George Glass said:
<snip> One of them, I had heard, went to L.A. for "further studies." (FLAG, I'm assuming.)
FLAG is in Clearwater, Florida -- not in L.A.
Duly noted and thank you.
Tone and inflection are oft found missing on the internet, but the interrogatory posture your post seems to take hasn't escaped me. Perhaps, however, it is I who am misunderstanding, since, however much you'd like to grace me with your non-combative company, your questions are aimed at confronting an assumed ignorance, on my part. I'll presume it is your aim simply to enlighten my ignorance or politely be enlightened as it is not my aim to provoke quarrelsome interrogation.
George Glass said:
In many ways, Scientology closely resembles Alcoholics Anonymous, regarding the way in which both persist in spite of a substantial lacking in actual, demonstrable efficacy.
AA (and its offshoots) is a simple program that makes no claims to be "scientific," promises nothing more than hope and the possibility of sobriety (no amazing supernatural powers as are suggested possible at scientology's "OT" levels), takes no names or addresses, sends out no mail, keeps no written records of the "confessions" of its members, requires no financial contributions other than a "pass the hat" for refreshments and the rent for meeting rooms. It is entirely voluntary, and the only qualification for membership is "a desire to stop drinking."
Please tell us what are the "close resemblances" you see between AA and scientology.
I see manifold resemblances between AA (AA's current structure) and all cults - not just the topic of this board, specifically pertaining to the following aforementioned qualifier:
regarding the way in which both persist in spite of a substantial lacking in actual, demonstrable efficacy.
Now, before you try and pin me down with another
straw-man logical fallacy, lets define that last word, efficacy.
From Dictionary.com:
ef·fi·ca·cy /ˈɛfɪkəsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ef-i-kuh-see]
–noun, plural -cies.
capacity for producing a desired result or effect; effectiveness: a remedy of great efficacy.
To further qualify that word, as it relates to AA, we need arrive at (I am speaking a bit hyperbollicaly in relations to percentages. You may correctly perceive me as being a bit snarky but just shy of snide.) the step about 40% of all AA prospects arrive at, successfully. Step 2 is, "Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could
restore us to sanity."
If sanity is the measure of success that AA stipulates as a goal, implicitly, we need not look too far to find insanity abounding at most AA meetings. Now, don't get me wrong. I am really not concerned with AA's well-being or lack, there of. As a matter of fact, I'll submit that I am completely
neutral, on the subject of AA. Of course, you're not going to find too many members who understand the meaning of neutral, in AA halls, because they haven't read to page 85 of the Big Book and have no understanding, whatsoever, that one's neutrality is of paramount importance - the ideal goal, as it were.
It's safe to say, past the revolving door of the first three steps, the meaning of the title to the chapter, "Into Action", has eluded about 85% of AA's prospects, so far as an implicit instruction meant to be followed closely in order to attain a specific result - that result being sanity. It is small wonder that AA's Big Book is regarded as "The most unread book in AA."
George Glass said:
AA, in its current state of tatters, suffers for its most widely known member, Bill Wilson, who capitalized, himself, off of his fame garnered from founding the organization, as he went onto write the Twelve & Twelve. The book is actually quite insane.
The 12&12 is a reflection of that insanity that persists to this day as the book, which makes no sense at all, is read in AA meetings as a remedy for the problem of alcoholism.
Correct me if there is another book, but the
Twelve and Twelve, as far as I know, is a publication, in one volume, of the Twelve Steps and the Twelve Traditions which are the foundation of the AA program.
How is it, in your opinion, that "the book is quite insane"? Please elaborate.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Twelve and Twelve, in Chapter 3 (I don't own the book.) Bill Wilson wrote, "I am a liar, a cheat, and a thief." He didn't write, "was", or that he had "stolen", et al. In relating to his "decision" to turn his life and his will over to the care of God as he understood him, he decided that supporting this crucial AA step took place with an admission. This startling admission, taking place LONG after Bill sobered up COMPLETELY contravenes that essential belief that one would be restored to "sanity".
