I know a guy who's about to celebrate his 33rd sober year, and he's an atheist. You do NOT need a spiritual component to overcome addiction, period. AA is just another form of religion. It tells you you are worthless and you need what they are selling, which is nothing more than an ambiguous,catch-all god concept.
These antiAA folks misrepresent what incurable means. AA says we can recover from a seemingly hopeless state of mind and body, have the obsession to drink removed and lead happy productive lives but it does not mean we can go back to being social drinkers and hope to stay at that level.
I was in and out of AA for years. I kept going back because they own the addiction treatment industry, and AA members insisted that I would drink and die without them. As soon as I found out there were other ways to get sober I left AA. I've been sober now for four years, and I'm doing better than I ever did in the AA cult.
If you'd like, I can hook you up with some resources and information that may be able to help you quit. There are a lot of evidence based programs out there that can really help. Remember... No single treatment is effective for everyone.
I'm sorry Andrea, I really can't understand what you are trying to say. Could you try to put it in a discernable sentence so that I might be able to help?
You were not blocked, but I think it's a good idea to go ahead and block you.
I've read a lot of your comments on youtube, and you seem like a very unstable, mean, and nasty person. Another example of how 12-steppers practice the principles of love and honesty in all of their affairs. Andrea, you are truly the poster child for 12-step syndrome.
Sorry Andrea... You're not presenting your ideas in a way that makes them understandable. My bossing wasn't effective? That just doesn't make any sense.
I'd really like to continue this conversation, but first, your going to have to find a better way to use words to express your ideas. If you speak in half sentences, and assume that the reader is a mind reader, you are not going to be able to get your ideas across effectively.
The remarks in response to this video amply demonstrate why this guy is in the dark. Anonymity is a very important part of this program. You don't have to be spiritual if you don't want. I dieagree with a lot of what this alkie says, but I am an AA. AA works, all you have to do is go to meetings and don't drink. It works when nothing else does. I have no use for 12 steps. I have no sponsor. I am an atheist. AA works. If you need it, it's there for you.
This people talking about Sufism, but they do not know what is Sufism. Sufi, a person who find his or her reality and Sufism is the reality of religion.
Is this guy in the witness protection program?? WHY IS HE HIDDEN from the cammeras. SPOOKY!!!! How many people has he brainwashed ??? THE LEGION 12 will wipe out AA for all eternity! HAMMERSLEY1967! "SECRIT SCOCIETY?"
aa/oxford group-NEITHER of these movements is just an oppressive regime, 'brainwashing' and bilking the innocent... both offer solutions plausible to many. In both movements, long-term affiliation is voluntary, though exposure and early indoctrination is often coerced. Most important, neither of these movements is unique. The Oxford Groups was only one of MANY protofascist movements in the U.S. in the 1930s, and AA is only one of many such movements today.
you see, this is the MAIN PROBLEM with AA, it is a BIG FAT LIE and that LIE keeps us from doing real SCIENCE which can help CURE this thing...AA is not in bizness to CURE people. AA stands in the WAY of helping the MAJORITY of ADDICTS. AA is why there is no cure. AA is there to promote and keep AA alive, not the addict.
@jenpadian Not another "Orange papers" you all are getting conned and the sin is you don't even know it. Get some facts from less biased sites not the ones who's only thoughts are to bashed AA. As far as getting a life I have a very good one thanks to AA.
Here's the most tragic picture i find about Bi;; W...heres a guy lying on his deathbed...smoking cigarettes killed him...he had three nurses taking care of him around the clock...he begs each one of them for a glass of whisky...that's what those nurses reported. Couldn't you just give him one glass? what's the harm....his own CULT ...man...one glass. really? what harm. that is just sad...the program is more important than the person, theyd give him a cig but not a drink...stay away from AA.
@kc1964kc Bill Willson asks one(ce) a weak for exact three shots of whiskey (~standard drink) after he was back to science in the mid/late 60s. He indeed begged for something, to be an aa-member like anyone else in the mid or end 40s. Guess it was refused.
@kc1964kc - have you ever been present when a person dies from an illness? They go into a delerious state and say and do things they would never ordinarily do. To criticize a person for what he might say or do on their deathbed is pretty low.
@quickcap aa didn't "want" the Lasker Award (yet didn't stop to talk over it again and again). Bill Wilson will get what he deserves, FE the Nobel Prize. One(ce) in a weak three shots. Logically two for women.
@quickcap yes actually i was with my dad, and he died of emphysema too..he was not delerious...he was just wanting to go - i gave my dad mouth-to-mouth...so you see i speak from experience...maybe you should shut up and wait for someone to tell you its your turn...AA ZOMBIE CULT rulez, right? Bill just wanted a drink the man was dying..instead AA was more important than the person...that is just mean and superficial.
bill w stole the copyright for the AA book, left some of the royalties to his mistress and his wife, he also took LSD, Vitamin B12 and begged for whisky on his deathbed because even he was recovering using the 12-steps...he just wanted to sell books. who faults the man for wanting to sell books? I fault the AA/Rehab Industry for SELLING A SYSTEM WHICH DOESN'T WORK! People mortgage their trying to help family members...the 12-step rehab is a cult set to fail so people relapse back into rehab
@kc1964kc Where are you people getting this stuff? It's actually quite amusing. I've been active in AA for 22 years and have never heard of any of this. Oh that's right it must be the "Orange Papers" again. Read something that is a little less biased and get the truth.
would one base their dogs recovery from any illness on a book written in 1935? that's what AA does. Find a better way if you have serious addiction problem. my experience!
@kc1964kc - AA is much more than a book. It is a concept - a set of ideas that are especially well suited to alcoholics. To others, they may make no sense at all. So what. If you can find a better way to stay sober- use it. People in AA will applaud you and ask you to share your success.
"The DSM IV is only concerned with the SYMPTOMS..." - OK
"It is a diagnostic tool ...." - nope, its basic a tool to share information. Based on the individual/specific school, f.e. analytical / behavioral / cognitive / drugs / existentialistic etc., diagnostic its a supervision tool, properly used.
"Your argument is a complete non sequitur." - I always had to ask myself for his motives, but he's rather strong in scientific methods and concepts. Nearly a disease METHOD of treatment.
The answer of "alcoholics anonymous" (1939) was the old Lutheran spirit still common:
"The virtues of the faults, the honor or the shame... depends on you, You will, I am certain, strive to neglect no opportunity to implant deeply into her unblemished heart the holy principles of morality, of virtue, of honor and religion. When i say religion i do not mean superstition or hypocrisy, but that high sense of duty which we owe to our fellow creatures and our God." (E Leutze, letter to sister, 1838)
are all acts of willpower run a certain direction. The effect of these common fragments from religion was the "spiritual experience". Yet to maintain morality and build habits the following unwritten steps followed:
13/14 group service (social and conflict training)
Commitment is difficult for most due to triggers, and the potential for progressive amounts of alcohol to achieve the same effect. Commitment to abstinence is enhanced by switching goals provided by AA which provides the social network to maintain abstinence. It fosters a new way of life outside the alcoholic one.
Oh Hammersley, you do know the Earth rotates around the sun, don't you? and alcoholism is a bio-psycho-social disease. You are such a through back to the Inquisition and the Dark Ages.
Perhaps the way we are looking at addiction is precluding a reasonable debate and getting us lost in semantics.
I posit that addiction is not - at least most of the time - a primary condition, but rather a symptom of an underlying condition(s). Some people, because of their physiology, are more prone to manifesting addiction as a symptom, but without an underlying psychological condition (e.g. PTSD, depression, BPD, etc.) a person with said physiology will not become addicted.
