Thoughts about HP in 12 step programs

I wrote this in a secular meeting where the query was posed as to how people dealt with the concept of a male God in 12 step literature 

I do not believe in a male God.  I do not believe that God is a “person,” capable of having gender.  

This does not mean that I don’t believe in God.  It’s just that I think the true name and nature of God are unknowable.

When I read program literature that calls God “he,” I translate it mentally to “it,” and think “this is how the author experiences HP.  They are doing the best they can to describe their experience.”  Their understanding is incomplete.  That is true of all humans.  All of our understandings are incomplete.

I am not certain as to whether the spiritual experiences I have had, which have led to 17 years of abstinence, are actually due to an external God, or due to an interesting neurological phenomenon that merely feels like an external God.  I do not feel that I need to know that. I do not believe that God is governed by binary true/false logic or human reasoning.

The people who write program literature, like all religious writers, are fallible. Their expressions of how this program works are limited by their understanding, which is necessarily incomplete.

It may be that scientific research will one day uncover the neurological basis for the spiritual experience.  I hope so, because then, perhaps, it might be reproduced artificially.  This might be of great benefit to people who do not easily have spiritual experiences.

Or it may be that these spiritual experiences are really inexplicable miracles that come from a mysterious external source that is God — or some other external source. 

The OA 12 & 12 invites us to leave the debating club and just work the program in light of our own desperate search for recovery.  I have heard this expressed in the saying “utilize don’t analyze. “ 

This reminds me somewhat of the process of using Zen koans.  Many of these koans are statements that make no sense, like “listen to the sound of a rock growing.” Rocks do not make a sound that humans can hear.  They do not, so far as we know, grow.  Yet, if one does focus on listening to the sound of a rock growing, one may experience an altered mental state, a spiritual experience — at least I do — and this is the sort of mental state that fosters abstinence for me. 

The Zen practitioners also have a “utilize don’t analyze” approach.  If a student feels stuck in analysis, he or she can ask the master to beat them to stamp it out — as it is not conducive to the desired result.

Many people seem as stuck in logic and reasoning as others seem stuck in a rigid, intolerant view of religion.  I reject both approaches.  

In a Zen koan like approach, I could say something like "God does/does not exist."  I feel that the apparent contradiction here is a limitation in human reasoning and the statement as written is not a pair of alternatives but co-existent realities.

AOC tweeted link to Boebert photo

AOC tweeted a link to this image

The lady with the demonic smile surrounded by her children, who appear to be carrying military grade weapons.  All of them are clearly under 18.  The youngest looks like he's about 6.  The family's name is supposedly Boebert

 Do these people consider themselves Christian?

My tweet in response

When pagans holding phallic totems in front of a pre-Christian symbol of the winter solstice claim to be Christians, it sounds like the sort of thing that would bring down the apocalypse in vengeance. https://t.co/BuzX9xMrn5

— Annalisse Mayer (@AnnalisseMayer) December 25, 2021

text of my tweet: When pagans holding phallic totems in front of a pre-Christian symbol of the winter solstice claim to be Christians, it sounds like the sort of thing that would bring down the apocalypse in vengeance.

Some years back there was a news item about someone finding bullet casings on the ground and concluding that perhaps a group of gun activists might have gathered and shot bullets into the air.  I'm searching for this news item.  I can't find it.

In any case, my reaction at the time was that this type of event -- where people gather to shoot guns -- is a gathering of phallically insecure men who staged a symbolic mass masturbation.  

Somehow, my Freudian style observations about people who are obsessed with guns is not gaining a foothold in the national consciousness.

Sometimes in the past things that I've said have seemed turned out to circulate widely -- not attributed to me, and possibly arising from other sources simultaneously by coincidence.  Even tho some people have told me that they agree with my Freudian style analysis, I haven't seen it repeated generally.  Perhaps it makes people too squeamish to say these things.

I find that I have a persistent fantasy that something I say will go viral and make me famous.  Actually, fame is over-rated.  Especially in this case, inviting the attention of angry, armed people could endanger my life -- so maybe it's just as well that no one notices that I'm saying these things -- but, still, I fantasize that what I say might get attention.

