Ray A.'s Blog, page 3
December 22, 2018
Character Defects: Greed
One night back in 1984 I was sitting at a Greek diner listening to my sponsor talk with Arnie, who apparently had relapsed again. Being sober only a few months, I didn’t quite understand the tenor of their conversation. But something Arnie did stuck in my mind. He took out a pack of cigarettes and, with a grin on his face, pointed to the brand: MORE. It was as if that name somehow explained everything.
Many years later I realized what he’d meant. Alcoholism is a disease of more: more booze, more sex, more money, more adventure, more everything. It is insatiable. That’s why he couldn’t stop.
The 12&12 quote below nicely sums up the syndrome. “We eat, drink, and grab for more of everything than we need, fearing we shall never have enough" (Step 4, p. 49). Many of us would probably identify with that. Few would readily relate it to greed, however. Greed is so endemic in the culture that it largely passes unnoticed. Certainly in ourselves. Indeed, greed elicits more self-righteousness cum self-deception than most other defects of character. It’s always “them,” never me.
An alcoholic taking inventory of himself may readily admit to having been a thief, but not attribute his thievery to greediness. Another may admit to working two jobs or putting in 60 or 80-hour weeks to the detriment of her family and her health, but deny it had anything to do with being greedy. Still another may acknowledge having maxed his multiple credit cards amassing all sorts of things and been forced to declare bankruptcy, but greed? Nah.
Our inability to recognize greed in ourselves increases instead of decreasing after we’ve been in the program for a while. That happens with most character defects. That’s because the ways in which they manifest themselves are less extreme and therefore less obvious. We don’t steal anymore. But we just can’t wait to get the latest version of gadget X, or upgrade to Y or Z. We remain as acquisitive as ever.
If we find it hard to detect greed in us, we’ll probably find it harder to detect avarice. The term sounds so old-fashioned that we can’t see how it could possibly apply to us. The two words have become largely synonymous, but whereas greed is primarily about having “more,” avarice is primarily about what is “mine.” The two of course are related. I get more so that there’s more for me to call mine. One grabs, the other hoards.
“Another may develop such an obsession for financial security that he wants to do nothing but hoard money,” declares the 12&12 (Step 4, p.43) as it seeks to explain how our natural desires can become distorted. There’s nothing wrong with money; nothing wrong with wanting to be financially secure or to possess the material goods which make for a comfortable life. These are all good things.
But that’s just it. Like other defects of character, greed is not just a bad thing, it is a good thing gone bad. The defect lies in excess. Avarice or greediness is an immoderate or inordinate attachment to money, wealth, and possessions. These things have become too important to us. We care too much about them. (We can see this in the etymology of avarice (Latin avere, crave), the root of which is present in our word “avid,” meaning eager, keen, ardent, fervent). As a result, they drive our actions and make for defective emotions. . . .
[Image: Bill W. in unusual photo taken during visit to Knoxville, Tennessee.]
Above is excerpt from 11/30/18 at http://PracticeThesePrinciplesTheBook...
in “Character Defects.” For full text and accompanying image, as well as quotes and additional resources, please click on link.
Many years later I realized what he’d meant. Alcoholism is a disease of more: more booze, more sex, more money, more adventure, more everything. It is insatiable. That’s why he couldn’t stop.
The 12&12 quote below nicely sums up the syndrome. “We eat, drink, and grab for more of everything than we need, fearing we shall never have enough" (Step 4, p. 49). Many of us would probably identify with that. Few would readily relate it to greed, however. Greed is so endemic in the culture that it largely passes unnoticed. Certainly in ourselves. Indeed, greed elicits more self-righteousness cum self-deception than most other defects of character. It’s always “them,” never me.
An alcoholic taking inventory of himself may readily admit to having been a thief, but not attribute his thievery to greediness. Another may admit to working two jobs or putting in 60 or 80-hour weeks to the detriment of her family and her health, but deny it had anything to do with being greedy. Still another may acknowledge having maxed his multiple credit cards amassing all sorts of things and been forced to declare bankruptcy, but greed? Nah.
Our inability to recognize greed in ourselves increases instead of decreasing after we’ve been in the program for a while. That happens with most character defects. That’s because the ways in which they manifest themselves are less extreme and therefore less obvious. We don’t steal anymore. But we just can’t wait to get the latest version of gadget X, or upgrade to Y or Z. We remain as acquisitive as ever.
If we find it hard to detect greed in us, we’ll probably find it harder to detect avarice. The term sounds so old-fashioned that we can’t see how it could possibly apply to us. The two words have become largely synonymous, but whereas greed is primarily about having “more,” avarice is primarily about what is “mine.” The two of course are related. I get more so that there’s more for me to call mine. One grabs, the other hoards.
“Another may develop such an obsession for financial security that he wants to do nothing but hoard money,” declares the 12&12 (Step 4, p.43) as it seeks to explain how our natural desires can become distorted. There’s nothing wrong with money; nothing wrong with wanting to be financially secure or to possess the material goods which make for a comfortable life. These are all good things.
But that’s just it. Like other defects of character, greed is not just a bad thing, it is a good thing gone bad. The defect lies in excess. Avarice or greediness is an immoderate or inordinate attachment to money, wealth, and possessions. These things have become too important to us. We care too much about them. (We can see this in the etymology of avarice (Latin avere, crave), the root of which is present in our word “avid,” meaning eager, keen, ardent, fervent). As a result, they drive our actions and make for defective emotions. . . .
[Image: Bill W. in unusual photo taken during visit to Knoxville, Tennessee.]
Above is excerpt from 11/30/18 at http://PracticeThesePrinciplesTheBook...
in “Character Defects.” For full text and accompanying image, as well as quotes and additional resources, please click on link.
October 23, 2018
Powerless Over Alcohol: An Objection and a Response
The reader’s objection and the response below concern “Back to Vice & Sin,” Ray’s review of Addiction and Virtue: Beyond the Models of Disease and Choice, by Kent Dunnington, posted in Amazon, Goodreads, and “Ray’s Book Reviews” at the PTP website.
Comments from Henry Clayton
[Printed verbatim]:
You say 'This conception of powerlessness is the basis of the AA claim that “once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic,” a claim Dunnington downgrades to a “slogan.” Far from being a slogan, that statement is central to the AA understanding of what an alcoholic is'. So what happens to the whole edifice of AA once that foundational tenet is empirically demonstrated to be false? 'Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic' is true in the *minority* of cases. Most alcohol addicts, like most drug addicts, kick their addiction permanently, with or without treatment, & those who do it without 12-step do it with greater success. The one thing 12-step can 'boast' of is higher rates of absolute abstinence, which perhaps, coupled with the AA doctrine of powerlessness & permanent threefold disease, helps to account for the significantly higher relapse rate for recovered addicts who've recovered through AA or its offshoots. If you truly take to heart those ideas, then perhaps, precisely because of having taken them to heart, '[you] cannot drink again, ever. If [you] do, [you] revert to drinking alcoholically; [you] will not be able to take it or leave it as other people do'. This is just factually untrue of most alcoholics. And so AA promotes an understanding of human nature which is false & pernicious.
