It's next to me
Only a few feet away
My heartbeat speeds
A bit
It's blue
At least the cars I see
It's a freight train
I'm in a passenger train
Almost close enough to touch
If the windows would open
Trains pass so near
Confined by their rails
Startling sometimes
Freight trains fascinate
Their length
No windows
Impenetrable
Spooky
The mysterious, dark coal
That's often in their open cars
Their race along
Frozen wastes
To parts unknown
For purposes unknown
So often nocturnal here
Something vaguely horrific
As if, perhaps, a ghost story
Might attach to them.
But maybe this one
Is only a construction train
A more boring creature
More frequently seen in the day
Saturday, February 21, 2015
Friday, February 13, 2015
In response to @TheEconomist allegations of meritocracy in the USA
The Economist has run an opinion piece about an alleged meritocracy in the USA.
I strongly disagree with this piece, and wish to memorialize my disagreement at length.
At first blush, one might have thought my ex and I were the sort to produce rather prodigious children, but it hasn’t worked out that way at all. My children are mentally ill, and, tho highly intelligent, are almost completely dysfunctional.
Let’s start with my ex and me. I have an undergraduate degree and graduate degree from Ivy League institutions, with good marks from both. My ex has an undergraduate degree from an ivy League college and a graduate degree from an almost equally prestigious university. We both grew up in upper middle class families. My parents both had graduate degrees and my father was highly respected in academia. My ex’s father was also a graduate of an Ivy League institution, who had a successful job, and my ex’s mom was a stay-at-home mom. Tho she did not complete college, she was highly intelligent and articulate. My brother also has undergraduate and graduate degrees from highly respected institutions. My ex has two siblings with graduate degrees — and the other two both have college degrees.
So why aren’t our kids doing as well as we did?
1. Research shows that older fathers are more likely to conceive children with ADHD, Autism Spectrum Disorders, and Bipolar. Older grandfathers also have higher instances of such issues in their grandchildren. My ex was 36 and 39 when my kids were conceived. My father was 40 and 42 when my I and my brother were conceived. I suspect that couples who are academically and financially successful are more likely to have children later in life, which can enlarge the likelihood of such problems. My kids both have mild autism spectrum disorders. The younger one has ADHD and depression as well.
2. I believe that autism spectrum disorders are inheritable. I see them in myself, my parents, my kids, my ex, and much of my ex’s family. Both of my kids have them. I noticed neurological issues in my older son from birth — and he was born at home, so there were no vaccines for the first six weeks — yet he was showing neurological issues then (arching away from me when he cried, crying to be put down, preferring to be carried facing away from me, unable to mold his body to mine)
It seems to me that academically successful people are more likely to have autistic features. Autistic features make it easier to have the attention to detail and focus necessary for academic success. When academically successful people meet in college and have children together, they are more likely to concentrate inheritable autistic features in their children.
3. I still have a concern that my decision to work when my kids were young may have hurt them. My mom didn’t and my ex’s mom didn’t. I wonder how much kids would be different if i had stayed home. Granted I was not of the sort, emotionally, to be happy doing that and my older son infuriated me a great deal, so I might have abused him if I were stuck alone with him. Still I wonder.
4. Successful people live in larger houses. Larger houses reduce the amount of contact between parents and children. My ex noticed this when he moved out to a two bedroom apartment. In the smaller, space he was better able to supervise the kids than he had been in the house. When I was on the second floor, I had no clue at all what my kids were doing in the basement. Granted, I would not have left them alone before they were five, but afterwards they might have been out of my sight and still in the house. I suspect that less financially successful families have mentally healthier kids, because the kids are in closer proximity to the parents more of the time.
Indeed we see quite often that the children of the rich have serious psychological problems. I suspect that this large house business is a factor.
5. Having successful parents is intimidating. I found this with my father, who was such a successful academic. I never felt I would be able to measure up to him — so, even tho I had the smarts, I probably sabotaged myself, so that I didn’t. With my kids it was even worse. My younger son felt so intimidated by my ex’s and my academic successes that he continually sabotaged himself to the point where he could not function at all.
6. History shows it is not so.
Also, historically, it has never been the case that highly successful people had children who were as successful as they were.
When I studied Chinese history, I learned that they had a meritocracy under the emperors. I also learned that it was vanishingly rare for those with high success on the imperial exams to have children with similar levels of success.
Also, learning about corporate history in two companies I worked for, I discovered that successful corporations develop something called “Third Generation Problems.” The founder builds the company. In many cases, the first generation of offspring can continue to build the corporation; however, in general, the second generation of offspring are not competent to run a large corporation. This is a well-documented phenomenon.
In conclusion, then, I disagree strongly with this recent article alleging a growing meritocracy in the USA. I would use more pithy terminology to describe the meritocracy thesis, but I want to sound respectable.
I strongly disagree with this piece, and wish to memorialize my disagreement at length.
At first blush, one might have thought my ex and I were the sort to produce rather prodigious children, but it hasn’t worked out that way at all. My children are mentally ill, and, tho highly intelligent, are almost completely dysfunctional.
Let’s start with my ex and me. I have an undergraduate degree and graduate degree from Ivy League institutions, with good marks from both. My ex has an undergraduate degree from an ivy League college and a graduate degree from an almost equally prestigious university. We both grew up in upper middle class families. My parents both had graduate degrees and my father was highly respected in academia. My ex’s father was also a graduate of an Ivy League institution, who had a successful job, and my ex’s mom was a stay-at-home mom. Tho she did not complete college, she was highly intelligent and articulate. My brother also has undergraduate and graduate degrees from highly respected institutions. My ex has two siblings with graduate degrees — and the other two both have college degrees.
So why aren’t our kids doing as well as we did?
1. Research shows that older fathers are more likely to conceive children with ADHD, Autism Spectrum Disorders, and Bipolar. Older grandfathers also have higher instances of such issues in their grandchildren. My ex was 36 and 39 when my kids were conceived. My father was 40 and 42 when my I and my brother were conceived. I suspect that couples who are academically and financially successful are more likely to have children later in life, which can enlarge the likelihood of such problems. My kids both have mild autism spectrum disorders. The younger one has ADHD and depression as well.