Of course, I think that people who engage in mass shooting incidents are often fantasizing the same thing, which is why I have supported the #nonotoriety movement -- that the press should pay less attention to these incidents. 

in memory of FH -- A FIRE WAITING TO BE LIT

I'm a Quaker.  My meeting just had a hybrid zoom/in person memorial meeting for one of our former members. During quaker memorial services, everyone is encouraged to offer comments on the life of the decedent.

I haven't seen FH in a long time. Unfortunately, what I remember about him is that he was quick to anger, and that I was uncomfortable with that. I didn't feel comfortable sharing about it. I'm not even comfortable using his full name here.

Other people gave wonderful messages about how kind he was -- generous, gentle. One friend gave a very moving message about how FH basically saved his life, by taking over care of his mentally ill mother, who was driving him insane.

One good thing about the zoom meetings is that I can take notes -- or journal -- into the text program on my Mac, while attending, inconspicuously. I did write something about him.  I probably should have shared it, but didn't quite dare. 

This blog is often a way that I can share things so that no one who I know is likely to see it -- and in fact perhaps no one will see it at all -- a way of burying things in public. 

This is what I wrote:

What I remember about FH is anger

That’s relevant to me, because I have anger issues as well

Quakers tend to not relate too well to anger

Curiously, in the Bible, God is also described as angry in the Bible, in some cases

BA  talked abut Fred laying a fire in the meeting house before meetings  — a fire waiting to be lit

fire is a symbol of anger as well 

a fire waiting to be lit

That last line sticks with me

A fire waiting to be lit

Yes, anger is a fire, but so is spiritual passion, eagerness to be of service, and even revolution.  There are many kinds of fire.  My latest twitter profile cover shows my anger at a political situation using fire

FH: a fire waiting to be lit

new anti-trump meme

 "A day in the life of Sue the Trump supporter…

Sue gets up at 6 a.m. and fills her coffeepot with water to prepare her morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.

With her first swallow of coffee, she takes her daily medication. Her medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of her medications are paid for by her employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Sue gets it too.

She prepares her morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Sue's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the shower, Sue reaches for her shampoo. Her bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for her right to know what she was putting on her body and how much it contained.

Sue dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air she breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

She walks to the subway station for her government-subsidized ride to work. It saves her considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Sue begins her work day. She has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Sue's employer pays these standards because Sue's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Sue is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, she'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think she should lose her home because of her temporary misfortune.

It's noon and Sue needs to make a bank deposit so she can pay some bills. Sue's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Sue's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Sue has to pay her Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and her below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Sue and the government would be better off if she was educated and earned more money over her lifetime.

Sue is home from work. She plans to visit her father this evening at his farm home in the country. She gets in her car for the drive. Her car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards.

She arrives at her childhood home. Her generation was the third to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

She is happy to see her father, who is now retired. Her father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Sue wouldn't have to.

Sue gets back in her car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Sue enjoys throughout her day. Sue agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm self-made and believe everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

- Kay Dee posted by Joan Stanley

Thoughts about tradition three in 12 step fellowships

I am writing about an issue that is arising in the intergroup of one of my 12 step fellowships. This has to do with meetings that are designated BLPOC, in other words for blacks and people of color.  These fellowships have been designated themselves as closed to those who are not BLPOC

This discussion has unfortunately been occurring  in email. That is often not a very good way of achieving mutual understanding. One of my friends calls it evil mail, because it tends to escalate conflict, Rather than de-escalate it.

As part of this discussion, I have made some comments in emails, which I would like to memorialize here.

An experience I had of exclusion:

I attended a college that was all male until about 2 years before I got there. The decision to go co-ed was controversial amongst alumni and students -- tho not staff. When I was there, I met alumni on the street who told me that they didn't want me there. One of my best friends told me that he wished the college had not gone co-ed.  Fraternities wrote nasty songs about us. One of them was called "Our Co-hogs."  The college kept the ratio of men to women at 3:1 for a number of years to placate alumni, which meant it was twice as hard for women to get in as men, when I went there.