AA people say its genetic and they got it too from their parents.
You say you got psychological damage FROM your parents (society)...
Both denial and hence not treatable.
Alcoholism causes black jeans. Drug prevention w/ "never wear black pants or you die drunk" causes gay dopers in washed-out blue jeans and alcoholics w/ NPD.
Essentially, there maybe no disease entity (as medically defined) - but possibly a series of genetic risk factors that predispose some individuals to alcoholic/addictive behaviour more than other individuals... (And environmental (sociocultural) factors also play a part?)
Something like being a white man living in Australia?
Being white is not a disease per se, but predisposes Caucasian individuals to skin cancer...
Well, it is possible and even has a ring of plausibility to it. The following article outlines POSSIBLE "risky genes" for alcohol predisposition:
Browman, K. E. and J. C. Crabbe (2001, 2002). "Alcoholism: Genetic Aspects" in Neil J. Smelser and Paul B. Baltes. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Amsterdam, The Netherlands; New York, NY: Elsevier. pp. 371378.
See the list of POSSIBLE "risky genes" on chromosome 4, 7, 8, 11, 15, and 20 at the end of the article?
All POSSIBLY linked to hepatic metabolism, bitter taste sensitivity, dopamine response, etc?
Nice persuasive postulation, but no clear delineation of the causal mechanism or an EMPIRICAL substantiation thereof.
Just a series of possible genetic susceptibilities culminating in a list of POSSIBLE "risky genes"...
All these articles are the same. They simply cannot clearly state the causal mechanism of alcoholic behaviour - characterised and motivated by craving, obsession, and compulsion.
I suspect that if there is a genetic link, then it could be more along the lines of a neurogenetically inherited psychic / cognitive style which predisposes the "alcoholic" to alcohol dependency. That is, a neurobiologically based mode of psychology.
After all, we are, first and foremost, dealing with the perception and intention of the human condition.
However, if this IS the case, then the Baconian scientific paradigm is an inappropriate epistemology to identify the anomaly as its inherent Cartesian dualism assumes, a priori, a separation of mind and body.
This is why all these biomedical research undertakings lead to dead ends. They simply cannot bridge the gap between mechanistic biology and the psycho-emotional intention of the human condition. They are epistemologically straight-jacketed.
"... the answer will not be found THROUGH science or scientism..."
What I think you are saying is that science can never produce conclusions about subjective experience (e.g. we will never know if you and I see the same blue), and the reasons for compulsive behaviors are purely subjective and cannot be known any other way, therefore cannot be "known" at all (in the scientific sense).
I think it's an overcomplication bordering on relativism. Science has given us complete explanations for the subjective human experiences of hunger, thirst and sexual arousal. What pushes the subjective human experience of other types of cravings and compulsions out of the scientific realm?
Firstly, no, I am not alluding to any cognitive relativism. The epistemological shortcoming of science that I am attempting to elucidate is its Cartesian dualistic assumption - the complete ontic separation of mind and body (matter). Consequently, after 500 years plus, the Baconian scientific project has NEVER explained the consciousness upon which its methodology of observation, reason, and knowledge totally depend.
Thus, its materialist, reductionist, atomistic, and mechanistic methodologies have never, and indeed CAN never, explain how mind arises from consciousness let alone how desire, in turn, arises in mind. Hence, I disagree entirely with your contention that "science has given us complete explanations for the subjective human experiences of hunger, thirst and sexual arousal".
All it has provided is documentation of observable biological correlates in the form of changes in anatomical homeostasis and physiological symptomology (e.g. regional brain activity, biochemical fluctuation, etc). It then hypothesises that these biological correlates must somehow "drive" the psychic craving without EVER substantiating a causal link.
Indeed, on the ACTUAL phenomenon of "craving", as it arises in the psychic dimension - science is silent.
Thus, science hasn't provided adequate explanations for the most basic of human cravings such as: social relationship, romantic intrigue, procreation, and even the most fundamental of sentient desires - the DESIRE TO EXIST.
Take the example of my wife's chronic, terminal respiratory disease. There is a fluid motion of causality from genetic anomaly to the gradual, yet chronic, decrease in lung function.
THAT'S what the biomedical paradigm is superb at doing - defining, proving, explaining, treating, and thoroughly KNOWING phenomena that firmly resides in the dimension of PHYSICAL REALITY. All we know of alcoholism is that it is a chronic and powerful (perhaps overwhelming) PSYCHIC desire to become involved in the altered psycho-emotional state of intoxication.
Given that the epistemic constraints of western science have prevented it from explaining ANY conscious formulation in over 500 years - I don't expect it to do so in this particular case.
Remember, it's been 225 years since the inception of the hypothesis of "inebriety" as a physiological disease in Benjamin Rush's 1784 treatise.
It still hasn't been affirmed...
(Sorry about hogging the blog - but I just love talking about this stuff...)
Who still subscribes to Cartesian dualism? Your assumption is based on the idea that it's the prevalent theory of consciousness (perhaps in your field it is?).
I (and anyone I talk to about it) think that the best theory is Dennett's Multiple Drafts. It requires no non-physical mind (or non-physical anything else).
I will concede that if we can't even prove that hunger, thirst and sexual arousal are the direct result of identifiable physiological processes (this sounds ridiculous to me, BTW), then we will never solve the addiction riddle.
Answer: Every legitimate exponent and practitioner of HARD PHYSICAL SCIENCE. That's what were talking about - right? Geneticists, Biochemists, Neurobiologists, Physicists, etc, etc, etc...
"Your assumption is based on the idea that it's the prevalent theory of consciousness (perhaps in your field it is?)."
You are making an error of category here. I am not speaking of "theory". I am speaking about EPISTEMOLOGY - the system of knowledge.
And on that score, the epistemology of science adheres steadfast to the principals of logical positivism and reductionist "philosophy" - a belief that everything has a mechanism and a refusal to accept ANY kind of evidence that is not open to sensory verification. Like it or not, thats the basis of scientific method. That's IT.
Given these epistemic strictures, how can positivist science with its reductionist, mechanistic, materialistic methodology have a hope in hell of knowing psychic phenomena such as consciousness, mind, and craving that simply cannot be observed or verified through the 5 sense doors? ANSWER? It cant... It just cant...
"I (and anyone I talk to about it) think that the best theory is Dennett's Multiple Drafts. It requires no non-physical mind (or non-physical anything else)."
Im glad that you brought up Dennett's theory of consciousness. (BTW: Once again, theory not epistemology, but lets leave that aside.) Dennett's theory is a PHILOSOPHICAL construction not a product of proven hard scientific "knowledge". His theory is NOT open to the sensory verification of science. Thus, it is a philosophical model. Different epistemology to the one we are currently discussing...
"I will concede that if we can't even prove that hunger, thirst and sexual arousal are the direct result of identifiable physiological processes (this sounds ridiculous to me, BTW) then we will never solve the addiction riddle."
The phrase "this SOUNDS ridiculous to me" can only imply one thing - assumption. That has no place in science. If it cannot be observed through the 5 sense doors, then it can't be known by this epistemology.
Thus, no, "science can't even prove that hunger, thirst and sexual arousal are the direct result of identifiable physiological processes". The logical deductions are of course sensible and probable - but given the epistemic strictures of science - it just cant be SCIENTIFICALLY proven and thus "known"...