As for the anecdotes beloved of addiction recovery addicts, I have a few of my own, drawn from within my own family. My brother was so addicted to marijuana that when he & I took our families to Disneyland, he 'had to' go off into a bush or behind a ride to fire up literally every fifteen minutes. I recall standing in line to the Matterhorn & he openly fired up while standing line multiple times, until somebody went to get a Disneyland staff to report him. He was totally oblivious, I alerted him however & he avoided discovery. But, Disneyland, for Christ's sake! Fast forward several years. He's making a drug deal & somebody throws acid in his eyes. He's blind for months. He says to himself 'What am I doing? This is stupid.' He quits cold turkey. Fast forward several more years. Despite being around heavy users constantly, including two other brothers who run a medical marijuana grow house, he doesn't relapse. He's done with it. My brother has no special endowment of willpower, nor is he a moral saint (though he is a tremendously good person). AA's crippling message of powerlessness would have blinded him far more than the acid in the eyes did.
Ray’s Response:
Thank you for your comments, Henry. You object to AA’s understanding of an alcoholic as one who is powerless over alcohol. As the paragraph from which you quote explains, central to this understanding is the idea that “once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic,” meaning that “Once the disease progresses to the point where I become alcoholic, I do not stop being alcoholic; that is, I do not regain control. What that means in concrete and practical terms is simple: I cannot drink again, ever. If I do, I revert to drinking alcoholically; I will not be able to take it or leave it as other people do.” You characterize this as a “crippling message” which “promotes an understanding of human nature which is false & pernicious.”
According to you, the AA concept of powerlessness has been “empirically demonstrated to be false,” since “once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic” implies complete abstention and this is only “true in the minority of cases,” because “Most alcohol addicts, like most drug addicts, kick their addiction permanently, with or without treatment.” To support these claims, you cite your brother’s experience with marijuana. You also provide a link to an article1 about a study2 which presumably contains the empirical rebuttal of AA.
Like many arguments, yours arises from a confusion of terms. It rests on the ambiguity of the term “alcoholic” and its conflation with other, equally ambiguous terms, leading to a rather elastic interpretation of them. The AA concept of powerlessness over alcohol is narrow in its application. It refers only to a certain kind of drinker. The paragraph from which you quote makes this clear:
“There are of course many understandings of
what an alcoholic is, but in AA, an alcoholic by
definition a person who has no control over
alcohol and therefore cannot drink normally or
safely like other people.”
When AA (by which I mean the books Alcoholics Anonymous and The Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, which contain the AA program), talks about alcoholics, it is talking only about that kind of alcoholic. It is not talking about any other kind of drinker who others may call “alcoholic,” or ”alcohol dependent,” or “substance abuser,” or “addict,” or anything else. . .
For remainder of this post, please see “Ray’s Book Reviews” at http://PracticeThesePrinciplesTheBook...
Comments from Henry Clayton
[Printed verbatim]:
You say 'This conception of powerlessness is the basis of the AA claim that “once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic,” a claim Dunnington downgrades to a “slogan.” Far from being a slogan, that statement is central to the AA understanding of what an alcoholic is'. So what happens to the whole edifice of AA once that foundational tenet is empirically demonstrated to be false? 'Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic' is true in the *minority* of cases. Most alcohol addicts, like most drug addicts, kick their addiction permanently, with or without treatment, & those who do it without 12-step do it with greater success. The one thing 12-step can 'boast' of is higher rates of absolute abstinence, which perhaps, coupled with the AA doctrine of powerlessness & permanent threefold disease, helps to account for the significantly higher relapse rate for recovered addicts who've recovered through AA or its offshoots. If you truly take to heart those ideas, then perhaps, precisely because of having taken them to heart, '[you] cannot drink again, ever. If [you] do, [you] revert to drinking alcoholically; [you] will not be able to take it or leave it as other people do'. This is just factually untrue of most alcoholics. And so AA promotes an understanding of human nature which is false & pernicious.
As for the anecdotes beloved of addiction recovery addicts, I have a few of my own, drawn from within my own family. My brother was so addicted to marijuana that when he & I took our families to Disneyland, he 'had to' go off into a bush or behind a ride to fire up literally every fifteen minutes. I recall standing in line to the Matterhorn & he openly fired up while standing line multiple times, until somebody went to get a Disneyland staff to report him. He was totally oblivious, I alerted him however & he avoided discovery. But, Disneyland, for Christ's sake! Fast forward several years. He's making a drug deal & somebody throws acid in his eyes. He's blind for months. He says to himself 'What am I doing? This is stupid.' He quits cold turkey. Fast forward several more years. Despite being around heavy users constantly, including two other brothers who run a medical marijuana grow house, he doesn't relapse. He's done with it. My brother has no special endowment of willpower, nor is he a moral saint (though he is a tremendously good person). AA's crippling message of powerlessness would have blinded him far more than the acid in the eyes did.
Ray’s Response:
Thank you for your comments, Henry. You object to AA’s understanding of an alcoholic as one who is powerless over alcohol. As the paragraph from which you quote explains, central to this understanding is the idea that “once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic,” meaning that “Once the disease progresses to the point where I become alcoholic, I do not stop being alcoholic; that is, I do not regain control. What that means in concrete and practical terms is simple: I cannot drink again, ever. If I do, I revert to drinking alcoholically; I will not be able to take it or leave it as other people do.” You characterize this as a “crippling message” which “promotes an understanding of human nature which is false & pernicious.”
According to you, the AA concept of powerlessness has been “empirically demonstrated to be false,” since “once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic” implies complete abstention and this is only “true in the minority of cases,” because “Most alcohol addicts, like most drug addicts, kick their addiction permanently, with or without treatment.” To support these claims, you cite your brother’s experience with marijuana. You also provide a link to an article1 about a study2 which presumably contains the empirical rebuttal of AA.
Like many arguments, yours arises from a confusion of terms. It rests on the ambiguity of the term “alcoholic” and its conflation with other, equally ambiguous terms, leading to a rather elastic interpretation of them. The AA concept of powerlessness over alcohol is narrow in its application. It refers only to a certain kind of drinker. The paragraph from which you quote makes this clear:
“There are of course many understandings of
what an alcoholic is, but in AA, an alcoholic by
definition a person who has no control over
alcohol and therefore cannot drink normally or
safely like other people.”
When AA (by which I mean the books Alcoholics Anonymous and The Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, which contain the AA program), talks about alcoholics, it is talking only about that kind of alcoholic. It is not talking about any other kind of drinker who others may call “alcoholic,” or ”alcohol dependent,” or “substance abuser,” or “addict,” or anything else. . .
For remainder of this post, please see “Ray’s Book Reviews” at http://PracticeThesePrinciplesTheBook...
September 12, 2018
The Discipline of Restitution
Restitution is the traditional name for the principle known as amends in AA. It is a spiritual discipline we practice through Steps 8, 9, and 10.
“Amends” appears 22 times in the Big Book and the 12&12, and “restitution” 5 times. Both texts also employ related terms like “correct,” “mend,” “repair,” and “reparation,” as well as expressions like “to set right” and “to straighten out.” To these, we can add such synonyms as amend, rectify, redress, remedy, and reform.
The concept of making amends adheres in the Latin root of the term, which means “fault.” In making amends we are acknowledging and admitting that we are at fault, that we have done wrong and caused harm as a result of our flaws, shortcomings, or defects.
Our first objective in doing this, the Big Book explains, is to mend or repair that harm: “Now we go out to our fellows and repair the damage done in the past (S9, p.76).” This is echoed by the 12&12, which explains that, after looking back and discovering where we’ve been at fault, “we make a vigorous attempt to repair the damage (S8, p.77).”
