site, including the "12 and 12" (The Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions) and the "Big Book" (Edition 4 of Alcohics Anonymous).

Let me repeat that. You can have the very latest most up-to-date editions of these books that sell for about €20 each in book-shops for free in electronic form direct from A.A. with no shipping charges.

Is this typical of a so-called materialistic organisation? Does this fulfil Ruth Hock's expectation, expressed in PASS IT ON (Bill W's biography) that the intention always was that the book be given away free of charge?

Dave!

Take it easy guys - things are getting a bit heated at times

We're all about frank, open, rational discussion about the different paths to recovery that people take. We won't be censoring discussion of AA.

bitter

iguana wrote: »

It's an allegory, communicating its message by means of symbolic figures, actions or symbolic representation. Similar in a way to the novel Jeckyll and Hyde which many believe is also an allegory for alcoholism. Alcoholics generally do things which the person themselves, if not in the grip of addiction would be disgusted by. But when deep in their addiction everything that that person cares about comes second (if it's lucky) to the deep desire to drink. The addict when lucid is often filled with shame and sorrow for their actions while drunk/desperate to drink but this somehow tends to lead them back to drinking.

It's like they are two minds in one body. One who wants to be able to get on with their life and one who wants to drink at whatever cost. It's not just true of addicts, most people experience it to varying degrees, almost everyone debates with themselves at some point between what they want to do and what they should do. But with an active addict the consequences tend to be more severe.

Rational Recovery is basically the creation of an allegory which encourages you to think of the voice that wants a drink at any cost as a separate, hostile being. Something that at it's root is selfish and stupid but could destroy you. Then once you have visualised it like that you vow to not let it control you anymore. Visualisation of your negatives as other and vocalising your intentions to defeat that other is a tried and tested psychological method. Though it's success are varied depending on the person, their commitment to change and their belief in the method.




Most people who are critical of the organisation are critical because they are informed not because they don't have a clue. Most of the arguments I've heard against AA are based on intelligent reasoning based on personal experience, study and research. And all most all defences against those arguments are based on off the cuff, baseless assumptions of lack of experience.

I've been involved with AA and al-anon for an awful long time now. It certainly has it's merits, but it has also got much bigger flaws. I've done a lot of research into it's founding, it's early establishment and the abusive, disgusting excuse for a human being that was Bill Wilson. And it's success rates, which are lower than the success rates for just quitting all by yourself which isn't very high at all. It's an organisation which I firmly believe does an awful lot more harm than good.

It has some very excellent methods. The sponsor programme and the very fact that it creates somewhere that addicts can meet and support each other. But the philosophy it espouses is more dangerous than helpful to most and it's dominance in treatment philosophy is unhelpful because it prevents the far more successful methodologies from gaining acceptance.

:cool:

dmrta

Hi,

I've been in AA for 21 years, amongst other 12 step fellowships. It was with some misgivings that I ordered the book Rational Recovery about four months ago. Since reading it, I haven't gone back to AA nor do I intend to. I still go to one meeting a week in one other 12 step fellowship and I reserve my position on that. Gone, however, are the two or three or sometimes four meetings a week, weekly calls to sponsors, daily calls to other members, step work, retreats, conventions. No wonder 'recovery' was itself creating strains in my home - you're always on the phone, always going out, talk to others not to me - all true except I would die if I didn't. I've discovered that it was not true that I would die, nor would I go mad, nor would I drink. It was only when I heard a contrary view could I see how all consuming the solution was. But did it need to be? Was it not just simply a case of putting the plug in the bottle? I believe it was that simple. So I drank irresponsibly for, in my case, a few years. So, for the rest of my life (21 years to date plus another, possibly, 30, 40 or even 50 years) I go to meetings and do all the rest of that stuff. Suddenly, it didn't make sense. The response was completely disproportionate to the problem.

There is another side to all of this time spent in 'recovery.' It is time that could have been spent doing something else, a hobby, a worthy cause etc. You don't hear much about things like that in AA / 12 steps. There is a deeper background in AA and that is the much vaunted 12 traditions - no opinion on outside issues etc. Sure, each member is free to make up his own mind, but then again we are encouraged to incorporate the principals of the traditions in our daily lives. The book 12 Steps and 12 Traditions tells us in effect that no organisation protects as much its members right to their own views etc as AA. But watch the freeze someone gets if they consistently speak against AA principles. And perhaps that's as it should be. If someone is not for it or at least not prepared to suffer it, what is the point in them being there, causing conflict and division? None at all. I don't intend to do that but this is not an AA forum. No much is said of AA's predecessor, the Oxford Group and its founder. There is a book on line called, 'AA Cult or Cure' which is worth a read. I just browsed through it but it does give some interesting information about Oxford Group principal's which are found in the 12 Traditions as well as the 12 steps.

I often wondered in 21 years in 12 step groups, what was the difference between those who succeed and those who failed. I was completely sold on the disease / powerless, only God can do it idea. As far as I can see now, the ones who I saw drink in that time, were the ones who chose to, the ones who didn't were the ones who chose not to and I would say a lot of those who did drink were not helped by the powerless idea - on the contrary. I didn't drink, but I relapsed occassionally in another program, sometimes after a year or years. After each relapse I would double up my efforts to 'recover' - more meetings, more prayer, more phone calls, more writing about stuff that happended 30 or 40 years ago, and more strain at home. Please!!! No more. It's no wonder I couldn't put my problem out of the my head when I spent so much time thinking and talking about it. No one says you shouldn't have hobbies, join a cause, be political but once you emerse yourself in 'recovery' you soon see how much time there will be for anything else and how if you do anything else it by straining yourself to the maximum.

For the last four months, I've been enjoying my hobbies. The atmosphere at home has been better. I haven't drank or anything else. I know that if I do, it will be because I chose to and for no other reason. The reason I would chose to, would be not because I'm powerless, or insane, have an unmanageable life etc, but because I would get some pleasure out of it. I would be fully aware of the consequences but I would suffer them. I am free to do that.

John.

John, that's a really great post. There is obviously no black and white, believe in God and you shall be healed nonsense. I haven't gone to a meeting in over a year but I also haven't drank in about 15 months, and even before that it was just a relapse.

I haven't been to a meeting in so long, merely because I haven't felt the need to. I jumped into recovery head first, read everything I could on the subject, AA groups were soul-cleansing and infinitely helpful, but eventually you have to say, "Right, I have to stop patting myself on the back for not drinking...you've given yourself a life, now go live it!"