But I agree with you 100%. For the reasons outlined above, the "addiction riddle" will never be solved by hard physical science - no chance. However, I have confidence in generic human rationality. The answer, if it is ever attained, will NOT be found via the hard physical sciences but rather in the "softer" sciences such as psychoanalysis and social psychology, as well as the qualitative human disciplines that engage a philosophy of mind...
Are you are saying that the problem of human addictive behavior is outside the purview of geneticists, biochemists, neurobiologists, etc. because human motivation cannot be examined under a microscope?
Hypothetically, if we found through scientific observation that every single addict shared a particular observable trait that was not found in non-addicts and when corrected stopped all addictive behavior, would you dismiss this out of hand because it cannot be (scientifically - in your estimation) linked to motivation? In other words, would you still argue that we don't know the cause of addiction?
"Hypothetically, if we found through scientific observation that every single addict shared a particular observable trait that was not found in non-addicts and when corrected stopped all addictive behavior, would you dismiss this out of hand because it cannot be (scientifically - in your estimation) linked to motivation?"
We're not talking about me are we? I thought we were discussing the epistemology of science? And on that score, yes, science still can't "KNOW" (knowledge) mind content.
"Hypothetically, if we found through scientific observation that every single addict shared a particular observable trait that was not found in non-addicts and when corrected stopped all addictive behavior, would you dismiss this out of hand because it cannot be (scientifically - in your estimation) linked to motivation?"
As you are well aware, after 225 years, no such physical or psychological trait has ever been found.
That aside, even if there had been, do you think it scientifically legitimate to assume that it would be the "cause of addiction"? That's not the way science works. The trait MUST be observed to be the causal mechanism (or symptom of the causal mechanism - which then MUST be located) every step of the way from trait to craving to compulsion. Your "trait corrective procedure" may serve as a remedy or treatment but it cannot be scientifically "KNOWN" as the CAUSE of addictive behaviour...
"Are you are saying that the problem of human addictive behavior is outside the purview of geneticists, biochemists, neurobiologists, etc because human motivation cannot be examined under a microscope?"
Yes, questions such as whether consciousness is emergent, transient, productive or innate, are the domain of philosophy not science. Questions as to the products of consciousness and mind (intention, perception, craving) are also the domain of philosophy not science.
Legitimate practitioners of "HARD PHYSICAL SCIENCE" believe that the mental and the material are actually different substances???
I can get with dualism (i.e. consciousness is an emergent property), but I don't think any "legitimate practitioner" of science is a CARTESIAN dualist. This is what confused me.
"Legitimate practitioners of "HARD PHYSICAL SCIENCE" believe that the mental and the material are actually different substances??? I can get with dualism (i.e. consciousness is an emergent property), but I don't think any "legitimate practitioner" of science is a CARTESIAN dualist."
That's the epistemic strictures of hard science as it stands. HARD SCIENCE is HARD SCIENCE. It's not something else.
Its not a matter of what "Legitimate practitioners of 'HARD PHYSICAL SCIENCE' believe" but rather a matter of the methodological scope that the epistemology tolerates. That's why I qualified the phrase with "legitimate". If a purported "practitioner of science" ASSUMES that consciousness/mind is otherwise, then they are no longer legitimately practicing science.
Dennett's theory of consciousness is a prime example. (Not that Dennett claims to be a scientist per se.)
By definition, I don't think that the fragmented, reductionist and atomistic metaphysic of science can ever entirely and holistically reflect reality as it is. Then again, as David Bohm made so elegantly clear, what epistemology (or theory thereof) can?
In any case, it is an inappropriate system of knowledge to investigate the intrapsychic phenomenon (phenomena?) of addiction.
"In any case, it is an inappropriate system of knowledge to investigate the intrapsychic phenomenon (phenomena?) of addiction."
Philosophers and psychologists (i.e. practitioners of soft science) have done very little (arguably nothing) to clear out mental institutions. Chemists, however, have done plenty.
"Philosophers and psychologists (i.e. practitioners of soft science) have done very little (arguably nothing) to clear out mental institutions. Chemists, however, have done plenty."
Were we discussing addiction/alcoholism or clinical mental illness?
Also, I don't quite follow how that line of reasoning follows on from that (my) statement. Once again we are into a different category - practice rather than EPISTEMOLOGY.
We were discussing whether or not science is "an [in]appropriate system of knowledge to INVESTIGATE the intrapsychic phenomenon of addiction".
As I said, psychiatric pharmacology abounds with "trait corrective procedures", but does it actually "know" what mental "illness" actually is - aside from a lack of behavioural repertories in responding to ones social and cultural environment? This body of knowledge doesn't even "know" what consciousness, mind or cognition actually is...
"Philosophers and psychologists (i.e. practitioners of soft science) have done very little (arguably nothing) to clear out mental institutions."
Are you quite sure about that? One thing that is absolutely clear in the field of clinical treatment for mental illness is that psychiatric medication regimens are extremely ineffective without concomitant psychosocial treatment as well (Bola et al 2008; Vedantam 2005; Paul & Lentz 1977).
Furthermore, the body of research (Fischer & Ahern 1998; Sartorius 2008; and many, many more) OVERWHELMINGLY demonstrates that despite our magnificent western psychiatric technologies, the societies/cultures that have the greatest success (by far) in full recovery from mental catastrophe are those in the Third World.
(Because of intimate community support. That is, "treatment" via psychosocial support rather than psychiatric medication. If only we could emulate that in the West...)
"psychologists (i.e. practitioners of soft science) have done very little (arguably nothing) to clear out mental institutions. Chemists, however, have done plenty."
- is what we call in Australia "a bit of a furphy" (untruth).
(BTW - on the subject of "clearing out" - I have only noticed that the mental institutions in the West have been filling up and overflowing into jails, drug rehabs and out into the street over the past few decades.)
Anyway, getting back on track, as far as the body of knowledge and practice on alcoholism and addiction goes, what has the scientific paradigm achieved in the last 225 years?
Naltrexone, Campral, Antabuse?
That's it?
Still no attention to the psychic dimension of the problem...
After 225 years of intensive scrutiny by the epistemology par excellence?
This is what I mean about the inadequacy of this mode of investigation...
Have the practical implications of your assertion ("...it is an inappropriate system of knowledge to investigate... intrapsychic phenomenon ...") given you pause?
"Have the practical implications of your assertion ("...it is an inappropriate system of knowledge to investigate... intrapsychic phenomenon ...") given you pause?"
You mean that we will have to abandon all empirical investigation and revert back to disease mythology and subservience to baseless group-think folk lore?
If that is the only alternative, then were done like dinners.
However, I would hope that there would be a qualitative, yet introspective and rational "middle way" that investigates the subjective intrapsychic/emotional experience of alcoholism/addiction and see if we can arrive at some universal "truths" that way.
I think, that the reflective, meditative methods employed by both eastern (e.g. Siddhartha) and Western (e.g. Hume and even Descartes) philosophers would seem to be the rational alternative.
My point was that if we as a society agreed with you (science is the inappropriate system of knowledge to investigate intrapsychic phenomenon) then we wouldn't have made any progress in the field of mental health. But we have made great strides through hard science - not philosophy.
"Well at least it hasn't been socially defined or dealt with as such."
We're not talking about how addiction has been socially defined or dealt with - we both agree that it has been defined and dealt with incorrectly. That's what we're discussing, no?
I agree that contemplation (i.e. meditative methods) are the best "answer" we have - indeed, it's what worked for me - but we were discussing epistemology.