2. I believe that autism spectrum disorders are inheritable. I see them in myself, my parents, my kids, my ex, and much of my ex’s family. Both of my kids have them. I noticed neurological issues in my older son from birth — and he was born at home, so there were no vaccines for the first six weeks — yet he was showing neurological issues then (arching away from me when he cried, crying to be put down, preferring to be carried facing away from me, unable to mold his body to mine)
It seems to me that academically successful people are more likely to have autistic features. Autistic features make it easier to have the attention to detail and focus necessary for academic success. When academically successful people meet in college and have children together, they are more likely to concentrate inheritable autistic features in their children.
3. I still have a concern that my decision to work when my kids were young may have hurt them. My mom didn’t and my ex’s mom didn’t. I wonder how much kids would be different if i had stayed home. Granted I was not of the sort, emotionally, to be happy doing that and my older son infuriated me a great deal, so I might have abused him if I were stuck alone with him. Still I wonder.
4. Successful people live in larger houses. Larger houses reduce the amount of contact between parents and children. My ex noticed this when he moved out to a two bedroom apartment. In the smaller, space he was better able to supervise the kids than he had been in the house. When I was on the second floor, I had no clue at all what my kids were doing in the basement. Granted, I would not have left them alone before they were five, but afterwards they might have been out of my sight and still in the house. I suspect that less financially successful families have mentally healthier kids, because the kids are in closer proximity to the parents more of the time.
Indeed we see quite often that the children of the rich have serious psychological problems. I suspect that this large house business is a factor.
5. Having successful parents is intimidating. I found this with my father, who was such a successful academic. I never felt I would be able to measure up to him — so, even tho I had the smarts, I probably sabotaged myself, so that I didn’t. With my kids it was even worse. My younger son felt so intimidated by my ex’s and my academic successes that he continually sabotaged himself to the point where he could not function at all.
6. History shows it is not so.
Also, historically, it has never been the case that highly successful people had children who were as successful as they were.
When I studied Chinese history, I learned that they had a meritocracy under the emperors. I also learned that it was vanishingly rare for those with high success on the imperial exams to have children with similar levels of success.
Also, learning about corporate history in two companies I worked for, I discovered that successful corporations develop something called “Third Generation Problems.” The founder builds the company. In many cases, the first generation of offspring can continue to build the corporation; however, in general, the second generation of offspring are not competent to run a large corporation. This is a well-documented phenomenon.
In conclusion, then, I disagree strongly with this recent article alleging a growing meritocracy in the USA. I would use more pithy terminology to describe the meritocracy thesis, but I want to sound respectable.
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
The Hillary phenomenon
The first that I heard that Hillary Clinton might be running for President was from conservatives. They said she was running, that she was extremely liberal, that she would be awful. They painted her as some kind of demon, really.
I’m going to call her “Hillary,” even though that sounds sexist, when politicians are usually called by their last name, because, otherwise, you cannot tell if I am talking about her or Bill.
I was amused that they portrayed her as so much more conservative than Rudy Giuliani when he was running against her for Senate. Giuliani is a New York City Republican. I found it dubious that a New York City Republican is more conservative than an Arkansas Democrat.
My suspicions were confirmed, when I started seeing photos of him dancing in drag in a chorus line on a New York City stage, in an outfit that left his legs essentially bare. I thought of those conservative Republican housewives in Kansas who had been induced to donate money to him because allegedly he was the conservative choice and wondered what they would make of these photos.
Then of course there was the fact that he was publicly cohabiting with his girlfriend prior to his divorce being official — and publicly stated that it was o.k., because his medical condition rendered him impotent, so he couldn’t have sex with her — as if that made a difference or we wanted to hear it. I again thought of those conservative rural housewives and wondered what they would make of this.
I suspect they were not feeling too happy about the people who told them that Giuliani was conservative.
Yet, this continued. Conservative fundraisers would decry the allegedly liberal Clinton and drum up donations from those who did not know better.
But, equally, liberals started thinking she must be great if the conservatives were making such a commotion against her.
She was eventually elected senator, because Giuliani had health issues that forced him to drop his campaign. He was radioactive, as I recall. That was different: the radioactive candidate.
But the chorus about her being so liberal and contemplating a presidential run continued.
Whenever these rumors would circulate, the press would ask her if she was running — and you could see her thinking about it. Would she have thought about it without the rumors?
And what was the motivation of the rumor mongers?
Once she became Senator, it immediately became clear that she was as middle of the road as they come and and as eager as could be to embrace causes that were non-controversial — like compensation for 9-11 victims. Things that were more controversial were not on her agenda.
Kirsten Gillibrand, her successor, has been quite different, loudly proclaiming her belief in gay rights, for instance.
In the Senate and as Secretary of State, Hillary became known for working quietly and effectively behind the scenes. She earned the respect of everyone on both sides of the aisle and conservative Senators started acknowledging that she was someone they could work with.
I suspect that they knew that all along. I suspect that they began decrying her alleged liberalness, just like Br’er Rabbit told Br’er Fox and Br’er Bear that he did not want to be thrown into the briar patch. He screamed that so loud and so often that they decided to do just what he stated he didn’t want, which was, in fact, what he did want.
For me, Hillary’s greatest weakness is lack of charisma. Ultimately, it was lack of charisma that made her unpopular as Bill’s wife in Arkansas and what made her lose to Obama. Curiously, Obama's charisma seems to have diminished since he became President, but still, I think he has more than she does.
Charisma gets people elected. Sometimes commentators decry the cults of personality that seem to surround leaders, but I think it’s important for a President to have a great personality. Charisma helps a President get things done when interacting with others, and makes for a good impression in international negotiations.
Also, I feel that she has basically been a figment of the conservative imagination, the straw woman that they put up to distract us from someone who might be better.
She may end up as the Democratic candidate this time, but I think we should focus on finding someone else. She is a better back office person than a candidate.
I’m going to call her “Hillary,” even though that sounds sexist, when politicians are usually called by their last name, because, otherwise, you cannot tell if I am talking about her or Bill.
I was amused that they portrayed her as so much more conservative than Rudy Giuliani when he was running against her for Senate. Giuliani is a New York City Republican. I found it dubious that a New York City Republican is more conservative than an Arkansas Democrat.
My suspicions were confirmed, when I started seeing photos of him dancing in drag in a chorus line on a New York City stage, in an outfit that left his legs essentially bare. I thought of those conservative Republican housewives in Kansas who had been induced to donate money to him because allegedly he was the conservative choice and wondered what they would make of these photos.