The repairing involves helping the person to heal from the damage we inflicted, fostering reconciliation, and restoring relationships. These goals are affirmed in the 12&12, where we read that “[T]he readiness to take the full consequences of our past acts, and to take responsibility for the well-being of others at the same time, is the very spirit of Step Nine” (S9, p.87, our emphasis).
Our second objective is to mend our ways, to reform ourselves, to heal from the damage in us. Making amends, suggests the Big Book (p.79), is part of our spiritual awakening. It is part of the process of undergoing a transforming spiritual experience that radically changes our character and emotional makeup. If we don’t change, we’ll continue to do harm. . . .
Excerpt from 07/29/18 post in “Practice These,” at http://PracticeThesePrinciplesTheBook...
For full post, including related quotes, references and resources, please click on link.
“Amends” appears 22 times in the Big Book and the 12&12, and “restitution” 5 times. Both texts also employ related terms like “correct,” “mend,” “repair,” and “reparation,” as well as expressions like “to set right” and “to straighten out.” To these, we can add such synonyms as amend, rectify, redress, remedy, and reform.
The concept of making amends adheres in the Latin root of the term, which means “fault.” In making amends we are acknowledging and admitting that we are at fault, that we have done wrong and caused harm as a result of our flaws, shortcomings, or defects.
Our first objective in doing this, the Big Book explains, is to mend or repair that harm: “Now we go out to our fellows and repair the damage done in the past (S9, p.76).” This is echoed by the 12&12, which explains that, after looking back and discovering where we’ve been at fault, “we make a vigorous attempt to repair the damage (S8, p.77).”
The repairing involves helping the person to heal from the damage we inflicted, fostering reconciliation, and restoring relationships. These goals are affirmed in the 12&12, where we read that “[T]he readiness to take the full consequences of our past acts, and to take responsibility for the well-being of others at the same time, is the very spirit of Step Nine” (S9, p.87, our emphasis).
Our second objective is to mend our ways, to reform ourselves, to heal from the damage in us. Making amends, suggests the Big Book (p.79), is part of our spiritual awakening. It is part of the process of undergoing a transforming spiritual experience that radically changes our character and emotional makeup. If we don’t change, we’ll continue to do harm. . . .
Excerpt from 07/29/18 post in “Practice These,” at http://PracticeThesePrinciplesTheBook...
For full post, including related quotes, references and resources, please click on link.
July 30, 2018
Spiritual Disciplines
Spiritual disciplines are the second set of basic principles, in addition to the virtues, which make up the 12 Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous. Like “virtue,” the term “discipline” is not an important part of the AA lexicon. The word appears only eight times in our two texts: three in the Big Book and 5 in the 12&12. Moreover, its use conveys different, if related, meanings.
One of these meanings is discipline (without the indefinite article "a") in the sense of self-control or self-imposed order. We find this in three sentences. First: “Then he fell victim to a belief which practically every alcoholic has—that his long period of sobriety and self-discipline had qualified him to drink as other men” (BB p.32). Second: “What often takes place in a few months [as a result of a spiritual awakening or experience] could seldom have been accomplished by years of self-discipline” (BB p.567). And third: “These are the sort of fundamental inquiries that can disclose the source of my discomfort and indicate whether I may be able to alter my own conduct and so adjust myself serenely to self-discipline” (12&12, Step 4, p.52).
Another meaning of discipline is adherence to an externally imposed order or forced submission to rules and authority, as in the following two questions in the 12&12: “Would they be able to take discipline, stand up under fire, and endure the monotony and misery of war?” (Step 3, p.38), and “Did anyone ever hear of a society which couldn't somehow discipline its members and enforce obedience to necessary rules and regulations? (Tradition 9, p.172).
Still another meaning is that of discipline as correction, in the sense of putting us back on the right course or inducing us to follow “good orderly direction,” as suggested in this Big Book entry: “We alcoholics are undisciplined. So we let God discipline us in the simple way we have just outlined” (p. 88). Though this is not what this particular text intends, correction, of course, can take the form of punishment, as when a parent “disciplines” a child.
The original meaning of discipline can be traced to the Latin root of the word, discere, “to learn,” as found in discipulus, “student,” from which we get “disciple,” denoting one who follows or adheres to the teachings of a master or authority. From this derives the idea of a discipline, that is, a field of knowledge or instruction, such as economics, history, or physics.
It is in this sense of a discipline or a set of disciplines that the term is relevant to recovery. The basic idea is conveyed by this lexical entry: “Training expected to produce a specific character or pattern of behavior, especially training that produces moral or mental improvement” (American Heritage Dictionary). The notion of training is inherent the AA ideas of program, steps, and principles. Working the Steps and practicing their principles constitutes in effect a training program, one that is designed to help us change as people, to build character and to grow spiritually, morally, and emotionally. . . .
Excerpt from 06/02/18 post in “Practice These,” at http://PracticeThesePrinciplesTheBook...
For full post, including related quotes, references and resources, please click on link.
One of these meanings is discipline (without the indefinite article "a") in the sense of self-control or self-imposed order. We find this in three sentences. First: “Then he fell victim to a belief which practically every alcoholic has—that his long period of sobriety and self-discipline had qualified him to drink as other men” (BB p.32). Second: “What often takes place in a few months [as a result of a spiritual awakening or experience] could seldom have been accomplished by years of self-discipline” (BB p.567). And third: “These are the sort of fundamental inquiries that can disclose the source of my discomfort and indicate whether I may be able to alter my own conduct and so adjust myself serenely to self-discipline” (12&12, Step 4, p.52).
Another meaning of discipline is adherence to an externally imposed order or forced submission to rules and authority, as in the following two questions in the 12&12: “Would they be able to take discipline, stand up under fire, and endure the monotony and misery of war?” (Step 3, p.38), and “Did anyone ever hear of a society which couldn't somehow discipline its members and enforce obedience to necessary rules and regulations? (Tradition 9, p.172).
Still another meaning is that of discipline as correction, in the sense of putting us back on the right course or inducing us to follow “good orderly direction,” as suggested in this Big Book entry: “We alcoholics are undisciplined. So we let God discipline us in the simple way we have just outlined” (p. 88). Though this is not what this particular text intends, correction, of course, can take the form of punishment, as when a parent “disciplines” a child.
The original meaning of discipline can be traced to the Latin root of the word, discere, “to learn,” as found in discipulus, “student,” from which we get “disciple,” denoting one who follows or adheres to the teachings of a master or authority. From this derives the idea of a discipline, that is, a field of knowledge or instruction, such as economics, history, or physics.
It is in this sense of a discipline or a set of disciplines that the term is relevant to recovery. The basic idea is conveyed by this lexical entry: “Training expected to produce a specific character or pattern of behavior, especially training that produces moral or mental improvement” (American Heritage Dictionary). The notion of training is inherent the AA ideas of program, steps, and principles. Working the Steps and practicing their principles constitutes in effect a training program, one that is designed to help us change as people, to build character and to grow spiritually, morally, and emotionally. . . .
Excerpt from 06/02/18 post in “Practice These,” at http://PracticeThesePrinciplesTheBook...
For full post, including related quotes, references and resources, please click on link.
May 13, 2018
Can I Put You on Hold?
A few days ago I called my dentist’s office to confirm an appointment. Can I put you on hold? inquired the receptionist. Sure, I replied. On goes the elevator music. I waited. And waited. And waited.