My point is that if science is inappropriate to investigate addiction because addiction is a subjective experience, then it shouldn't be used to investigate ANY subjective phenomena. In practice that would leave us without any of the psychiatric drugs that have emptied out mental institutions in the last century.
I worked for several years in a mental hospital. DRUGS (i.e. hard science) are what allowed people to live normally. Not soft science.
"We're not talking about how addiction has been socially defined or dealt with"
Social definition of anything (ie construction of knowledge and the means and justification for that constructive process and product thereof) IS epistemology...
That is, "theory of knowledge" - regardless of what the object of knowledge is...
"But we have made great strides through hard science - not philosophy."
Are you seriously contending that the often catastrophically harmful consequences of physiological psychiatric interventions (such as electroshock therapy, frontal lobotomies, and the over-administration of brain damaging drugs such as barbiturates and dexamphetamines) without ANY clear articulation of the mental anomalies in question, is where the "great strides" have been made in the field of mental "health"?
And that the psychoanalytic work of Freud, Jung, Rodgers, Kohut, etc, etc, etc that have harmlessly, yet brilliantly, articulated working models for these intrapsychic disturbances (so that they could be treated pharmacologically and/or psychosocially) are nothing?
Unfortunately, medication is the norm in psychiatric institutions. They keep filling up and overflowing. Is it working?
Yuup the REAL analytics says we KNOW there's a background but we don' have a clue [early, means under age 6 or 7 -NPD -> social anxiety -> "alcoholism" etc coping scheme so it goes so it goes WTF
I can't think of anything more shameful and degrading than making an "appearance" in a total black out.
DCFunBud 9 months ago
I know a guy who's about to celebrate his 33rd sober year, and he's an atheist. You do NOT need a spiritual component to overcome addiction, period. AA is just another form of religion. It tells you you are worthless and you need what they are selling, which is nothing more than an ambiguous,catch-all god concept.
SubconsciousGatherer 1 year ago 2
These antiAA folks misrepresent what incurable means. AA says we can recover from a seemingly hopeless state of mind and body, have the obsession to drink removed and lead happy productive lives but it does not mean we can go back to being social drinkers and hope to stay at that level.
dmanuhone 1 year ago
@dmanuhone the A.A. says we can drink like hell and improvew/ the "program"
BB pg xx, line7/8
andreasheinz 1 year ago
@andreasheinz you should reread that paragraph.
dmanuhone 1 year ago
Comment removed
andreasheinz 1 year ago
Comment removed
andreasheinz 1 year ago
@dmanuhone aa* says any standard** ex-alkie with 66 drinks / year (22 times x 3 drinks) is abstinent.
*me, myself and I. Thats an aa group or lone wolf?
** standard alkie is 133 drinks / week for standard males.
andreasheinz 1 year ago
"My bossing wasn't effective? That just doesn't make any sense."
Ask Quick, its bossing wasn't effective, its rare sponsorship was.
andreasheinz 1 year ago
@andreasheinz User "andreasheinz", thats me was blockeed at your lame blox
andreasheinz 1 year ago
Comment removed
SToutreach 1 year ago
I was in and out of AA for years. I kept going back because they own the addiction treatment industry, and AA members insisted that I would drink and die without them. As soon as I found out there were other ways to get sober I left AA. I've been sober now for four years, and I'm doing better than I ever did in the AA cult.
SToutreach 1 year ago
@SToutreach Very good marketing like aa. Even better boosing tho.
andreasheinz 1 year ago
@andreasheinz
Are you boozing?
If you'd like, I can hook you up with some resources and information that may be able to help you quit. There are a lot of evidence based programs out there that can really help. Remember... No single treatment is effective for everyone.
SToutreach 1 year ago
@SToutreach After three posts at your lame channel I was boosed.
Great deal.
Many of your shit "Cult-critics" (see YT list) seem to be secret members. Quick is my (good) aa-sponsor, Hammer my Na-friend.
andreasheinz 1 year ago
@andreasheinz
I'm sorry Andrea, I really can't understand what you are trying to say. Could you try to put it in a discernable sentence so that I might be able to help?
SToutreach 1 year ago
@SToutreach Unblock me at your lame "stinkin'thinkin'" and I may try "to let me help" by you.
Well, I'd better stink back at you anyway.
andreasheinz 1 year ago
@andreasheinz
You were not blocked, but I think it's a good idea to go ahead and block you.
I've read a lot of your comments on youtube, and you seem like a very unstable, mean, and nasty person. Another example of how 12-steppers practice the principles of love and honesty in all of their affairs. Andrea, you are truly the poster child for 12-step syndrome.
SToutreach 1 year ago
@SToutreach "I've read a lot of your comments on youtube, and you seem like a very unstable, mean, and nasty person. "
At least I'm anonymous in some respect.
andreasheinz 1 year ago
@andreasheinz
What does anonymity have to do with anything?
SToutreach 1 year ago
@SToutreach FE court slips, a real "no go".
andreasheinz 1 year ago
@andreasheinz
Cat bottle junk drive to no good.
That makes about as much sense as your posts Andrea.
SToutreach 1 year ago
@SToutreach OK
Stop today and you unblock me?
andreasheinz 1 year ago
@andreasheinz
Absolutely not.
SToutreach 1 year ago
@SToutreach ROFL
You're at YT not aa, see ya
andreasheinz 1 year ago
@SToutreach "Remember... No single treatment is effective for everyone."
Remember? Your boosing wasn't effective. Woow, another sub-aa sect.
andreasheinz 1 year ago
@andreasheinz Bossing, lolz, I'm not english native, sorry.
andreasheinz 1 year ago
@andreasheinz
Sorry Andrea... You're not presenting your ideas in a way that makes them understandable. My bossing wasn't effective? That just doesn't make any sense.
I'd really like to continue this conversation, but first, your going to have to find a better way to use words to express your ideas. If you speak in half sentences, and assume that the reader is a mind reader, you are not going to be able to get your ideas across effectively.
SToutreach 1 year ago
Wow. That sure got lost in the translation. I have no idea what you are trying to say.
newclarence 1 year ago
Comment removed
andreasheinz 1 year ago
The remarks in response to this video amply demonstrate why this guy is in the dark. Anonymity is a very important part of this program. You don't have to be spiritual if you don't want. I dieagree with a lot of what this alkie says, but I am an AA. AA works, all you have to do is go to meetings and don't drink. It works when nothing else does. I have no use for 12 steps. I have no sponsor. I am an atheist. AA works. If you need it, it's there for you.
newclarence 1 year ago
@newclarence You "dieagree with a lot of what this alkie says"
Cool it turns for good that you beliefe in death after life...
andreasheinz 1 year ago
This people talking about Sufism, but they do not know what is Sufism. Sufi, a person who find his or her reality and Sufism is the reality of religion.
habharchi 1 year ago
The A.A.s often say the steps are to an alcoholic like insulin is for a diabetic. But you wouldn't see a diabetic hiding in the dark in an interview.
landofsuchbeauty 1 year ago 4
Yes indeed! That is why AA is considered a part of the secret scocieties.
Richcool79 1 year ago 3
Is this guy in the witness protection program?? WHY IS HE HIDDEN from the cammeras. SPOOKY!!!! How many people has he brainwashed ??? THE LEGION 12 will wipe out AA for all eternity! HAMMERSLEY1967! "SECRIT SCOCIETY?"