Then of course there was the fact that he was publicly cohabiting with his girlfriend prior to his divorce being official — and publicly stated that it was o.k., because his medical condition rendered him impotent, so he couldn’t have sex with her — as if that made a difference or we wanted to hear it. I again thought of those conservative rural housewives and wondered what they would make of this.
I suspect they were not feeling too happy about the people who told them that Giuliani was conservative.
Yet, this continued. Conservative fundraisers would decry the allegedly liberal Clinton and drum up donations from those who did not know better.
But, equally, liberals started thinking she must be great if the conservatives were making such a commotion against her.
She was eventually elected senator, because Giuliani had health issues that forced him to drop his campaign. He was radioactive, as I recall. That was different: the radioactive candidate.
But the chorus about her being so liberal and contemplating a presidential run continued.
Whenever these rumors would circulate, the press would ask her if she was running — and you could see her thinking about it. Would she have thought about it without the rumors?
And what was the motivation of the rumor mongers?
Once she became Senator, it immediately became clear that she was as middle of the road as they come and and as eager as could be to embrace causes that were non-controversial — like compensation for 9-11 victims. Things that were more controversial were not on her agenda.
Kirsten Gillibrand, her successor, has been quite different, loudly proclaiming her belief in gay rights, for instance.
In the Senate and as Secretary of State, Hillary became known for working quietly and effectively behind the scenes. She earned the respect of everyone on both sides of the aisle and conservative Senators started acknowledging that she was someone they could work with.
I suspect that they knew that all along. I suspect that they began decrying her alleged liberalness, just like Br’er Rabbit told Br’er Fox and Br’er Bear that he did not want to be thrown into the briar patch. He screamed that so loud and so often that they decided to do just what he stated he didn’t want, which was, in fact, what he did want.
For me, Hillary’s greatest weakness is lack of charisma. Ultimately, it was lack of charisma that made her unpopular as Bill’s wife in Arkansas and what made her lose to Obama. Curiously, Obama's charisma seems to have diminished since he became President, but still, I think he has more than she does.
Charisma gets people elected. Sometimes commentators decry the cults of personality that seem to surround leaders, but I think it’s important for a President to have a great personality. Charisma helps a President get things done when interacting with others, and makes for a good impression in international negotiations.
Also, I feel that she has basically been a figment of the conservative imagination, the straw woman that they put up to distract us from someone who might be better.
She may end up as the Democratic candidate this time, but I think we should focus on finding someone else. She is a better back office person than a candidate.
Monday, January 12, 2015
Step 1-3 AA BB Quiz
In the process of sponsoring people in Overeaters Anonymous using the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous, I developed a step 1-3 quiz, with key concepts that I want them to understand. The quiz consists of a list of words and phrases that I want them to be able to define. I also prepared model answers, which reflect my definitions of these terms. The following is a list of the terms on the quiz (in bold) followed by my model answers. Page numbers are in the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous, unless otherwise indicated.
One common saying in program is that this disease is a three legged stool, that this disease has physical, emotional, and spiritual components. Different people react to the stress of life in different ways. Some people get butterflies in their stomachs, some get migraines, others back spasms, still others bite their nails. We eat.
When modern doctors refer to an allergy, they mean a histamine allergy. This is the sort of allergy where a person may sneeze, cough, have watery eyes, hives, or asthma. In fact, Dr. Silkworth, who wrote "The Doctor's Opinion" and who was the great addiction maven of his time, uses the term "allergy" in an older and more general way to mean any abnormal reaction of the body to a substance.
In the case of addiction, the allergy is one where we break out, not in hives, but in cravings. This allergic reaction is due to a physical abnormality of the body. Not everyone becomes a compulsive overeater. Just as with alcohol, where there are normal drinkers, who can drink alcohol without serious problems. there are also normal eaters, who can engage in foods or eating behaviors that trouble us, without suffering any adverse effects.
Please see also p. 30, first paragraph.
The point that Dr. Silkworth makes abut these cravings in "The Doctor's Opinion" is that these cravings are sufficient that we cannot control our repetition of the addictive behavior. They cannot be overcome by effort of will. This is part of powerlessness.
Dr. Silkworth tells the story of a man who, having followed the recommendations of this book, was so changed as to not be recognizable. In order to escape from our addictive behavior we have to become someone else -- be prepared to change virtually everything about ourselves.
This was the major contribution of Dr. Silkworth to the field of addiction, the idea that an alcoholic could not drink in moderation. They were either going to drink themselves to death or they were going to abstain entirely. There was nothing in between.
When talking about alcohol, the concept of "entire abstinence" is much clearer than when talking about "entire abstinence" with respect to food. Obviously, we can't stop eating, or we will die. I have written a document about food plans in which I discuss some of my thoughts about this topic, which I can send you.
The allergy of the body means that we cannot stop eating once we have started. The curious mental twist means that we cannot stop from starting. This is the one-two punch of powerlessness.
Program does not seek to cure the allergy of the body. Program seeks to remove the curious mental phenomenon/twist.
The insanely trivial excuse is often the manifestation of the curious mental twist, see e.g. the story of "Jim" pp. 35-6 -- the man who drank the whiskey with the milk. I find this story particularly instructive, because it illustrates the disease in microcosm.
Jim has a resentment. He stuffs it down into his subconscious, by minimizing it. "It wasn't much," he says. The subconscious responds to this stuffed down resentment with the insanely trivial excuse. The idea that he could drink whiskey with milk was seriously delusional, dangerous to both him and others, since he was sufficiently dangerous when drunk that he ended up in an asylum. With the steps, we seek instead to inventory the resentment, bringing into the conscious brain where we can hold it up to HP to take it away, rather than stuffing it down.
My metaphor for this disease is the conditioned reflexes of learning how to drive. When I first learned to drive, I had to think about everything I did: putting foot on brake, turning steering wheel, looking in mirror. Later, when I had been driving for a long time, I no longer had to think about these things. They came reflexively -- a conditioned reflex. The conditioned reflex mechanism is an efficient technique for the brain -- allowing us to react more quickly to situations that we are trained for.
I believe that the tendency to medicate myself with food also became a conditioned reflex, something that happened so quickly in my mind that I was not even able to notice the emotions that led me to medicate myself. For me, the Big Book resentment and fear exercises are an effort to dig out these emotions, bring them into the front conscious part of my brain and hold them up for my higher power to help me with.