Normally, I don’t make calls before or after I sit down to write. In fact, I avoid all contact with the outside world, lest I get distracted or sidetracked altogether. I wait till my workday is over. First things first.
But it was well into April and I hadn’t received the usual call asking me to confirm the appointment customarily scheduled at the conclusion of the last visit. Besides, I had never encountered a problem when calling the office before. So I took a chance and broke my regular discipline. Not surprisingly, it was a mistake. After about ten minutes, I hung up and went on with my work.
A couple of hours later, I called again, thinking they might not be as busy. Same voice. Same question. Ok, I said. Same mindless music. I suspected I was in for a repeat performance. I’ll give her 12 minutes, I thought. This time, however, I didn’t wait with my cell to my ear. Instead, I put it on speaker phone and continued to work.
Just about the time the 12 minutes were up, the receptionist came back on the line. She offered no apology for the unusually long wait. Nor did I try to elicit one. It turns out I didn’t have an appointment. She scheduled one, I thanked her, and that was that. Back to work.
Reflecting on the experience later, I tried to understand what had happened. I took inventory. Now, the idea of continuing to take inventory in Step 10 is generally thought to apply to situations where we don’t handle things well. And that is correct. In such situations, we want to examine where we’ve gone wrong so that we can improve and do better next time, and so that we can make amends where appropriate.
But the larger principle involved is that we need to continue to monitor ourselves and learn from our experience so that we can continue to grow. This is typically done with negative experiences, but it can also be done with positive ones. I can be done with those we don’t do well in, and with those we do. Some of us make it a habit to take stock in both. We find out what doesn’t work and try to stop doing it; we find what works and try to do more of that.
Poor service is a fact of life. So is having to wait. Being put on hold for an unreasonable length of time is not pleasant. When it happens twice in a row it can be trying. When waiting or any sort of delay threatens to interfere with our work or something else we may consider important, it can be very trying. We can get impatient, frustrated, angry. A little thing can become a big thing. For some of us, that’s how it was when we drank. Patience was not one of our strong points.
It probably isn’t with most people. That’s why when we’re put on hold we’ll often get a canned message like: “We apologize for the delay. We appreciate your patience. The next available representative will answer your call as soon as possible. Thank you for waiting.”
The first line of defense against impatience (and its emotional corollaries) is to exercise some prudence and avoid exposing ourselves to situations that might arouse it. That’s why I don’t make calls when I’m working. Misled by an unfounded sense of urgency, I made an exception. I was wrong.
But something interesting happened. The experience didn’t bother me in the least. That may be unremarkable for normal people. It isn’t for this alcoholic. Moreover, except for the time I wasted on the first call, it didn’t interfere with my work at all. I was able to pick up the thread of my thought and continue writing.
How come? What was different from previous such experiences? Looking back, I realized I had completely accepted the situation. I had seen it for what it was. One of those things. Par for the course. What surprised me, however, was that I had been able to do it twice. Normally, the burden of time involved in waiting weighs more heavily the second time around. Repeat offenses shorten one’s fuse. It makes acceptance harder.
That’s where the speaker phone comes in. For all I know, everyone uses that feature of their cell when they’re put on hold. They probably don’t do it out of any philosophical understanding or to practice any principle. They just want to go on doing whatever it is they’re doing. And that’s precisely what I wanted to do. I wanted to go on writing. So I did something I had never done before. I used the speaker phone.
And it worked. The second wait seemed shorter than the first. I was almost unaware of it. By taking my attention away from the fact of waiting, the speaker phone had effectively reduced the sense of waiting. While I was in fact waiting objectively speaking, I wasn’t waiting psychologically. There was no mental involvement. Hence the absence of a disruptive effect, materially or emotionally. I didn’t get impatient. I was able to maintain my serenity and remain productive. I was able to wait well, with equanimity and detachment.
By accident, I had come upon another tool to help me practice patience. Thus the benefit of continuing to take personal inventory, with regards to negative as well as to positive situations, in matters big and small. It can help us find ways to “practice these principles.”
For more on PTP's view of emotions as regards the practice of patience, see “The Virtue of Patience,” in “Practice These,” following which a link is given to “In All Our Affairs: Practicing Patience.” For another reflection on emotion and perception, see “One Pedal at a Time,” in Reflections.
Posted 04/26/18 in “Reflections in Recovery” at http://PracticeThesePrinciplesTheBook.... For full text, please click on the link.
Normally, I don’t make calls before or after I sit down to write. In fact, I avoid all contact with the outside world, lest I get distracted or sidetracked altogether. I wait till my workday is over. First things first.
But it was well into April and I hadn’t received the usual call asking me to confirm the appointment customarily scheduled at the conclusion of the last visit. Besides, I had never encountered a problem when calling the office before. So I took a chance and broke my regular discipline. Not surprisingly, it was a mistake. After about ten minutes, I hung up and went on with my work.
A couple of hours later, I called again, thinking they might not be as busy. Same voice. Same question. Ok, I said. Same mindless music. I suspected I was in for a repeat performance. I’ll give her 12 minutes, I thought. This time, however, I didn’t wait with my cell to my ear. Instead, I put it on speaker phone and continued to work.
Just about the time the 12 minutes were up, the receptionist came back on the line. She offered no apology for the unusually long wait. Nor did I try to elicit one. It turns out I didn’t have an appointment. She scheduled one, I thanked her, and that was that. Back to work.
Reflecting on the experience later, I tried to understand what had happened. I took inventory. Now, the idea of continuing to take inventory in Step 10 is generally thought to apply to situations where we don’t handle things well. And that is correct. In such situations, we want to examine where we’ve gone wrong so that we can improve and do better next time, and so that we can make amends where appropriate.
But the larger principle involved is that we need to continue to monitor ourselves and learn from our experience so that we can continue to grow. This is typically done with negative experiences, but it can also be done with positive ones. I can be done with those we don’t do well in, and with those we do. Some of us make it a habit to take stock in both. We find out what doesn’t work and try to stop doing it; we find what works and try to do more of that.
Poor service is a fact of life. So is having to wait. Being put on hold for an unreasonable length of time is not pleasant. When it happens twice in a row it can be trying. When waiting or any sort of delay threatens to interfere with our work or something else we may consider important, it can be very trying. We can get impatient, frustrated, angry. A little thing can become a big thing. For some of us, that’s how it was when we drank. Patience was not one of our strong points.
It probably isn’t with most people. That’s why when we’re put on hold we’ll often get a canned message like: “We apologize for the delay. We appreciate your patience. The next available representative will answer your call as soon as possible. Thank you for waiting.”
The first line of defense against impatience (and its emotional corollaries) is to exercise some prudence and avoid exposing ourselves to situations that might arouse it. That’s why I don’t make calls when I’m working. Misled by an unfounded sense of urgency, I made an exception. I was wrong.
But something interesting happened. The experience didn’t bother me in the least. That may be unremarkable for normal people. It isn’t for this alcoholic. Moreover, except for the time I wasted on the first call, it didn’t interfere with my work at all. I was able to pick up the thread of my thought and continue writing.
How come? What was different from previous such experiences? Looking back, I realized I had completely accepted the situation. I had seen it for what it was. One of those things. Par for the course. What surprised me, however, was that I had been able to do it twice. Normally, the burden of time involved in waiting weighs more heavily the second time around. Repeat offenses shorten one’s fuse. It makes acceptance harder.