Richcool79 1 year ago 3
uggly, uggly people
andreasheinz 1 year ago
aa/oxford group-NEITHER of these movements is just an oppressive regime, 'brainwashing' and bilking the innocent... both offer solutions plausible to many. In both movements, long-term affiliation is voluntary, though exposure and early indoctrination is often coerced. Most important, neither of these movements is unique. The Oxford Groups was only one of MANY protofascist movements in the U.S. in the 1930s, and AA is only one of many such movements today.
kc1964kc 1 year ago 7
you see, this is the MAIN PROBLEM with AA, it is a BIG FAT LIE and that LIE keeps us from doing real SCIENCE which can help CURE this thing...AA is not in bizness to CURE people. AA stands in the WAY of helping the MAJORITY of ADDICTS. AA is why there is no cure. AA is there to promote and keep AA alive, not the addict.
kc1964kc 1 year ago 16
@kc1964kc Cure it Then...SA
jefflmhc 1 year ago
AA is a creepy harmful brainwashing cult that does way more harm than good!
Check out the Orange Papers and get a clue!
jenpadian 1 year ago 18
@jenpadian Not another "Orange papers" you all are getting conned and the sin is you don't even know it. Get some facts from less biased sites not the ones who's only thoughts are to bashed AA. As far as getting a life I have a very good one thanks to AA.
tomhabs 1 year ago
AA or gawd? gotta a feeling it because of YOU. But put a tooth under your pillow too, see if that gets you another day.
kc1964kc 1 year ago 9
guess god didn't care whether died from smoking tooo much...but whiskey! lol...gawd!
kc1964kc 1 year ago 2
Here's the most tragic picture i find about Bi;; W...heres a guy lying on his deathbed...smoking cigarettes killed him...he had three nurses taking care of him around the clock...he begs each one of them for a glass of whisky...that's what those nurses reported. Couldn't you just give him one glass? what's the harm....his own CULT ...man...one glass. really? what harm. that is just sad...the program is more important than the person, theyd give him a cig but not a drink...stay away from AA.
kc1964kc 1 year ago 4
@kc1964kc Bill Willson asks one(ce) a weak for exact three shots of whiskey (~standard drink) after he was back to science in the mid/late 60s. He indeed begged for something, to be an aa-member like anyone else in the mid or end 40s. Guess it was refused.
andreasheinz 1 year ago
@kc1964kc - have you ever been present when a person dies from an illness? They go into a delerious state and say and do things they would never ordinarily do. To criticize a person for what he might say or do on their deathbed is pretty low.
quickcap 1 year ago
@quickcap aa didn't "want" the Lasker Award (yet didn't stop to talk over it again and again). Bill Wilson will get what he deserves, FE the Nobel Prize. One(ce) in a weak three shots. Logically two for women.
andreasheinz 1 year ago
@quickcap yes actually i was with my dad, and he died of emphysema too..he was not delerious...he was just wanting to go - i gave my dad mouth-to-mouth...so you see i speak from experience...maybe you should shut up and wait for someone to tell you its your turn...AA ZOMBIE CULT rulez, right? Bill just wanted a drink the man was dying..instead AA was more important than the person...that is just mean and superficial.
peace.kc
kc1964kc 1 year ago 6
bill w stole the copyright for the AA book, left some of the royalties to his mistress and his wife, he also took LSD, Vitamin B12 and begged for whisky on his deathbed because even he was recovering using the 12-steps...he just wanted to sell books. who faults the man for wanting to sell books? I fault the AA/Rehab Industry for SELLING A SYSTEM WHICH DOESN'T WORK! People mortgage their trying to help family members...the 12-step rehab is a cult set to fail so people relapse back into rehab
kc1964kc 1 year ago 4
@kc1964kc Where are you people getting this stuff? It's actually quite amusing. I've been active in AA for 22 years and have never heard of any of this. Oh that's right it must be the "Orange Papers" again. Read something that is a little less biased and get the truth.
tomhabs 1 year ago
@kc1964kc may you live long with that....
cub68134 1 year ago
would one base their dogs recovery from any illness on a book written in 1935? that's what AA does. Find a better way if you have serious addiction problem. my experience!
the prom of aa is NEVER held accountable. NEVER!
kc1964kc 1 year ago
@kc1964kc - AA is much more than a book. It is a concept - a set of ideas that are especially well suited to alcoholics. To others, they may make no sense at all. So what. If you can find a better way to stay sober- use it. People in AA will applaud you and ask you to share your success.
quickcap 1 year ago
@quickcap reality check...anyone else not see a book?
kc1964kc 1 year ago
Bill was a saint,God bless AA,,
Hammerslay1957 1 year ago
Excellent,thanks for the upload..
RecoveryTube1 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
andreasheinz 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'd be in the dark too if i weas talking shit
coomadoug 2 years ago 9
Yeah, call him drunken Ira Hayes
But his land is just as dry
And his ghost is lyin' thirsty
In the ditch where Ira died
Send The Ballad Of Ir
andreasheinz 2 years ago
take this vid down i am bill w's step son by a whore drunk in new york
taylormark19 2 years ago
Countless?how many is that?
Picaro1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
5% of all that seek help from AA.
Short answer?
Fuck all...
Hammersley1967 2 years ago 2
hammer, please help me take over na in usa. all these felons we have to do something.
taylormark19 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@taylormark19
RIP THEIR FUCKEN TITS OFF AND SHOVE 'EM UP THEIR FUCKEN ARSES!!!
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
this is one stuttering fuck!
Satansduck2112 2 years ago
YAY!!!
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Has anyone seen Tom Neubauer? (isegoria)
I've very worried about him. He said that AA death squads were trying to kill him
weinerout 2 years ago
I know a Tom Neubauer. Tell me where he is from?
blitzwurfel 2 years ago
The evil is from the free the will, that was the catholic dogma before new media , Berlusconi etc
hence the alcoholism isn't bad
what ?
andreasheinz 2 years ago
spiritual program? i though the supreme court said it was a religious program!
IrreverentTetrapod 2 years ago
Mamma?
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
Hammer do you really eat you're shit?
andreasheinz 2 years ago
Probably...
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
Comment removed
andreasheinz 2 years ago
I invite Hammerslry to show how addiction works by NEVER commenting on this video again- Can he save himself from his OWN compulsions?
evet45 2 years ago
telethon123
"The DSM IV is only concerned with the SYMPTOMS..." - OK
"It is a diagnostic tool ...." - nope, its basic a tool to share information. Based on the individual/specific school, f.e. analytical / behavioral / cognitive / drugs / existentialistic etc., diagnostic its a supervision tool, properly used.
"Your argument is a complete non sequitur." - I always had to ask myself for his motives, but he's rather strong in scientific methods and concepts. Nearly a disease METHOD of treatment.
andreasheinz 2 years ago
ouups
andreasheinz 2 years ago
Comment removed
andreasheinz 2 years ago
Possible to adopt the aa-disease model to different forms of substance and behavior "addicts" w/ its "loss of control" and major coping issues f.e.
gambling dependence - job life
eating disorders - family life
post-coke abuse - social life
post-weed abuse w/ psychotic episode - private life
its a play on biochemical sub-systems w / some major benefits at the start of it and "institutions, jails and death" at the end.
Basics are earliest choices ("trauma"), teenage dizzy order, life style habits.
andreasheinz 2 years ago
Peer reviewed data = scientific magazine produce media-hypes w/ "new solutions for addiction". Wrong and useless again and again.
The neurotransmitters hype.
The addiction memory hype.
The anti-craving drugs hype.
Important is the rather low addictive potential of alcohol itself and the higher addictive potential of alcohol w/ extended metabolic effects.