The danger is in minimizing the emotions, not feeling them, stuffing them down -- because that will result in the insanely trivial excuse.
The hard drinker can stop, even tho he may have damaged his body with drinking, but the alcoholic cannot. When confronted with the danger, they can summon the motivation to stop. Knowledge does avail them. Hard drinkers may actually be drinking more than alcoholics and yet not be alcoholic.
The vital spiritual experience is one that is sufficient to disrupt the conditioned reflex. Our higher power needs to access the parts of our brain that are no longer under our conscious control. See also pp.56-7; 567-8
One of the frustrating things about this program is trying to describe the spiritual experience that I find helpful. There is a particular state of mind that brings abstinence, a particular kind of neutrality, presence, and peacefulness. I believe that this state results from spiritual practices, specific mental exercises. I don't know how to teach others to do what I do in my head. It's frustrating. Many other things that I do I could teach someone else. I could show people things. I cannot go inside someone else's head and adjust their mental attitude or teach them how to pray.
I once took a workshop in writing poetry. In that course, I learned the concept that poetry is the art of rubbing words together to achieve a mental impression that might not be directly describable. The following 3 program terms, when rubbed together, for me, describe the mental attitude I must have in order to be abstinent.
Before program, I believed that I was uniquely unloveable. That no one could love me. One might not think that that was an arrogant perspective, but in fact it was. There is no one so specially unique that they cannot be loved by anyone. None of us is that special.
Humility is then a neutral state.
When I am surrendered, when I substitute HP's will for mine, then I cease to struggle. I am present. I am flexible. I go with the flow. I see a silver lining in every cloud.
(p68)
Focus on infinity is a common meditation technique. Most people find that looking at a distant horizon, for instance on a beach or from the top of a high point, can provoke a contemplative state. This contemplative state is conducive to abstinence. The term "infinite God" to me also helps provoke the contemplative state.
I am bonded to myself when I want something so much that I become sick if I don't get it. I am bonded to myself when I am unable to see any point of view other than my own.
HP is not bonded to my point of view. HP sees things from all perspectives, something I am not capable of; however, in program, I believe I should attempt to imagine how things look to HP rather than how they look to me.
Bondage to self, or selfishness, in the BB is not necessarily the same as what a civilian means by "selfish." When the civilian says "selfish" it is an insult. Here, selfish is just anything we want.
Sometimes what we want might seem very generous. I have met several people who believed in very noble causes who ate when things did not go their way, even though their desires were generous. One of them, for instance, desired very much to stop the genocide in Darfur. This was a woman living in the USA. Obviously, she was powerless to stop the genocide in Darfur. Her frustration at her powerlessness made her eat, even though her fundamental impulse was generous. As far as the BB is concerned, her desire to stop this genocide was selfish. It was something she wanted to make herself feel better. She was not surrendered to the will of HP.
This is not to say we should never want anything. The Buddha said that desire was the root of all suffering. Buddhists believed that the Buddha achieved complete detachment, that he came to the point where he did not desire anything -- and thus was happy. Program does not promise us that we will become like the Buddha.
The point is that we should know what we want; that we should inventory it; that we should ask HP to help us with it -- so that our desire will not become so painful that it causes us to relapse into our compulsive eating behavior.
I have found that the precept of program that I should list what I want has been very helpful to me. I have come to know myself better. I have come to be able to verbalize what I want better. When I can calmly say what I want -- rather than withdrawing, becoming resentful, sullen or furious -- others are more likely to be able to listen and more likely to give me what I want. Since doing the BB inventory process I have become a better self advocate, less of a doormat -- and also, therefore, less likely to explode in anger after having stuffed emotions for so long
"We were free to set aside theological arguments and examine the idea of spiritual power in light of our own desperate need for help with our lives."
There are many theological questions that people ask themselves when they are worried about whether and how to undertake these questions. These questions include:
⁃ Is there a God?
⁃ Does God love me?
⁃ How can a loving God allow all these terrible things to happen in the world?
⁃ Does God care what I eat?
⁃ Is it bothering God or selfish to ask God for help with my eating?
⁃ Will God help me with this problem?
Putting aside theological questions or argument, means not worrying about these things. You do not have to believe in God. You do have to pray, but you do not have to believe in God, or that God will help you, or that God cares what you eat. You just have to do the steps, whether you believe in them or not.
The word resentment comes from the Latin word "resentire," meaning to feel over and over. While the BB particularly talks about anger as an emotion that we could feel over and over and therefore get into an addictive cycle with, in fact any repeating emotion, such as grief or happiness, could also result in the insanely trivial excuse emerging.
allergy [of the body]
p. xxviiiOne common saying in program is that this disease is a three legged stool, that this disease has physical, emotional, and spiritual components. Different people react to the stress of life in different ways. Some people get butterflies in their stomachs, some get migraines, others back spasms, still others bite their nails. We eat.
When modern doctors refer to an allergy, they mean a histamine allergy. This is the sort of allergy where a person may sneeze, cough, have watery eyes, hives, or asthma. In fact, Dr. Silkworth, who wrote "The Doctor's Opinion" and who was the great addiction maven of his time, uses the term "allergy" in an older and more general way to mean any abnormal reaction of the body to a substance.
In the case of addiction, the allergy is one where we break out, not in hives, but in cravings. This allergic reaction is due to a physical abnormality of the body. Not everyone becomes a compulsive overeater. Just as with alcohol, where there are normal drinkers, who can drink alcohol without serious problems. there are also normal eaters, who can engage in foods or eating behaviors that trouble us, without suffering any adverse effects.
Please see also p. 30, first paragraph.
phenomenon of cravings
p. xviiiThe point that Dr. Silkworth makes abut these cravings in "The Doctor's Opinion" is that these cravings are sufficient that we cannot control our repetition of the addictive behavior. They cannot be overcome by effort of will. This is part of powerlessness.
entire psychic change
p. xxixDr. Silkworth tells the story of a man who, having followed the recommendations of this book, was so changed as to not be recognizable. In order to escape from our addictive behavior we have to become someone else -- be prepared to change virtually everything about ourselves.
entire abstinence
p. xxxThis was the major contribution of Dr. Silkworth to the field of addiction, the idea that an alcoholic could not drink in moderation. They were either going to drink themselves to death or they were going to abstain entirely. There was nothing in between.