That’s where the speaker phone comes in. For all I know, everyone uses that feature of their cell when they’re put on hold. They probably don’t do it out of any philosophical understanding or to practice any principle. They just want to go on doing whatever it is they’re doing. And that’s precisely what I wanted to do. I wanted to go on writing. So I did something I had never done before. I used the speaker phone.
And it worked. The second wait seemed shorter than the first. I was almost unaware of it. By taking my attention away from the fact of waiting, the speaker phone had effectively reduced the sense of waiting. While I was in fact waiting objectively speaking, I wasn’t waiting psychologically. There was no mental involvement. Hence the absence of a disruptive effect, materially or emotionally. I didn’t get impatient. I was able to maintain my serenity and remain productive. I was able to wait well, with equanimity and detachment.
By accident, I had come upon another tool to help me practice patience. Thus the benefit of continuing to take personal inventory, with regards to negative as well as to positive situations, in matters big and small. It can help us find ways to “practice these principles.”
For more on PTP's view of emotions as regards the practice of patience, see “The Virtue of Patience,” in “Practice These,” following which a link is given to “In All Our Affairs: Practicing Patience.” For another reflection on emotion and perception, see “One Pedal at a Time,” in Reflections.
Posted 04/26/18 in “Reflections in Recovery” at http://PracticeThesePrinciplesTheBook.... For full text, please click on the link.
April 1, 2018
Virtue: The Concept
The term “virtue” is not an important part of the vocabulary of AA. The word and its cognates appear in our two basic texts only twelve times: eleven in the 12&12 and once in the Big Book. As Bill Sees It employs it seven times. Only on two occasions is “virtue” coupled with specific instances of what the word traditionally designates, as in “prudence” and “humility,” quoted below.
Instead, the concept of virtue and particular instances of it are referenced in the Big Book and the 12&12 using a variety of other terms. These include assets, attributes, concepts, keynotes, practices, precepts, qualities, standards, strengths, tenets, themes, tools, traits, and values.
Obviously, these words are very general and can apply to a broad range of things which have nothing to do with recovery. This overgeneralization and imprecision, which is also shown in the use of the word “principles,” is one of the reasons why many of us might find it hard to get a handle on what “these principles” refers to in Step 12 and how we are to practice them.
How we arrived at identifying one set of those principles as virtues—and what this means for the way we work the Steps—is discussed at length in PTP. Here we are interested in summing up a number of basic points from that discussion and supplementing it with a variety of quotes reflecting what has been thought and said about the concept of virtue over the ages in different fields, traditions, and cultures. This will hopefully help us to improve our understanding and practice of the specific virtues in each of the Steps. . . .
Excerpt from 03/29/18 post in “Practice These” at http://PracticeThesePrinciplesTheBook.... For full text and related quotes, please click on link.
Instead, the concept of virtue and particular instances of it are referenced in the Big Book and the 12&12 using a variety of other terms. These include assets, attributes, concepts, keynotes, practices, precepts, qualities, standards, strengths, tenets, themes, tools, traits, and values.
Obviously, these words are very general and can apply to a broad range of things which have nothing to do with recovery. This overgeneralization and imprecision, which is also shown in the use of the word “principles,” is one of the reasons why many of us might find it hard to get a handle on what “these principles” refers to in Step 12 and how we are to practice them.
How we arrived at identifying one set of those principles as virtues—and what this means for the way we work the Steps—is discussed at length in PTP. Here we are interested in summing up a number of basic points from that discussion and supplementing it with a variety of quotes reflecting what has been thought and said about the concept of virtue over the ages in different fields, traditions, and cultures. This will hopefully help us to improve our understanding and practice of the specific virtues in each of the Steps. . . .
Excerpt from 03/29/18 post in “Practice These” at http://PracticeThesePrinciplesTheBook.... For full text and related quotes, please click on link.
March 11, 2018
AA and the Oxford Group
For the first 12 years of my sobriety I attended meetings in the Gramercy Park section of New York, near the headquarters of the Oxford Group at Calvary Episcopal Church and their 23rd Street mission, where Bill W. first got sober. AA meetings were still held in the adjacent church building, where Bill, Ebby T., Hank P., Fitz M. and other future AAs first met.
It was at one of those meetings that I first admitted my life had become unmanageable, after hearing a woman named Irene share about the unmanageability of her own life when she drank. Yet I had no idea of the history that surrounded me. Apparently, neither were apparently my fellow alcoholics. I never even heard the name Oxford Group mentioned.
That changed many years later when I moved to a rural area upstate. At Big Book meetings in particular, the subject of AA’s origins in the Group would sometimes come up. Invariably, this would arouse controversy. People either liked the Group, or intensely disliked it. The reasons were never clear. No one actually seemed to know much about the matter. Still, it was obvious that the divide had to do with religion.
That, as I eventually learned, had divided AAs from the very start. That’s why the Big Book insists ours is a spiritual, not a religious program. That’s also why it insists on open-mindedness as one of the key principles that will enable us to work it. Any alcoholic can recover, it asserts, “provided he does not close his mind to all spiritual principles.”
That assertion would seem to lay the need for open-mindedness more heavily on those who have a problem with the spiritual angle of the program than on those who don’t. And that is correct, for as the book emphasizes, the alcoholic “can only be defeated by an attitude of intolerance or belligerent denial” with regards to things spiritual.
Yet the Big Book doesn’t mean to suggest that close-mindedness is required only of the agnostic, the atheist, or the secularist in general. Believers too may need to practice this principle, and with regards to the same issue. Both groups tend to conflate spirituality and religion, only from different directions. One is disposed to reject things because of their association with religion while the other is disposed to accept them for exactly the same reason, particularly if it is their religion.
Something of this sort appears to be at work in the division evident in the rooms regarding the Oxford Group and its influence on AA. Some seem to oppose the Group simply because of its evangelical affiliation, while others seem to support it precisely because of that affiliation. In neither case does the conflict seem to have anything to do with the facts. Minds have been already made up, and closed.
Our two texts’ silence on the matter has not helped. Fearing to stoke the flames of controversy, Bill made a decision not to make any direct reference to the OG in the Big Book or the 12&12. Indeed, for a long time he sought to distance AA from the Group in the public eye. Nevertheless, Bill had always kept an open mid. When he finally acknowledged the Group’s contributions, he was even-handed and balanced. The Oxford Group, he said, had taught AA both what to do and what not to do.
Borrowing from the literature on the subject, we will try to summarize that these positive and negative lessons are, making available the basic information that can help us to come to a reasonable and fair-minded understanding of the issue. For those who may wish to explore the topic further, sources are footnoted. . . .
Excerpts from 02/28/18 post in “Reflections,” at http://PracticeThesePrinciplesTheBook...
For full post, including references and resources, please click on link.
It was at one of those meetings that I first admitted my life had become unmanageable, after hearing a woman named Irene share about the unmanageability of her own life when she drank. Yet I had no idea of the history that surrounded me. Apparently, neither were apparently my fellow alcoholics. I never even heard the name Oxford Group mentioned.
That changed many years later when I moved to a rural area upstate. At Big Book meetings in particular, the subject of AA’s origins in the Group would sometimes come up. Invariably, this would arouse controversy. People either liked the Group, or intensely disliked it. The reasons were never clear. No one actually seemed to know much about the matter. Still, it was obvious that the divide had to do with religion.