Yet, my response to this has been to be reluctant to attend all female meetings, because I don't want to be part of a group that makes others feel excluded. I don't want to treat others the way I was treated.  I don't understand those who want to emulate their oppressors.

I do sympathize with the complainers against the tradition here, tho, or at least the interpretation of the tradition... but I think the traditions are important.

I also find myself torn by the politics of the day, where Trump supporters, who I tend to strongly disagree with, are much more likely to complain of reverse racism than so-called progressives, who I tend to identify with.  Yet, in this case, I don't like the statement that people of a different race cannot attend, so I fear being seen as being like Trump supporters.  Even tho 12 step groups are supposed to be non-political, it's been pretty clear that most people in my area are on the progressive side.  This makes me want to just crawl into a hole and not say anything. 

-----------

Decentralization of responsibility for the traditions

Traditionally, in program, the individual groups are the fellowship.  Intergroup and fellowship wide services are service bodies. It's not a top down organization. It's bottom up.  Each group is independent.  The question is what the service body lists on its website.  A group that does not follow traditions is not a 12 step group.  At least that has been the attitude of every service body that I know of. Any group is free to do anything it likes, but the service body doesn't have to list them on its website.

-----------

Interpretation of the tradition, in light of historical commentary

FWIW, in another fellowship I am a member of, tradition 3 has always been interpreted to mean that, while a meeting can state a preference for certain types of people, it cannot refuse entry to any   member.  The term "closed" has always meant that non-members cannot attend (e.g. family members of members, social workers looking to support their clients, students, journalists).  

The AA Big Book, the first 12 step literature, from which all 12 step programs are derived, states "Hence we may refuse none who wish to recover."  This is the long form tradition currently at p. 563 of the 4th edition, but the introduction to the traditions explains that the long form was the original form enunciated in  1946.

To my mind, to interpret the traditions contrary to their original formulation would take us out of being a 12 step program.

One question is whether an individual group might exclude a member, if there are other groups that would take that member, so that the fellowship as a whole would admit them.  I think the answer to that question would be no.  Each group is bound to follow the traditions -- not to delegate the traditions to other groups.  Therefore I do not believe that a group can exclude anyone who wishes to recover.  

Elucidation of details of traditions are typically made with reference to the 12&12.  I guess this paraticular fellowship, which is newer, does not have a 12 & 12 yet.  The fellowship text does reference the AA 12 & 12 on page 122 in a footnote.  With respect to tradition 3, the AA document speaks quite movingly of what led them to this principle. I am enclosing a screen image of part of that discussion, to wit, when you exclude a sufferer you may actually  be signing their death sentence. Addiction is a deadly disease.  https://www.aa.org/assets/en_US/en_tradition3.pdf

----------------------------

Not yet sent out in an e-mail:

Recovery v Victimhood & Trauma Bonding

I perceive in this discussion of whether BLPOC groups can exclude whites, a sort of self righteous pissing contest. "My suffering is worse than your suffering, therefore you can't talk to me." I find this hurtful.

No one comes into this program unharmed. There are horrendous stories of child abuse, mental illness, physical illness, poverty, loss, and death. Yet, I have been repeatedly cautioned, and have found in my own experience, the dwelling in victimhood and self-pity does not help recovery. Instead focusing on victimhood and self-pity provokes compulsive, self-medicating behavior. Moreover I have been cautioned against trauma bonding. I have been told the trauma bonding is dangerous, because it's more likely to result in dysfunctional relationships.

 I would suggest that in your desperate search to protect yourselves, you may actually be protecting yourself from recovery.

Also, this particular fellowship is not a fellowship for purposes of recovery from racism. That is not our stated objective.

 

#12step #twelvestep #tradition3 #traditionthree #blpoc  #reverseracism #racism #twelvesteptraditions #12steptraditions #thirdtradition #3rdtradition