When talking about alcohol, the concept of "entire abstinence" is much clearer than when talking about "entire abstinence" with respect to food. Obviously, we can't stop eating, or we will die. I have written a document about food plans in which I discuss some of my thoughts about this topic, which I can send you.
hitting bottom
See esp. p. 8 of the BB, where Bill W describes his hitting bottom experience … bitter morass of self-pity -- quicksand stetting around in all directions …. In order to be able and willing to work the steps a person has to have hit bottom -- gotten to a sufficient point of desperation that they are willing to throw away all their own conceptions of things, follow instructions, work the steps. A person who has not reached this level of desperation will not be willing to go to sufficient lengths to overcome the disease.higher power
We cannot recover from this disease without a higher power. We are powerless over it. The higher power must be "God as we understood him." It's not a higher power as someone else told you to believe in, but what is meaningful to you. The higher power has to be something powerful enough to take away the cravings, to create the entire psychic change, to make you see yourself more clearly so you can do an inventory, to take away your defects of character, and to make you willing to make amendscurious mental twist
(p. 37, p. 92) (also obsession of the mind)The allergy of the body means that we cannot stop eating once we have started. The curious mental twist means that we cannot stop from starting. This is the one-two punch of powerlessness.
Program does not seek to cure the allergy of the body. Program seeks to remove the curious mental phenomenon/twist.
insanely trivial excuse
p. 37The insanely trivial excuse is often the manifestation of the curious mental twist, see e.g. the story of "Jim" pp. 35-6 -- the man who drank the whiskey with the milk. I find this story particularly instructive, because it illustrates the disease in microcosm.
Jim has a resentment. He stuffs it down into his subconscious, by minimizing it. "It wasn't much," he says. The subconscious responds to this stuffed down resentment with the insanely trivial excuse. The idea that he could drink whiskey with milk was seriously delusional, dangerous to both him and others, since he was sufficiently dangerous when drunk that he ended up in an asylum. With the steps, we seek instead to inventory the resentment, bringing into the conscious brain where we can hold it up to HP to take it away, rather than stuffing it down.
My metaphor for this disease is the conditioned reflexes of learning how to drive. When I first learned to drive, I had to think about everything I did: putting foot on brake, turning steering wheel, looking in mirror. Later, when I had been driving for a long time, I no longer had to think about these things. They came reflexively -- a conditioned reflex. The conditioned reflex mechanism is an efficient technique for the brain -- allowing us to react more quickly to situations that we are trained for.
I believe that the tendency to medicate myself with food also became a conditioned reflex, something that happened so quickly in my mind that I was not even able to notice the emotions that led me to medicate myself. For me, the Big Book resentment and fear exercises are an effort to dig out these emotions, bring them into the front conscious part of my brain and hold them up for my higher power to help me with.
The danger is in minimizing the emotions, not feeling them, stuffing them down -- because that will result in the insanely trivial excuse.
Hard drinker v. alcoholic
(20-21)The hard drinker can stop, even tho he may have damaged his body with drinking, but the alcoholic cannot. When confronted with the danger, they can summon the motivation to stop. Knowledge does avail them. Hard drinkers may actually be drinking more than alcoholics and yet not be alcoholic.
vital spiritual experience
(p.27)The vital spiritual experience is one that is sufficient to disrupt the conditioned reflex. Our higher power needs to access the parts of our brain that are no longer under our conscious control. See also pp.56-7; 567-8
One of the frustrating things about this program is trying to describe the spiritual experience that I find helpful. There is a particular state of mind that brings abstinence, a particular kind of neutrality, presence, and peacefulness. I believe that this state results from spiritual practices, specific mental exercises. I don't know how to teach others to do what I do in my head. It's frustrating. Many other things that I do I could teach someone else. I could show people things. I cannot go inside someone else's head and adjust their mental attitude or teach them how to pray.
I once took a workshop in writing poetry. In that course, I learned the concept that poetry is the art of rubbing words together to achieve a mental impression that might not be directly describable. The following 3 program terms, when rubbed together, for me, describe the mental attitude I must have in order to be abstinent.
humility
It was the OA 12&12 that actually gave me a useful definition of "humility," i.e. being no better and no worse than anyone else. Most of us can easily identify an attitude of superiority and not being humble, but it is more complicated than that. Please also see BB 4th ed. p318Before program, I believed that I was uniquely unloveable. That no one could love me. One might not think that that was an arrogant perspective, but in fact it was. There is no one so specially unique that they cannot be loved by anyone. None of us is that special.
Humility is then a neutral state.
surrender
When I am surrendered, when I substitute HP's will for mine, then I cease to struggle. I am present. I am flexible. I go with the flow. I see a silver lining in every cloud.
infinite God
(p68)
Focus on infinity is a common meditation technique. Most people find that looking at a distant horizon, for instance on a beach or from the top of a high point, can provoke a contemplative state. This contemplative state is conducive to abstinence. The term "infinite God" to me also helps provoke the contemplative state.
bondage of self
This phrase appears in the 3rd step prayer, p. 63. I find this a surprisingly subtle and difficult concept -- when are we bonded to ourselves? The common definition of self-will in program is "I want what I want when I want it."I am bonded to myself when I want something so much that I become sick if I don't get it. I am bonded to myself when I am unable to see any point of view other than my own.
HP is not bonded to my point of view. HP sees things from all perspectives, something I am not capable of; however, in program, I believe I should attempt to imagine how things look to HP rather than how they look to me.
Bondage to self, or selfishness, in the BB is not necessarily the same as what a civilian means by "selfish." When the civilian says "selfish" it is an insult. Here, selfish is just anything we want.
Sometimes what we want might seem very generous. I have met several people who believed in very noble causes who ate when things did not go their way, even though their desires were generous. One of them, for instance, desired very much to stop the genocide in Darfur. This was a woman living in the USA. Obviously, she was powerless to stop the genocide in Darfur. Her frustration at her powerlessness made her eat, even though her fundamental impulse was generous. As far as the BB is concerned, her desire to stop this genocide was selfish. It was something she wanted to make herself feel better. She was not surrendered to the will of HP.
This is not to say we should never want anything. The Buddha said that desire was the root of all suffering. Buddhists believed that the Buddha achieved complete detachment, that he came to the point where he did not desire anything -- and thus was happy. Program does not promise us that we will become like the Buddha.