Lying, cheating, and stealing are commonly considered morally repugnant. A psychologist might call them "maladaptive." Maladaptive behavior is thought to be symptomatic of mental illness. Mental illness is, by its very definition in the dictionary, insanity. In describing the third step of the book, Bill admits that he is still "uncured".
Now, before you raise the argument that, in AA, sanity was a semantic interpretation for sobriety, there are many people who fit the clinical definition for sober. Unfortunately, not all of them are sane. The Big Book talks, very specifically, about what
sanity really means. On page 82 of the Big Book, it reads, "If we are painstaking about this phase of our development, we will be amazed before we are half-way through. We are going to know a new freedom and a new happiness. We will not regret the past nor wish to shut the door on it. We will comprehend the word serenity and we will know peace. No matter how far down the scale we have gone, we will see how our experience can benefit others. That feeling of uselessness and self-pity will disappear. We will lose interest in selfish things and gain interest in our fellows. Self-seeking will slip away. Our whole attitude and outlook upon life will change. Fear of people and of economic insecurity will leave us. We will intuitively know how to handle situations which used to baffle us. We will suddenly realize that God is doing for us what we could not do for ourselves."
You may raise the point that I took the quote entirely out of context - that Bill was just alluding to the condition of the identity prior to taking the Third Step. It's immaterial, if you want to argue in AA semantics, however, since the question of identity is immaterial until the fourth step.
Perhaps Bill was just exhibiting "pride in reverse," then. Perhaps in such remembrance of who he used to be as a sick alcoholic, he was just exhibiting "humility". If I wanted to, I could argue that such ideals are nothing if not simple cliche's wasted on paper in a sea of chaotic word salad, so poorly organized as to be marginally passable as something so arcane that first readings left it completely misunderstood.
I have heard lore of people who have used the 12 and 12 exclusively. One such individual blew his brains out. I could get on my soapbox and say, "This book is dangerous because it proposes to the newcomer ideas and concepts with no intellectual merit, what-so-ever." I won't, however, simply because, as I stated earlier in this post,
I don't care.
George Glass said:
Such a concept as a death-bed relapse was perceived of as a failure and PR fiasco so monumental for AA's well being that people were stationed around the clock to make sure he died sober.
Interesting that you would paint this as a "PR fiasco" when one of the Twelve Traditions of AA is that they DO NOT PROMOTE but rather gather their members through attraction, not promotion.
Of course. The eleventh tradition is written in the Big Book and therefore must have always been followed rigorously by ALL members of AA, to the exclusion of lapses in judgment or piously motivated Machiavellian image control. I'm sorry. I am not a saint, as it were, and am therefore prone to making assertions which just outright appear to be illogical in the face of the known rules expected for all members to follow.
It was certainly just an old wives tale that, when one of its founding members had lost his mind, and he had already ceased being anonymous, that people would want to control his access to booze considering he had reported widely AA was a cure for such a condition.
In contrast, scientology parades its "celebrity" members before the public for the express, policy-stated purpose of giving itself a broad appeal to the public and recruiting new members.
George Glass said:
In many ways, Scientology closely resembles Alcoholics Anonymous, regarding the way in which both persist in spite of a substantial lacking in actual, demonstrable efficacy.
If I had posted that Scientology and AA were quite similar in their public affairs rituals, then you'd have grounds for such an argument, but I didn't.
George Glass said:
AA exists, however, due to a substantial lack of exposure.
I wonder what you would consider a "PR strategy" or "PR success" as opposed to a "PR fiasco" for an organization that protects the anonymity of its members (including those "celebrities" who attend AA meetings) by refraining from engaging in promotion?
You don't consider the relapse of a man who is widely known as the founding member of alcoholics anonymous and who swore, quite publicly, about his nostrum for the disease of alcoholism, to be a public relations fiasco for AA, as a whole?
Exposure of what? please enlighten us on the "secrets" of AA which you feel need to be exposed.