That, as I eventually learned, had divided AAs from the very start. That’s why the Big Book insists ours is a spiritual, not a religious program. That’s also why it insists on open-mindedness as one of the key principles that will enable us to work it. Any alcoholic can recover, it asserts, “provided he does not close his mind to all spiritual principles.”
That assertion would seem to lay the need for open-mindedness more heavily on those who have a problem with the spiritual angle of the program than on those who don’t. And that is correct, for as the book emphasizes, the alcoholic “can only be defeated by an attitude of intolerance or belligerent denial” with regards to things spiritual.
Yet the Big Book doesn’t mean to suggest that close-mindedness is required only of the agnostic, the atheist, or the secularist in general. Believers too may need to practice this principle, and with regards to the same issue. Both groups tend to conflate spirituality and religion, only from different directions. One is disposed to reject things because of their association with religion while the other is disposed to accept them for exactly the same reason, particularly if it is their religion.
Something of this sort appears to be at work in the division evident in the rooms regarding the Oxford Group and its influence on AA. Some seem to oppose the Group simply because of its evangelical affiliation, while others seem to support it precisely because of that affiliation. In neither case does the conflict seem to have anything to do with the facts. Minds have been already made up, and closed.
Our two texts’ silence on the matter has not helped. Fearing to stoke the flames of controversy, Bill made a decision not to make any direct reference to the OG in the Big Book or the 12&12. Indeed, for a long time he sought to distance AA from the Group in the public eye. Nevertheless, Bill had always kept an open mid. When he finally acknowledged the Group’s contributions, he was even-handed and balanced. The Oxford Group, he said, had taught AA both what to do and what not to do.
Borrowing from the literature on the subject, we will try to summarize that these positive and negative lessons are, making available the basic information that can help us to come to a reasonable and fair-minded understanding of the issue. For those who may wish to explore the topic further, sources are footnoted. . . .
Excerpts from 02/28/18 post in “Reflections,” at http://PracticeThesePrinciplesTheBook...
For full post, including references and resources, please click on link.
February 11, 2018
Character
In our introduction to “Character Defects” in the portal page of this section, we gave a summary of the understanding of character defects which PTP has drawn from the Big Book and the 12&12. We placed this understanding in its historical context, outlining the classical view of what constitutes character, how it goes bad and becomes defective, and how this relates to defective emotion and harmful action, concluding with the process of spiritual growth and character building—represented by the 12 Steps—by which we change, replacing our defects with the spiritual virtues which enable us to live as it is the will of a loving God for us to live, best exemplified perhaps by the St. Francis Prayer in Step 11 of the 12&12.
Here we supplement this summary with a selection of quotes, spanning over two millennia, which may add to our reflection on the subject. A review of these quotes will reveal a number of consistent themes. Character defines who we really are as people (King, Wooden); differs from personality (Maugham, Letterman); is the product of habit (Plutarch, Ovid, Covey), not of fate or circumstance (Democritus, Dyer); reflects as well as shapes our perceptions (Lewis, Emerson) and our hearts (Augustine); largely determines the course of our lives (Democritus, Beckwith); should consequently be our highest concern (Euripides, Socrates, Goethe, de Montaigne, Spurgeon); and can be transformed (Confucius, Dewey, Frank, Nin) gradually (Heraclitus) through a process of pain and effort (Seneca, Paul, Keller) which replaces its defects with their virtuous counterparts (courage and honesty for Roosevelt, perseverance for Michener and Vonnegut, self-control and forgiveness for Carnegie).
These are of course only quotes, and to get at the substance which, in the case of some of the great thinkers, may lie behind them, we would have to read their works. But even after we do we’ll find that no one even comes close to offering the kind of extensive, systematic, and practical program of action for the transformation of character that is available through the 12 Steps of AA. Nor is there a program of action that has been tested more or yielded better results, in ours an in other 12-Step fellowships. The program works in this very specific and all-important way of making better men and women of us who once were given up for—and thought ourselves—hopeless. We only need to work it.
Posted 01/30/18 at http://PracticeThesePrinciplesTheBook... in “Character Defects.” For related quotes, images, and postings on specific defects of character, please click on link.
Here we supplement this summary with a selection of quotes, spanning over two millennia, which may add to our reflection on the subject. A review of these quotes will reveal a number of consistent themes. Character defines who we really are as people (King, Wooden); differs from personality (Maugham, Letterman); is the product of habit (Plutarch, Ovid, Covey), not of fate or circumstance (Democritus, Dyer); reflects as well as shapes our perceptions (Lewis, Emerson) and our hearts (Augustine); largely determines the course of our lives (Democritus, Beckwith); should consequently be our highest concern (Euripides, Socrates, Goethe, de Montaigne, Spurgeon); and can be transformed (Confucius, Dewey, Frank, Nin) gradually (Heraclitus) through a process of pain and effort (Seneca, Paul, Keller) which replaces its defects with their virtuous counterparts (courage and honesty for Roosevelt, perseverance for Michener and Vonnegut, self-control and forgiveness for Carnegie).
These are of course only quotes, and to get at the substance which, in the case of some of the great thinkers, may lie behind them, we would have to read their works. But even after we do we’ll find that no one even comes close to offering the kind of extensive, systematic, and practical program of action for the transformation of character that is available through the 12 Steps of AA. Nor is there a program of action that has been tested more or yielded better results, in ours an in other 12-Step fellowships. The program works in this very specific and all-important way of making better men and women of us who once were given up for—and thought ourselves—hopeless. We only need to work it.
Posted 01/30/18 at http://PracticeThesePrinciplesTheBook... in “Character Defects.” For related quotes, images, and postings on specific defects of character, please click on link.
November 19, 2017
Character Defects
Character defects are described in the Big Book as “flaws in our make-up which caused our failure” and as manifestations of “self,” expressions of our spiritual disease of selfishness and self-centeredness. Reaffirming that they are “the primary cause of [our] drinking and [our] failure in life,” the 12&12 describes them further as “representing instincts gone astray,” and as being “based upon shortsighted and unworthy desires” connected with those distorted drives.
Character defects are the primary subject of our inventory and the activities connected with it in Steps 4 through 10. Unless we are “willing to work hard at the elimination of the worst of these defects,” the 12&12 continues, “both sobriety and peace of mind will still” elude us.
“Flaws in our make-up” is perhaps the simplest definition of character defects in the Big Book. “Flaws” and “make-up” reference the moral life. Our character is the sum total of moral traits, attributes, or qualities that make up our moral selves. They “characterize” us, governing the way we conduct ourselves and live out our lives.
These traits can be of two kinds. They can be positive, typical or “characteristic” of the best human qualities and thus conducive to wellbeing and flourishing; or they can be negative, representative of the worst human qualities and thus conducive to injury and failure.
Negative traits of character cause our failure by causing us to do wrong. They do this by distorting our perception of reality so that we come to value the wrong things in life, or to value the right things but in the wrong ways. This distortion in turn distorts our emotions, which are the drivers of wrong action.
Negative character traits are flaws or defects, or, as a tradition going back to ancient Greece calls them, vices. Positive traits, according to the same tradition, are virtues. Among the positive traits, AA highlights such virtues as acceptance, compassion, courage, faith, forgiveness, gratitude, honesty, hope, humility, kindness, love, patience, open-mindedness, serenity, simplicity, tolerance, willingness, and wisdom. Among the negative traits, it stresses such defects as dishonesty, envy, greed, intolerance, jealousy, lust, pride, resentment, self-centeredness, selfishness, self-pity, and sloth.