The point is that we should know what we want; that we should inventory it; that we should ask HP to help us with it -- so that our desire will not become so painful that it causes us to relapse into our compulsive eating behavior.
I have found that the precept of program that I should list what I want has been very helpful to me. I have come to know myself better. I have come to be able to verbalize what I want better. When I can calmly say what I want -- rather than withdrawing, becoming resentful, sullen or furious -- others are more likely to be able to listen and more likely to give me what I want. Since doing the BB inventory process I have become a better self advocate, less of a doormat -- and also, therefore, less likely to explode in anger after having stuffed emotions for so long
theological arguments/questions
After giving this quiz to a number of people, I actually looked up this phrase and found, to my embarrassment that the quote I was thinking of is not actually in the BB. What I was actually thinking of is in the OA 12 & 12 p. 14."We were free to set aside theological arguments and examine the idea of spiritual power in light of our own desperate need for help with our lives."
There are many theological questions that people ask themselves when they are worried about whether and how to undertake these questions. These questions include:
⁃ Is there a God?
⁃ Does God love me?
⁃ How can a loving God allow all these terrible things to happen in the world?
⁃ Does God care what I eat?
⁃ Is it bothering God or selfish to ask God for help with my eating?
⁃ Will God help me with this problem?
Putting aside theological questions or argument, means not worrying about these things. You do not have to believe in God. You do have to pray, but you do not have to believe in God, or that God will help you, or that God cares what you eat. You just have to do the steps, whether you believe in them or not.
resentment
(This is actually the beginning of step 4)The word resentment comes from the Latin word "resentire," meaning to feel over and over. While the BB particularly talks about anger as an emotion that we could feel over and over and therefore get into an addictive cycle with, in fact any repeating emotion, such as grief or happiness, could also result in the insanely trivial excuse emerging.
Friday, October 17, 2014
Premarital sex and the Free Love revolution
I originally posted this blog on 1/31/02 on my prior blog that got deleted when AT&T got rid of its web hosting for Internet customers. I was angry about that and have never used AT&T since. Fortunately, I kept a copy.
I am a baby boomer. This means I grew up during the ‘60s and during the free love revolution. At that time, amongst people my age, it became popular to believe that it was a good idea to try out a potential life partner the same way you might try on a new pair of shoes before buying it. Many people found any moral concerns outdated in view of the advent of antibiotics for treating venereal diseases and contraceptives for preventing pregnancy. I even read a novel where the author pointed out that the Catholic Church had traditionally regarded premarital sex as a venal sin.
More recently there have been studies showing that people who cohabited prior to marriage, even for a couple of weeks, tended to be less happy in their marriages than people who waited until they were married before cohabiting, and therefore presumably also waited to have sex until they were married.
With the advent of AIDS, of course people are being more cautious about premarital sex; and others have begun to talk more loudly about morality and sex. I would like to see people study more about the biology of this situation.
I came to think more about the biology of sexual stimulation when I had natural childbirth. I came to believe that the combination of:
o the powerful stimulation of the vaginal area during childbirth— which medical science now knows leads to the production of the hormone occitocin, the cuddle hormone;
o the midwife’s immediately putting the baby in my arms in a well lit room; and
o the fact that I was not at all drugged and therefore fully sensible to what was going on my mind;
led directly to an incredibly powerful emotional surge that caused me to bond very strongly with my baby right away.
By contrast, with my second child, I had natural childbirth, but the child was born outdoors in the dark and got cold shock. Therefore the child was put in a warmer for an extended period of time immediately after birth and was out of my sight for a quite a while after the vaginal stimulation. It took much longer for me to bond with the second child — though nursing the child, which also produces occitocin, did come to lead to a very strong bond as well.
When I think back on the first person who I had sex with, I realize that I had something of similar bonding experience with him. The sexual stimulation he gave me led to very powerful emotions toward him and also a very heightened state of sexual arousal in other situations, such as in my classes (because I was student.) When I look back on the relationship, realize that I came to establish a preference for this man’s particular style of making love as well. Since everyone else’s style was a bit different, I always felt a certain nostalgia for the first man’s sexual style in later relationships. When I mentioned this idea of imprinting to this man, back then, he commented that he too felt a certain nostalgia for the first woman he had had sex with. Men too produce occitocin in response to genital stimulation.
This causes me to think that we all are just a little bit like goslings hatching from an egg when we first have sex. When the gosling hatches, it imprints on the first thing that moves. If that first thing is the gosling’s mother, all will be well. The mother will protect the gosling and help it to find food and teach it what it needs to know as an adult to survive in nature. If the first thing that moves is not the gosling’s mother, the gosling will probably not survive.
I think that the imprinting we receive the first time we have sex is not so strong is that of the gosling. We can take on later mates. However, the imprinting is enough that if we are not with a person who has made a commitment to us that first time we will be in some kind of trouble. At the very least, we are likely to get hurt emotionally. Also, we are very likely not to find later sexual relationships as satisfying as the first.
A person is really not like a pair of shoes. You cannot really try people on and find out what they are like. There are many reasons for this:
o There is a psychological effect on a person, based on how committed they feel in a relationship. We will treat a spouse differently, possibly better or worse, than a lover.
o People change.
o I married a postdoc who would not wear anything remotely resembling business attire. Now, even though his office purports to have “business casual,” he likes to wear a dress shirt and necktie into work. Perhaps he got sick of casual clothing, or perhaps he just got older.
o Men’s sex drives are said to peak at age 18, while women’s are said to peak at age 35. For a young couple, it may seem that the man is always asking for sex and the woman is often trying to find an excuse to get out of it. When this same couple gets into their 40s, the situation may reverse.
o As people age they develop medical conditions which may put stresses on a relationship.
o You cannot foresee everything.
o You may have found that you were perfectly compatible in your living styles and religious beliefs, but then when children arrive you may find that you have tremendous conflicts about how to approach situations with the children. Before you have children, you may not really truly understand what your own child-rearing philosophies are.
o Other life experiences may cause you to change your opinions and behaviors.
The only thing that really works in making a relationship last is making a commitment to make it last. This means a commitment to try to work through conflicts even if they are very bad. And, I suspect, the most common thing which gives people the level of commitment necessary to maintain a relationship for their entire lives is religious faith.