Critical is the inner commitment and only this commitment for "alcoholism". This the "alcoholic" had to answer himself, therapy is for skills.
andreasheinz 2 years ago
The answer of "alcoholics anonymous" (1939) was the old Lutheran spirit still common:
"The virtues of the faults, the honor or the shame... depends on you, You will, I am certain, strive to neglect no opportunity to implant deeply into her unblemished heart the holy principles of morality, of virtue, of honor and religion. When i say religion i do not mean superstition or hypocrisy, but that high sense of duty which we owe to our fellow creatures and our God." (E Leutze, letter to sister, 1838)
andreasheinz 2 years ago
Compare:
0/1 faults
2/3 honor or the shame... depends on you
4/5 morality
6/7 virtue8/9 honor
10/11 religion (not superstition or hypocrisy)
are all acts of willpower run a certain direction. The effect of these common fragments from religion was the "spiritual experience". Yet to maintain morality and build habits the following unwritten steps followed:
13/14 group service (social and conflict training)
15/16 (forced) biography / personal story
This was the early aa 17 step program, NY 1940s.
andreasheinz 2 years ago
"Important is the rather low addictive potential of alcohol itself and the higher addictive potential of alcohol w/ extended metabolic effects.
Critical is the inner commitment and only this commitment for "alcoholism". This the "alcoholic" had to answer himself, therapy is for skills."
You are 100% correct...
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
Commitment is difficult for most due to triggers, and the potential for progressive amounts of alcohol to achieve the same effect. Commitment to abstinence is enhanced by switching goals provided by AA which provides the social network to maintain abstinence. It fosters a new way of life outside the alcoholic one.
evet45 2 years ago
Yep, no argument...
But its a psychosocial treatment treating a psychoemotional disorder...
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
Oh Hammersley, you do know the Earth rotates around the sun, don't you? and alcoholism is a bio-psycho-social disease. You are such a through back to the Inquisition and the Dark Ages.
evet45 2 years ago
"You are such a through back to the Inquisition and the Dark Ages."
How so? You're the one who maintains a superstitious faith in the biological etiology of addiction.
Read evey. You just haven't read enough. Your ignorance is stark and astounding.
Here's a tip: start with trying to prove the "bio" in "bio-psycho-social disease".
You might learn something in the process.
Alcoholism can ONLY be a disease if it is "bio".
No such thing as a psychosocial disease.
Ya know nothin' evey...
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
Perhaps the way we are looking at addiction is precluding a reasonable debate and getting us lost in semantics.
I posit that addiction is not - at least most of the time - a primary condition, but rather a symptom of an underlying condition(s). Some people, because of their physiology, are more prone to manifesting addiction as a symptom, but without an underlying psychological condition (e.g. PTSD, depression, BPD, etc.) a person with said physiology will not become addicted.
Thoughts?
telethon123 2 years ago
AA people say its genetic and they got it too from their parents.
You say you got psychological damage FROM your parents (society)...
Both denial and hence not treatable.
Alcoholism causes black jeans. Drug prevention w/ "never wear black pants or you die drunk" causes gay dopers in washed-out blue jeans and alcoholics w/ NPD.
andreasheinz 2 years ago
I think I understand what you're saying.
Essentially, there maybe no disease entity (as medically defined) - but possibly a series of genetic risk factors that predispose some individuals to alcoholic/addictive behaviour more than other individuals... (And environmental (sociocultural) factors also play a part?)
Something like being a white man living in Australia?
Being white is not a disease per se, but predisposes Caucasian individuals to skin cancer...
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
Precisely.
telethon123 2 years ago
(I)
Well, it is possible and even has a ring of plausibility to it. The following article outlines POSSIBLE "risky genes" for alcohol predisposition:
Browman, K. E. and J. C. Crabbe (2001, 2002). "Alcoholism: Genetic Aspects" in Neil J. Smelser and Paul B. Baltes. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Amsterdam, The Netherlands; New York, NY: Elsevier. pp. 371378.
See the list of POSSIBLE "risky genes" on chromosome 4, 7, 8, 11, 15, and 20 at the end of the article?
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
(II)
All POSSIBLY linked to hepatic metabolism, bitter taste sensitivity, dopamine response, etc?
Nice persuasive postulation, but no clear delineation of the causal mechanism or an EMPIRICAL substantiation thereof.
Just a series of possible genetic susceptibilities culminating in a list of POSSIBLE "risky genes"...
All these articles are the same. They simply cannot clearly state the causal mechanism of alcoholic behaviour - characterised and motivated by craving, obsession, and compulsion.
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
(III)
I suspect that if there is a genetic link, then it could be more along the lines of a neurogenetically inherited psychic / cognitive style which predisposes the "alcoholic" to alcohol dependency. That is, a neurobiologically based mode of psychology.
After all, we are, first and foremost, dealing with the perception and intention of the human condition.
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
(IV)
However, if this IS the case, then the Baconian scientific paradigm is an inappropriate epistemology to identify the anomaly as its inherent Cartesian dualism assumes, a priori, a separation of mind and body.
This is why all these biomedical research undertakings lead to dead ends. They simply cannot bridge the gap between mechanistic biology and the psycho-emotional intention of the human condition. They are epistemologically straight-jacketed.
The answer is not in science or scientism.
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
(V)
... or should I say, the answer will not be found THROUGH science or scientism...
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
1.
"... the answer will not be found THROUGH science or scientism..."
What I think you are saying is that science can never produce conclusions about subjective experience (e.g. we will never know if you and I see the same blue), and the reasons for compulsive behaviors are purely subjective and cannot be known any other way, therefore cannot be "known" at all (in the scientific sense).
telethon123 2 years ago
2.
I think it's an overcomplication bordering on relativism. Science has given us complete explanations for the subjective human experiences of hunger, thirst and sexual arousal. What pushes the subjective human experience of other types of cravings and compulsions out of the scientific realm?
telethon123 2 years ago
Comment removed
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
Comment removed
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
Comment removed
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
Comment removed
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
Comment removed
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
Comment removed
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
Comment removed
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
Comment removed
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
Comment removed
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
Comment removed
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
[A]
Firstly, no, I am not alluding to any cognitive relativism. The epistemological shortcoming of science that I am attempting to elucidate is its Cartesian dualistic assumption - the complete ontic separation of mind and body (matter). Consequently, after 500 years plus, the Baconian scientific project has NEVER explained the consciousness upon which its methodology of observation, reason, and knowledge totally depend.
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
[B]
Thus, its materialist, reductionist, atomistic, and mechanistic methodologies have never, and indeed CAN never, explain how mind arises from consciousness let alone how desire, in turn, arises in mind. Hence, I disagree entirely with your contention that "science has given us complete explanations for the subjective human experiences of hunger, thirst and sexual arousal".
It clearly has not.
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
[C]
All it has provided is documentation of observable biological correlates in the form of changes in anatomical homeostasis and physiological symptomology (e.g. regional brain activity, biochemical fluctuation, etc). It then hypothesises that these biological correlates must somehow "drive" the psychic craving without EVER substantiating a causal link.
Indeed, on the ACTUAL phenomenon of "craving", as it arises in the psychic dimension - science is silent.
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
[D]
Thus, science hasn't provided adequate explanations for the most basic of human cravings such as: social relationship, romantic intrigue, procreation, and even the most fundamental of sentient desires - the DESIRE TO EXIST.
Take the example of my wife's chronic, terminal respiratory disease. There is a fluid motion of causality from genetic anomaly to the gradual, yet chronic, decrease in lung function.