A defect is so called because it reflects a defective quality, one that is deficient or lacking in the attributes which make for a perfect trait, i.e., for a virtue. A defect is therefore the absence of that which is good, excellent, or perfect. A dishonest person is most obviously lacking in honesty. But the person can also be lacking in courage, for instance, for telling the truth sometimes calls for that virtue. An envious or a greedy person may be lacking in gratitude, the virtue which helps us to appreciate and be content with what we have, rather than wanting more or desiring what others have.
Both types of character traits are acquired. We are born with built-in capacities to develop them, but we are not born with them. We develop and acquire them in the process of living our lives. It is in his process that they become specifically “character” traits, rather than some other type of trait. They “characterize” us because they have become engraved in us as “characters,” literally marks that have been inscribed or engraved in the self and which govern the way we see, the things we care about, our feelings, and our consequent actions.
Having become ingrained in us through experience, character traits are in the nature of moral habits. The marks are like encoded instructions to repeat behavior X in situation Y. This works the same way for defects and for virtues, except that defects develop more or less naturally over the course of our lives, while virtues require intentional effort. We start lying and cheating at an early age and over time we become dishonest people. We lie and cheat as a matter of course, automatically, instinctively, and even unconsciously sometimes. In this way, habit renders us powerless over ourselves.
Becoming honest requires a reversal of the previous process of habituation. Thus getting rid of our defects of character is a process of undoing the old habits which have become rooted in us and developing the opposing habits represented by the virtues. The virtues are what will gradually displace and replace our defects. They are their antidotes. They are corrective not only of our defects of character, but of the other defects which these generate in our concerns, construals, and emotions.
Acquiring them requires work, which is why AA places so much emphasis on working the Steps and practicing the principles embedded in them. Steps 4 through 10 are central to the process. We take inventory of our defects of character and of the defective emotions these generate, admit them, become ready to surrender them, ask God for their removal, make amends for the harm they caused, and practice the corrective traits in the virtues.
As this process of “housecleaning” itself becomes habitual—we do it regularly and consistently, day in and day out—it becomes a new way of life. It's part and parcel of our spiritual awakening as we seek to do God’s will for us. As we do, our defects of character weaken and decrease, while our strengths of character grow.
For a discussion of character defects in Practice These Principles book 1, please see chapter A. These Principles, “Virtue and Character Development,” pp. 31-36, and chapter B. In All Our Affairs: Emotional Sobriety, “Character and Emotions,” pp. 52-55. The discussion will continue in Step 4 of Practice These Principles book 2.
Posted 11/07/17 at http://PracticeThesePrinciplesTheBook... in “Character Defects.” For postings on specific defects of character, please click on link.
Character defects are the primary subject of our inventory and the activities connected with it in Steps 4 through 10. Unless we are “willing to work hard at the elimination of the worst of these defects,” the 12&12 continues, “both sobriety and peace of mind will still” elude us.
“Flaws in our make-up” is perhaps the simplest definition of character defects in the Big Book. “Flaws” and “make-up” reference the moral life. Our character is the sum total of moral traits, attributes, or qualities that make up our moral selves. They “characterize” us, governing the way we conduct ourselves and live out our lives.
These traits can be of two kinds. They can be positive, typical or “characteristic” of the best human qualities and thus conducive to wellbeing and flourishing; or they can be negative, representative of the worst human qualities and thus conducive to injury and failure.
Negative traits of character cause our failure by causing us to do wrong. They do this by distorting our perception of reality so that we come to value the wrong things in life, or to value the right things but in the wrong ways. This distortion in turn distorts our emotions, which are the drivers of wrong action.
Negative character traits are flaws or defects, or, as a tradition going back to ancient Greece calls them, vices. Positive traits, according to the same tradition, are virtues. Among the positive traits, AA highlights such virtues as acceptance, compassion, courage, faith, forgiveness, gratitude, honesty, hope, humility, kindness, love, patience, open-mindedness, serenity, simplicity, tolerance, willingness, and wisdom. Among the negative traits, it stresses such defects as dishonesty, envy, greed, intolerance, jealousy, lust, pride, resentment, self-centeredness, selfishness, self-pity, and sloth.
A defect is so called because it reflects a defective quality, one that is deficient or lacking in the attributes which make for a perfect trait, i.e., for a virtue. A defect is therefore the absence of that which is good, excellent, or perfect. A dishonest person is most obviously lacking in honesty. But the person can also be lacking in courage, for instance, for telling the truth sometimes calls for that virtue. An envious or a greedy person may be lacking in gratitude, the virtue which helps us to appreciate and be content with what we have, rather than wanting more or desiring what others have.
Both types of character traits are acquired. We are born with built-in capacities to develop them, but we are not born with them. We develop and acquire them in the process of living our lives. It is in his process that they become specifically “character” traits, rather than some other type of trait. They “characterize” us because they have become engraved in us as “characters,” literally marks that have been inscribed or engraved in the self and which govern the way we see, the things we care about, our feelings, and our consequent actions.
Having become ingrained in us through experience, character traits are in the nature of moral habits. The marks are like encoded instructions to repeat behavior X in situation Y. This works the same way for defects and for virtues, except that defects develop more or less naturally over the course of our lives, while virtues require intentional effort. We start lying and cheating at an early age and over time we become dishonest people. We lie and cheat as a matter of course, automatically, instinctively, and even unconsciously sometimes. In this way, habit renders us powerless over ourselves.
Becoming honest requires a reversal of the previous process of habituation. Thus getting rid of our defects of character is a process of undoing the old habits which have become rooted in us and developing the opposing habits represented by the virtues. The virtues are what will gradually displace and replace our defects. They are their antidotes. They are corrective not only of our defects of character, but of the other defects which these generate in our concerns, construals, and emotions.
Acquiring them requires work, which is why AA places so much emphasis on working the Steps and practicing the principles embedded in them. Steps 4 through 10 are central to the process. We take inventory of our defects of character and of the defective emotions these generate, admit them, become ready to surrender them, ask God for their removal, make amends for the harm they caused, and practice the corrective traits in the virtues.
As this process of “housecleaning” itself becomes habitual—we do it regularly and consistently, day in and day out—it becomes a new way of life. It's part and parcel of our spiritual awakening as we seek to do God’s will for us. As we do, our defects of character weaken and decrease, while our strengths of character grow.
For a discussion of character defects in Practice These Principles book 1, please see chapter A. These Principles, “Virtue and Character Development,” pp. 31-36, and chapter B. In All Our Affairs: Emotional Sobriety, “Character and Emotions,” pp. 52-55. The discussion will continue in Step 4 of Practice These Principles book 2.
Posted 11/07/17 at http://PracticeThesePrinciplesTheBook... in “Character Defects.” For postings on specific defects of character, please click on link.
October 22, 2017
Character Defects: Narrow-Mindedness
If open-mindedness is one of the essentials of recovery, as we read in the Big Book, then it follows that narrow-mindedness is one of its chief stumbling blocks. Yet few of us would see it that way. As it applies to us, that it. We are more than ready to identify the defect in others—to take their inventory rather than ours. How many of us have given any serious thought to the possibility we might be affected by the same ailment? How many of us have included it in the list of defects to examine in ourselves?