Many current day Americans have questioned cultures that put such emphasis on the importance of virginity until marriage. "What's the big deal about virginity?" I've often heard people ask. I suspect that this explosion of sexuality may be part of the appeal of virgins.
Also there has been research showing that whether a relationship survives is entirely due to how the members of the couple treat each other. Again, it's not like trying on a shoe. It's something you build. I met a person with a 40 year successful marriage, who said that his marriage started going well when both he and his wife decided that they were going to do more than half of the work in the marriage.
*********
I am a baby boomer. This means I grew up during the ‘60s and during the free love revolution. At that time, amongst people my age, it became popular to believe that it was a good idea to try out a potential life partner the same way you might try on a new pair of shoes before buying it. Many people found any moral concerns outdated in view of the advent of antibiotics for treating venereal diseases and contraceptives for preventing pregnancy. I even read a novel where the author pointed out that the Catholic Church had traditionally regarded premarital sex as a venal sin.
More recently there have been studies showing that people who cohabited prior to marriage, even for a couple of weeks, tended to be less happy in their marriages than people who waited until they were married before cohabiting, and therefore presumably also waited to have sex until they were married.
With the advent of AIDS, of course people are being more cautious about premarital sex; and others have begun to talk more loudly about morality and sex. I would like to see people study more about the biology of this situation.
I came to think more about the biology of sexual stimulation when I had natural childbirth. I came to believe that the combination of:
o the powerful stimulation of the vaginal area during childbirth— which medical science now knows leads to the production of the hormone occitocin, the cuddle hormone;
o the midwife’s immediately putting the baby in my arms in a well lit room; and
o the fact that I was not at all drugged and therefore fully sensible to what was going on my mind;
led directly to an incredibly powerful emotional surge that caused me to bond very strongly with my baby right away.
By contrast, with my second child, I had natural childbirth, but the child was born outdoors in the dark and got cold shock. Therefore the child was put in a warmer for an extended period of time immediately after birth and was out of my sight for a quite a while after the vaginal stimulation. It took much longer for me to bond with the second child — though nursing the child, which also produces occitocin, did come to lead to a very strong bond as well.
When I think back on the first person who I had sex with, I realize that I had something of similar bonding experience with him. The sexual stimulation he gave me led to very powerful emotions toward him and also a very heightened state of sexual arousal in other situations, such as in my classes (because I was student.) When I look back on the relationship, realize that I came to establish a preference for this man’s particular style of making love as well. Since everyone else’s style was a bit different, I always felt a certain nostalgia for the first man’s sexual style in later relationships. When I mentioned this idea of imprinting to this man, back then, he commented that he too felt a certain nostalgia for the first woman he had had sex with. Men too produce occitocin in response to genital stimulation.
This causes me to think that we all are just a little bit like goslings hatching from an egg when we first have sex. When the gosling hatches, it imprints on the first thing that moves. If that first thing is the gosling’s mother, all will be well. The mother will protect the gosling and help it to find food and teach it what it needs to know as an adult to survive in nature. If the first thing that moves is not the gosling’s mother, the gosling will probably not survive.
I think that the imprinting we receive the first time we have sex is not so strong is that of the gosling. We can take on later mates. However, the imprinting is enough that if we are not with a person who has made a commitment to us that first time we will be in some kind of trouble. At the very least, we are likely to get hurt emotionally. Also, we are very likely not to find later sexual relationships as satisfying as the first.
A person is really not like a pair of shoes. You cannot really try people on and find out what they are like. There are many reasons for this:
o There is a psychological effect on a person, based on how committed they feel in a relationship. We will treat a spouse differently, possibly better or worse, than a lover.
o People change.
o I married a postdoc who would not wear anything remotely resembling business attire. Now, even though his office purports to have “business casual,” he likes to wear a dress shirt and necktie into work. Perhaps he got sick of casual clothing, or perhaps he just got older.
o Men’s sex drives are said to peak at age 18, while women’s are said to peak at age 35. For a young couple, it may seem that the man is always asking for sex and the woman is often trying to find an excuse to get out of it. When this same couple gets into their 40s, the situation may reverse.
o As people age they develop medical conditions which may put stresses on a relationship.
o You cannot foresee everything.
o You may have found that you were perfectly compatible in your living styles and religious beliefs, but then when children arrive you may find that you have tremendous conflicts about how to approach situations with the children. Before you have children, you may not really truly understand what your own child-rearing philosophies are.
o Other life experiences may cause you to change your opinions and behaviors.
The only thing that really works in making a relationship last is making a commitment to make it last. This means a commitment to try to work through conflicts even if they are very bad. And, I suspect, the most common thing which gives people the level of commitment necessary to maintain a relationship for their entire lives is religious faith.
****
Addendum 2/4/16
The explosion of sexuality that I experienced after my first sexual encounter is apparently not unique, as I've seen something similar reported in the early marriage of Princess Elizabeth to Prince Philip
Many current day Americans have questioned cultures that put such emphasis on the importance of virginity until marriage. "What's the big deal about virginity?" I've often heard people ask. I suspect that this explosion of sexuality may be part of the appeal of virgins.
Also there has been research showing that whether a relationship survives is entirely due to how the members of the couple treat each other. Again, it's not like trying on a shoe. It's something you build. I met a person with a 40 year successful marriage, who said that his marriage started going well when both he and his wife decided that they were going to do more than half of the work in the marriage.
Thursday, June 5, 2014
On buying sunglasses with my aspie son
So my Aspie son broke the last two pair of sunglasses by stuffing them in his pocket rather than keeping them in the nice case i bought him. We go to REI and find some sunglasses with super sturdy frames that are going to be $50 with the tax.
I tell him that i'm not going to buy him a $50 pair of sunglasses unless he keeps them in a case. He says the whole point of getting sturdier sunglasses is so he can stuff them in his pocket. I say sunglasses are not designed to be stuck in pockets. He complains that the case would take up too much space in his pocket. I point out that they have a case that has a clip on it so he could clip it to his bag or his belt loop and not have to waste space in his pocket. He says that the multitasking involved in keeping track of the case wouldn't be worth the effort. He pulls out an internet article about managing programers that advises against making them multitask, as ultimately that would make them less efficient
I point out that I am not a manager in an office and he is not functioning as a programmer here. I tell him that I understand that aspies don't empathize well, but I ask him to try to imagine what I feel like when I am considering buying him a nice gift and he tells me he is going to willfully destroy it just as he has destroyed past such gifts. I also point out that if he ever becomes a responsible adult and gets a job like he's supposed to (now 23) and has to buy his own sunglasses, he will never stuff them in his pocket, because he wouldn't want to throw away his own hard earned money the way he proposes to throw away mine.