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
[E]
THAT'S what the biomedical paradigm is superb at doing - defining, proving, explaining, treating, and thoroughly KNOWING phenomena that firmly resides in the dimension of PHYSICAL REALITY. All we know of alcoholism is that it is a chronic and powerful (perhaps overwhelming) PSYCHIC desire to become involved in the altered psycho-emotional state of intoxication.
Nothing more, nothing less...
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
[F]
Given that the epistemic constraints of western science have prevented it from explaining ANY conscious formulation in over 500 years - I don't expect it to do so in this particular case.
Remember, it's been 225 years since the inception of the hypothesis of "inebriety" as a physiological disease in Benjamin Rush's 1784 treatise.
It still hasn't been affirmed...
(Sorry about hogging the blog - but I just love talking about this stuff...)
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
1.
Who still subscribes to Cartesian dualism? Your assumption is based on the idea that it's the prevalent theory of consciousness (perhaps in your field it is?).
I (and anyone I talk to about it) think that the best theory is Dennett's Multiple Drafts. It requires no non-physical mind (or non-physical anything else).
telethon123 2 years ago
2.
I will concede that if we can't even prove that hunger, thirst and sexual arousal are the direct result of identifiable physiological processes (this sounds ridiculous to me, BTW), then we will never solve the addiction riddle.
telethon123 2 years ago
Comment removed
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
(1)
"Who still subscribes to Cartesian dualism?"
Answer: Every legitimate exponent and practitioner of HARD PHYSICAL SCIENCE. That's what were talking about - right? Geneticists, Biochemists, Neurobiologists, Physicists, etc, etc, etc...
"Your assumption is based on the idea that it's the prevalent theory of consciousness (perhaps in your field it is?)."
You are making an error of category here. I am not speaking of "theory". I am speaking about EPISTEMOLOGY - the system of knowledge.
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
(2)
And on that score, the epistemology of science adheres steadfast to the principals of logical positivism and reductionist "philosophy" - a belief that everything has a mechanism and a refusal to accept ANY kind of evidence that is not open to sensory verification. Like it or not, thats the basis of scientific method. That's IT.
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
(3)
Given these epistemic strictures, how can positivist science with its reductionist, mechanistic, materialistic methodology have a hope in hell of knowing psychic phenomena such as consciousness, mind, and craving that simply cannot be observed or verified through the 5 sense doors? ANSWER? It cant... It just cant...
"I (and anyone I talk to about it) think that the best theory is Dennett's Multiple Drafts. It requires no non-physical mind (or non-physical anything else)."
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
(4)
Im glad that you brought up Dennett's theory of consciousness. (BTW: Once again, theory not epistemology, but lets leave that aside.) Dennett's theory is a PHILOSOPHICAL construction not a product of proven hard scientific "knowledge". His theory is NOT open to the sensory verification of science. Thus, it is a philosophical model. Different epistemology to the one we are currently discussing...
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
(5)
"I will concede that if we can't even prove that hunger, thirst and sexual arousal are the direct result of identifiable physiological processes (this sounds ridiculous to me, BTW) then we will never solve the addiction riddle."
The phrase "this SOUNDS ridiculous to me" can only imply one thing - assumption. That has no place in science. If it cannot be observed through the 5 sense doors, then it can't be known by this epistemology.
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
(6)
Thus, no, "science can't even prove that hunger, thirst and sexual arousal are the direct result of identifiable physiological processes". The logical deductions are of course sensible and probable - but given the epistemic strictures of science - it just cant be SCIENTIFICALLY proven and thus "known"...
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
(7)
But I agree with you 100%. For the reasons outlined above, the "addiction riddle" will never be solved by hard physical science - no chance. However, I have confidence in generic human rationality. The answer, if it is ever attained, will NOT be found via the hard physical sciences but rather in the "softer" sciences such as psychoanalysis and social psychology, as well as the qualitative human disciplines that engage a philosophy of mind...
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
1.
Are you are saying that the problem of human addictive behavior is outside the purview of geneticists, biochemists, neurobiologists, etc. because human motivation cannot be examined under a microscope?
telethon123 2 years ago
2.
Hypothetically, if we found through scientific observation that every single addict shared a particular observable trait that was not found in non-addicts and when corrected stopped all addictive behavior, would you dismiss this out of hand because it cannot be (scientifically - in your estimation) linked to motivation? In other words, would you still argue that we don't know the cause of addiction?
telethon123 2 years ago
"Hypothetically, if we found through scientific observation that every single addict shared a particular observable trait that was not found in non-addicts and when corrected stopped all addictive behavior, would you dismiss this out of hand because it cannot be (scientifically - in your estimation) linked to motivation?"
We're not talking about me are we? I thought we were discussing the epistemology of science? And on that score, yes, science still can't "KNOW" (knowledge) mind content.
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
[A]
Moreover...
"Hypothetically, if we found through scientific observation that every single addict shared a particular observable trait that was not found in non-addicts and when corrected stopped all addictive behavior, would you dismiss this out of hand because it cannot be (scientifically - in your estimation) linked to motivation?"
As you are well aware, after 225 years, no such physical or psychological trait has ever been found.
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
[B]
That aside, even if there had been, do you think it scientifically legitimate to assume that it would be the "cause of addiction"? That's not the way science works. The trait MUST be observed to be the causal mechanism (or symptom of the causal mechanism - which then MUST be located) every step of the way from trait to craving to compulsion. Your "trait corrective procedure" may serve as a remedy or treatment but it cannot be scientifically "KNOWN" as the CAUSE of addictive behaviour...
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
Comment removed
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
"Are you are saying that the problem of human addictive behavior is outside the purview of geneticists, biochemists, neurobiologists, etc because human motivation cannot be examined under a microscope?"
Yes, questions such as whether consciousness is emergent, transient, productive or innate, are the domain of philosophy not science. Questions as to the products of consciousness and mind (intention, perception, craving) are also the domain of philosophy not science.
Is psychology a science?
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
Legitimate practitioners of "HARD PHYSICAL SCIENCE" believe that the mental and the material are actually different substances???
I can get with dualism (i.e. consciousness is an emergent property), but I don't think any "legitimate practitioner" of science is a CARTESIAN dualist. This is what confused me.
telethon123 2 years ago
at least Descartes is not a "cartesian dualist" ?
andreasheinz 2 years ago
(i)
"Legitimate practitioners of "HARD PHYSICAL SCIENCE" believe that the mental and the material are actually different substances??? I can get with dualism (i.e. consciousness is an emergent property), but I don't think any "legitimate practitioner" of science is a CARTESIAN dualist."
That's the epistemic strictures of hard science as it stands. HARD SCIENCE is HARD SCIENCE. It's not something else.
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
(ii)
Its not a matter of what "Legitimate practitioners of 'HARD PHYSICAL SCIENCE' believe" but rather a matter of the methodological scope that the epistemology tolerates. That's why I qualified the phrase with "legitimate". If a purported "practitioner of science" ASSUMES that consciousness/mind is otherwise, then they are no longer legitimately practicing science.
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
(iii)
Dennett's theory of consciousness is a prime example. (Not that Dennett claims to be a scientist per se.)
By definition, I don't think that the fragmented, reductionist and atomistic metaphysic of science can ever entirely and holistically reflect reality as it is. Then again, as David Bohm made so elegantly clear, what epistemology (or theory thereof) can?
In any case, it is an inappropriate system of knowledge to investigate the intrapsychic phenomenon (phenomena?) of addiction.