That's three! Three Straw Man Logical Fallacies!
I'm not here to expose AA's secrets. I don't believe AA HAS any secrets to be exposed. I don't see any benefit in announcing to anyone that AA is a shadow of what it used to be which survives in the darkness of fringe psychology as a result of a circulation of members who drop dollars in baskets for the privilege of speaking in rambling circles, waiting for that day they can finally hold that chip and get the approval their parents never gave them. I could care less about recalling my anecdotal experiences in AA meetings that have concluded with my disappointment and being told that my disappointment was the "result of being spiritually unfit". I am unhurt by the endless hours I have listened to the monotonous drivel of someone telling the story of their recovery and how, in spite of being sober, they STILL can't keep the number of marriages down they've had, below three.
What I have said about (most of) AA and Scientology, and how they are in common, is that NEITHER has proven itself a remedy to any known condition either reports to cure. AA survives because no one really discusses AA after they stop going to it, unless it's in a bar to fallaciously observe that "all AA is is a cult." AA's current short-comings, therefore, remain undisclosed.
EDIT: I have also posted what I believe to be clear distinctions between the two along with the differences between their respective founders.
I'll admit, there are a very few groups of individuals who attend AA meetings who actually have achieved that condition known as sanity. Many of these members have 20+ years of sobriety, not between them, but each. Most AA meetings I've been to are lucky to have one such member, who usually speaks up at the end of the meeting to offer his veiled cross-talk directed at someone who 1) he doesn't really like, and 2) resembles the person he used to be when he was sobering up. If they're lucky, they'll exchange phone numbers after the meeting and that person, MIGHT, just be the next elder-statesman sitting, and speaking wisely from the back of the room. Most people in most AA don't make it through their first year. Of those who do, many will leave, having formed an opinion of AA without having ever been through the steps. Of those who attempt the steps, many won't make it past the fifth, and fewer to step 8 or 9.
Every single one of them will stand up at the end of the meeting and belt out the Lord's Prayer, followed by, "Keep coming back. It works when you work it and you work it 'cause you're worth it." They will then troll for dates, espousing their commitment to working on their issues related to "codependency" - a fairly nebulous psychological condition that is utter fiction (but I've got a copy of codependant no more!) - and leave, minus one dollar with a head chock full of BS cookies...
George Glass said:
That's not to say the tenants of AA can't be exploited by an undifferentiated-ego-mass who fosters stringent demands for group conformity which take precedence over the comfort and well-being of individual members and the society which exists outside of it.
As part of the AA process, if you will, is to rid oneself of the socially and self-destructive aspects of "ego", could you please explain the term "undifferentiated-ego-mass" as used in the context of your above statement?
It's a reference to a Family Guy episode where Meg joins a cult and is being kept there for Stewie's first birthday party. The undifferentiated ego is one which is undeveloped, and therefore deprived of the development fundamental to "rid oneself of the socially and self-destructive aspects of 'ego'".
George Glass said:
Scientology does have a strategy and is run with an authoritarian regime that manages its inner-workings. The facets of the cult extend far past whatever AA would even want, according to AA's by-laws.
I completely agree.
Wonderful! If you completely agree, then how come you tried to make arguments that I had made statements that would directly contravene the latest one which we find ourselves in agreement on?
"Scientology" has as its socio/political agenda the intent to eventually recruit, take over and run (according to its "management technology") the entire world. This intent is boldly stated in the "tech" and "policy" statements of its founder. AA (and its offshoots) exists only as a way for individuals and families to help themselves and each other deal with debilitating addictions. It has no socio/ political agenda at all.
Agreed, but if you'd read any of my prior posts more carefully, you'd have found that we were in complete agreement before hand.
You'll notice that I didn't spare any tone, but it's really not directed at you. I have found the need, in reply to your legitimate questions (however loaded they may have been), couched in seeming obstinate defiance, that were raised to clarify the premise of my erstwhile arguments. In short, I recognize the validity of your questions. I question the spirit in which they were raised.