He says that if he can't keep them in his pocket he doesn't want them.
We end up not getting the sunglasses.
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Russia v Ukraine -- a dissenting view
Russia v. Ukraine
I am disturbed by the Western response to what is going on in the Ukraine. We often seem to have a knee-jerk feeling that everything Russia does is bad. Russian, in turn, seems to have very bad PR, not doing a good job selling us on what they do.
Let us start with the situation in Afghanistan. 30 years ago, Russia was involved in a protracted military campaign there. We backed the mujahideen, who were billed in our press as "freedom fighters."
I remember reading press interviews of these people at the time, where they said they were fighting, because Russians wanted to send girls to school. In fact, the mujahideen were the precursors to the Taliban, Muslim fundamentalists who believed in holding women under house arrest and preventing us from having any rights. The Russians were promoting a government where women are equal. The USA was backing the bad guys, because we didn't trust the Russians.
Later, the Muslim fundamentalists turned against us -- the very people we had trained and helped.
We seem to be very easily manipulated to questionable political action. For instance, in Iraq, refugees told our intelligence people that Iraq was still building nuclear weapons after the first gulf war. This turned out to be false; however, it was what we wanted to believe. These refugees wanted green cards in the US, so they told us what we wanted to hear. We were gullible. We believed them. We started a war on Iraq over believing the wrong people.
When we see Russian invading the Ukraine or Georgia to protect ethnic Russians, we automatically go back to WWII in our minds and think of Hitler invading Austria, because they were ethnically German.
But who are the Nazis here? Is it the Russians? In fact, there is quite a bit of Neo-Nazi activity in the Ukraine, and some of it directed against ethnic Russians:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/02/1281474/-Ukraine-Ethnic-Purity-Extremists-Neo-Nazis-threaten-Russians-Jews-non-whites
If there were Neo-Nazis threatening ethnic Americans somewhere, mightn't we invade?
Yet the Ukrainians are good at manipulating us into thinking the Russians are the bad guys. Their internal anti-Russian witch hunts are appealing to us, because it reminds us of the Cold War, itself likely ill conceived. We don't look too closely at how Ukrainian internal politics has been looking a lot like McCarthyism of late -- an anti-Russian witch hunt. It's that anti-Russian witch hunt that makes Russians feel that ethnic Russians are not safe in the Ukraine.
We remember Nikita Khrushchev banging his shoe on the podium at the UN saying "We will bury you." Some scholars have opined that this gesture was misinterpreted. Westerners saw this gesture as a threat of violence, a threat of invasion. But these scholars say it wasn't. Instead it was merely an expression of belief that Russia was headed to being the best in the world, that Russia was going to be too strong to be invaded itself, again.
We need to remember that the Russians themselves were invaded by the Nazis and suffered great losses, before responding by taking over Eastern Europe. They had their own fears.
In any case, that gesture, likely misinterpreted, possibly with inadequate investigation as to what was really meant, led to the cold war, which probably should never have happened in the first place.
So the Ukrainians have manipulated us once again into believing that the Russians are the bad guys here.
Let us not be patsies. Let us not be manipulated into conflict. Let us take the Ukrainians with a grain of salt.
I am disturbed by the Western response to what is going on in the Ukraine. We often seem to have a knee-jerk feeling that everything Russia does is bad. Russian, in turn, seems to have very bad PR, not doing a good job selling us on what they do.
Let us start with the situation in Afghanistan. 30 years ago, Russia was involved in a protracted military campaign there. We backed the mujahideen, who were billed in our press as "freedom fighters."
I remember reading press interviews of these people at the time, where they said they were fighting, because Russians wanted to send girls to school. In fact, the mujahideen were the precursors to the Taliban, Muslim fundamentalists who believed in holding women under house arrest and preventing us from having any rights. The Russians were promoting a government where women are equal. The USA was backing the bad guys, because we didn't trust the Russians.
Later, the Muslim fundamentalists turned against us -- the very people we had trained and helped.
We seem to be very easily manipulated to questionable political action. For instance, in Iraq, refugees told our intelligence people that Iraq was still building nuclear weapons after the first gulf war. This turned out to be false; however, it was what we wanted to believe. These refugees wanted green cards in the US, so they told us what we wanted to hear. We were gullible. We believed them. We started a war on Iraq over believing the wrong people.
When we see Russian invading the Ukraine or Georgia to protect ethnic Russians, we automatically go back to WWII in our minds and think of Hitler invading Austria, because they were ethnically German.
But who are the Nazis here? Is it the Russians? In fact, there is quite a bit of Neo-Nazi activity in the Ukraine, and some of it directed against ethnic Russians:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/02/1281474/-Ukraine-Ethnic-Purity-Extremists-Neo-Nazis-threaten-Russians-Jews-non-whites
If there were Neo-Nazis threatening ethnic Americans somewhere, mightn't we invade?
Yet the Ukrainians are good at manipulating us into thinking the Russians are the bad guys. Their internal anti-Russian witch hunts are appealing to us, because it reminds us of the Cold War, itself likely ill conceived. We don't look too closely at how Ukrainian internal politics has been looking a lot like McCarthyism of late -- an anti-Russian witch hunt. It's that anti-Russian witch hunt that makes Russians feel that ethnic Russians are not safe in the Ukraine.
We remember Nikita Khrushchev banging his shoe on the podium at the UN saying "We will bury you." Some scholars have opined that this gesture was misinterpreted. Westerners saw this gesture as a threat of violence, a threat of invasion. But these scholars say it wasn't. Instead it was merely an expression of belief that Russia was headed to being the best in the world, that Russia was going to be too strong to be invaded itself, again.
We need to remember that the Russians themselves were invaded by the Nazis and suffered great losses, before responding by taking over Eastern Europe. They had their own fears.
In any case, that gesture, likely misinterpreted, possibly with inadequate investigation as to what was really meant, led to the cold war, which probably should never have happened in the first place.
So the Ukrainians have manipulated us once again into believing that the Russians are the bad guys here.
Let us not be patsies. Let us not be manipulated into conflict. Let us take the Ukrainians with a grain of salt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)