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
"In any case, it is an inappropriate system of knowledge to investigate the intrapsychic phenomenon (phenomena?) of addiction."
Philosophers and psychologists (i.e. practitioners of soft science) have done very little (arguably nothing) to clear out mental institutions. Chemists, however, have done plenty.
telethon123 2 years ago
Comment removed
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
Comment removed
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
[i]
"Philosophers and psychologists (i.e. practitioners of soft science) have done very little (arguably nothing) to clear out mental institutions. Chemists, however, have done plenty."
Were we discussing addiction/alcoholism or clinical mental illness?
Also, I don't quite follow how that line of reasoning follows on from that (my) statement. Once again we are into a different category - practice rather than EPISTEMOLOGY.
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
[ii]
We were discussing whether or not science is "an [in]appropriate system of knowledge to INVESTIGATE the intrapsychic phenomenon of addiction".
As I said, psychiatric pharmacology abounds with "trait corrective procedures", but does it actually "know" what mental "illness" actually is - aside from a lack of behavioural repertories in responding to ones social and cultural environment? This body of knowledge doesn't even "know" what consciousness, mind or cognition actually is...
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
[iii]
However, Ill run with the digression for a bit...
"Philosophers and psychologists (i.e. practitioners of soft science) have done very little (arguably nothing) to clear out mental institutions."
Are you quite sure about that? One thing that is absolutely clear in the field of clinical treatment for mental illness is that psychiatric medication regimens are extremely ineffective without concomitant psychosocial treatment as well (Bola et al 2008; Vedantam 2005; Paul & Lentz 1977).
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
[iv]
Furthermore, the body of research (Fischer & Ahern 1998; Sartorius 2008; and many, many more) OVERWHELMINGLY demonstrates that despite our magnificent western psychiatric technologies, the societies/cultures that have the greatest success (by far) in full recovery from mental catastrophe are those in the Third World.
(Because of intimate community support. That is, "treatment" via psychosocial support rather than psychiatric medication. If only we could emulate that in the West...)
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
[v]
Thus...
"psychologists (i.e. practitioners of soft science) have done very little (arguably nothing) to clear out mental institutions. Chemists, however, have done plenty."
- is what we call in Australia "a bit of a furphy" (untruth).
(BTW - on the subject of "clearing out" - I have only noticed that the mental institutions in the West have been filling up and overflowing into jails, drug rehabs and out into the street over the past few decades.)
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
[vi]
Anyway, getting back on track, as far as the body of knowledge and practice on alcoholism and addiction goes, what has the scientific paradigm achieved in the last 225 years?
Naltrexone, Campral, Antabuse?
That's it?
Still no attention to the psychic dimension of the problem...
After 225 years of intensive scrutiny by the epistemology par excellence?
This is what I mean about the inadequacy of this mode of investigation...
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
Comment removed
andreasheinz 2 years ago
Comment removed
andreasheinz 2 years ago
Had to chuckle Hammersley. I remember telling you this (part vi ) 2 years ago(?)
At that time you took great exception.
quickcap 2 years ago
That's a fair call...
The wheel turns...
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
Have the practical implications of your assertion ("...it is an inappropriate system of knowledge to investigate... intrapsychic phenomenon ...") given you pause?
telethon123 2 years ago
[a]
"Have the practical implications of your assertion ("...it is an inappropriate system of knowledge to investigate... intrapsychic phenomenon ...") given you pause?"
You mean that we will have to abandon all empirical investigation and revert back to disease mythology and subservience to baseless group-think folk lore?
If that is the only alternative, then were done like dinners.
It doesnt bear thinking about...
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
[b]
However, I would hope that there would be a qualitative, yet introspective and rational "middle way" that investigates the subjective intrapsychic/emotional experience of alcoholism/addiction and see if we can arrive at some universal "truths" that way.
I think, that the reflective, meditative methods employed by both eastern (e.g. Siddhartha) and Western (e.g. Hume and even Descartes) philosophers would seem to be the rational alternative.
Practicability? I havent got a clue...
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
My point was that if we as a society agreed with you (science is the inappropriate system of knowledge to investigate intrapsychic phenomenon) then we wouldn't have made any progress in the field of mental health. But we have made great strides through hard science - not philosophy.
Isn't addiction a mental health problem?
telethon123 2 years ago
"Isn't addiction a mental health problem?"
No...
Well at least it hasn't been socially defined or dealt with as such.
That's why we have rehabs (initially they were alcoholic sanatoriums).
The implication is that the problem isn't one of mental illness nor criminality - but rather something else altogether...
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
1.
"Well at least it hasn't been socially defined or dealt with as such."
We're not talking about how addiction has been socially defined or dealt with - we both agree that it has been defined and dealt with incorrectly. That's what we're discussing, no?
I agree that contemplation (i.e. meditative methods) are the best "answer" we have - indeed, it's what worked for me - but we were discussing epistemology.
telethon123 2 years ago
2.
My point is that if science is inappropriate to investigate addiction because addiction is a subjective experience, then it shouldn't be used to investigate ANY subjective phenomena. In practice that would leave us without any of the psychiatric drugs that have emptied out mental institutions in the last century.
I worked for several years in a mental hospital. DRUGS (i.e. hard science) are what allowed people to live normally. Not soft science.
telethon123 2 years ago
(I)
"DRUGS (i.e. hard science) are what allowed people to live normally. Not soft science."
And yet those DRUGS are invariably superseded by "newer" and "better" DRUGS.
The antiquated pharmacotherapeutic technology is usually regarded as brutal, draconian and dangerous.
The new "cutting edge" medications are then seen as "the way of the future".
Whatever happened to tricyclic antidepressants and barbiturates?
Replaced by SSRI's and benzos.
Benzo's are now regarded as seriously addictive.
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
(II)
SSRI's? The list of adverse side effects is impressive to say the least:
Anhedonia, apathy, somnolence, urinary retention, loss/increase in appetite, skeletal fragility, sexual dysfunction, anxiety disorder, autonomic dysfunction (including orthostatic hypotension and reduced sweating), akathisia, liver or renal impairment, photosensitivity...
"Live normally"?
Perhaps not...
BTW: It does seem that we have digressed from EPISTEMIC concerns into pharmacotherapeutic PRACTICE yet again.
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
"we were discussing epistemology"
Yes...
"We're not talking about how addiction has been socially defined or dealt with"
Social definition of anything (ie construction of knowledge and the means and justification for that constructive process and product thereof) IS epistemology...
That is, "theory of knowledge" - regardless of what the object of knowledge is...
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
Or should I say that "social definition" is an epistemic artifact or product...
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
Comment removed
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(I)
"But we have made great strides through hard science - not philosophy."
Are you seriously contending that the often catastrophically harmful consequences of physiological psychiatric interventions (such as electroshock therapy, frontal lobotomies, and the over-administration of brain damaging drugs such as barbiturates and dexamphetamines) without ANY clear articulation of the mental anomalies in question, is where the "great strides" have been made in the field of mental "health"?
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
(II)
And that the psychoanalytic work of Freud, Jung, Rodgers, Kohut, etc, etc, etc that have harmlessly, yet brilliantly, articulated working models for these intrapsychic disturbances (so that they could be treated pharmacologically and/or psychosocially) are nothing?
Unfortunately, medication is the norm in psychiatric institutions. They keep filling up and overflowing. Is it working?
"progress in the field of mental health"?
I beg to differ...
Hammersley1967 2 years ago
andreasheinz 2 years ago
yawn.....
godlessweasel 2 years ago