Like pride, narrow-mindedness seems to be intrinsic to the self. It is, we might say, a built-in form of self-centeredness. Narrow-mindedness disposes me to see the world in terms of the constituent elements of my self, the conglomeration of factors that define me and make me who I am: my sex, race, nationality, ethnicity, class, culture, language, religion and politics, to name the most significant.
These color my experience and go to make up the mode through which I receive the world. They become the filters—the necessarily narrow filters—through which I view and value things. With time, I develop a natural, unconscious resistance to ideas, views, beliefs, or ways of life which are new, different, or unfamiliar, or which challenge or conflict with those to which I am already accustomed. This makes of narrow-mindedness an intellectually or cognitively limiting defect: it restricts my ability to learn, acquire knowledge, and gain understanding. In short, it keeps me from growing.
It is for this reason that narrow-mindedness is a stumbling block to recovery. AA is about growth, and especially about spiritual growth. “When the spiritual malady is overcome,” says the Big Book, “we straighten out mentally and physically.” Yet it is precisely the spiritual “angle” of the program to which narrow-mindedness makes us resistant.
This is true of all of us. Believer, ex-believer, unbeliever, we all come to AA with our set ideas about God and religion, ideas which not infrequently clash with 12-Step spirituality. AA asks us to set those ideas aside and to open ourselves to a message we have never heard before, to an experience we have never had. The goal is a spiritual awakening which can deliver us from the obsession to drink and bring about a complete transformation in us.
Narrow-mindedness stands in the way of this process. It affects the way we work all of the Steps, but it becomes a major problem with the more obviously God Steps: Steps 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11. How open are we really to the idea that God can restore us to sanity, that he really cares about us, that he can remove our defects of character? How receptive are we to the proposition that we can make conscious contact with him, that he has a will for us, and that he can give us the knowledge and the power to carry it out?
These are of course questions of faith. But AA tells us that faith is a gift, and that our job is to open up and make ourselves ready to receive it. Yet the faith AA proposes is a faith that works. It involves effort, and narrow-mindedness is averse to effort. It fosters and is fostered by related work-aversive defects such as apathy, complacency, self-satisfaction, and sloth, all of which conspire to keep us in a state of blissful ignorance.
Blissful because, as a product of narrow-mindedness, ignorance simplifies everything—whether about God, the world, or other people. It allows us to be happily insular, provincial, and parochial. It makes it easy for us to deal in stereotypes and indulge biases and prejudices. We can be self-righteous, doctrinaire, dogmatic, sectarian, petty, partisan or one-sided and be totally oblivious to the fact.
Indeed, narrow-mindedness is one of the hardest defects to detect in ourselves. By its very nature, it impairs our ability to conduct an objective self-appraisal. The necessary degree of detachment, of self-distancing, is lacking. Moreover, in causing moral harm, narrow-mindedness works behind the scenes. It functions as a contributing factor in situations involving other, more specific defects, such as resentment, impatience and intolerance. We may be able to see these particular defects and not see the larger defect underlying them—in which case the defects will continue to crop up.
Narrow-mindedness is the problem to which open-mindedness is the solution. As a virtue, open-mindedness requires practice. An enquiring mind and a passion for truth are necessary, but we all carry the seeds of such qualities in us, and they will grow if we cultivate them. An honest admission of our fundamental ignorance, a humble recognition of how little we know, of how little we really understand about things, will also help. So will a willingness to listen, to give a fair hearing where we would rather turn a deaf ear, to withhold judgment, to reach conclusions slowly and tentatively, our minds always open to the possibility that, as “A Vision for You” tells us, more will be disclosed.
Posted 10/09/17 at http://PracticeThesePrinciplesTheBook...
in “Character Defects.” For full text and accompanying image, as well as quotes and additional resources, please click on link.
Like pride, narrow-mindedness seems to be intrinsic to the self. It is, we might say, a built-in form of self-centeredness. Narrow-mindedness disposes me to see the world in terms of the constituent elements of my self, the conglomeration of factors that define me and make me who I am: my sex, race, nationality, ethnicity, class, culture, language, religion and politics, to name the most significant.
These color my experience and go to make up the mode through which I receive the world. They become the filters—the necessarily narrow filters—through which I view and value things. With time, I develop a natural, unconscious resistance to ideas, views, beliefs, or ways of life which are new, different, or unfamiliar, or which challenge or conflict with those to which I am already accustomed. This makes of narrow-mindedness an intellectually or cognitively limiting defect: it restricts my ability to learn, acquire knowledge, and gain understanding. In short, it keeps me from growing.
It is for this reason that narrow-mindedness is a stumbling block to recovery. AA is about growth, and especially about spiritual growth. “When the spiritual malady is overcome,” says the Big Book, “we straighten out mentally and physically.” Yet it is precisely the spiritual “angle” of the program to which narrow-mindedness makes us resistant.
This is true of all of us. Believer, ex-believer, unbeliever, we all come to AA with our set ideas about God and religion, ideas which not infrequently clash with 12-Step spirituality. AA asks us to set those ideas aside and to open ourselves to a message we have never heard before, to an experience we have never had. The goal is a spiritual awakening which can deliver us from the obsession to drink and bring about a complete transformation in us.
Narrow-mindedness stands in the way of this process. It affects the way we work all of the Steps, but it becomes a major problem with the more obviously God Steps: Steps 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11. How open are we really to the idea that God can restore us to sanity, that he really cares about us, that he can remove our defects of character? How receptive are we to the proposition that we can make conscious contact with him, that he has a will for us, and that he can give us the knowledge and the power to carry it out?
These are of course questions of faith. But AA tells us that faith is a gift, and that our job is to open up and make ourselves ready to receive it. Yet the faith AA proposes is a faith that works. It involves effort, and narrow-mindedness is averse to effort. It fosters and is fostered by related work-aversive defects such as apathy, complacency, self-satisfaction, and sloth, all of which conspire to keep us in a state of blissful ignorance.
Blissful because, as a product of narrow-mindedness, ignorance simplifies everything—whether about God, the world, or other people. It allows us to be happily insular, provincial, and parochial. It makes it easy for us to deal in stereotypes and indulge biases and prejudices. We can be self-righteous, doctrinaire, dogmatic, sectarian, petty, partisan or one-sided and be totally oblivious to the fact.
Indeed, narrow-mindedness is one of the hardest defects to detect in ourselves. By its very nature, it impairs our ability to conduct an objective self-appraisal. The necessary degree of detachment, of self-distancing, is lacking. Moreover, in causing moral harm, narrow-mindedness works behind the scenes. It functions as a contributing factor in situations involving other, more specific defects, such as resentment, impatience and intolerance. We may be able to see these particular defects and not see the larger defect underlying them—in which case the defects will continue to crop up.
Narrow-mindedness is the problem to which open-mindedness is the solution. As a virtue, open-mindedness requires practice. An enquiring mind and a passion for truth are necessary, but we all carry the seeds of such qualities in us, and they will grow if we cultivate them. An honest admission of our fundamental ignorance, a humble recognition of how little we know, of how little we really understand about things, will also help. So will a willingness to listen, to give a fair hearing where we would rather turn a deaf ear, to withhold judgment, to reach conclusions slowly and tentatively, our minds always open to the possibility that, as “A Vision for You” tells us, more will be disclosed.
Posted 10/09/17 at http://PracticeThesePrinciplesTheBook...
in “Character Defects.” For full text and accompanying image, as well as quotes and additional resources, please click on link.
