Healthy discussion=an informed group conscience

[jimhere]

In light of what has been happening on a few recent threads, I thought of this little bit of info from the pamphlet "The A.A. Group...where it all begins."

I think some one posted on one of those other threads that sometimes things get a little heated in discusion of matters vital to A.A.'s survival and our own individual sobriety. We are passionate people, so when things get a little heated , it is natural. I even think a little tension is necessary in the creative process. So, contrary to some views, a little controversy now and then is not a bad thing, if it moves the discussion in the right direction. It is just a little uncomfortable for some of us. Knowing how we alkies dislike being uncomfortable, we avoid discussion and controversy, hiding it under the guise of tolerance. We are to avoid controversy at the public level, but not necessarily in A.A. itself, as long as it is not controversy for the sake of controversy.

What is an informed group conscience?

"The group conscience is the collective conscience of the group membership and thus represents substantial unanimity on an issue before definitive action is taken. This is achieved by the group members through the sharing of full information, individual points of view, and the practice of A.A. principles. To be fully informed requires a willingness to listen to minority opinions with an open mind." A good idea can come from any one, any time, but I need to be listening.

Tradition Two states that the voice of a loving God is expressed through the group's conscience. That can only happen if we all get to be God's voice. The minority view is the most important voice we have. For a few reasons-it can stir some healthy discussiuon. It keeps the dominating voices in check, and it keeps us from being tryannized by a hasty, ill-informed, angry majority. The only way I can hear God's voice is if I am listening. We think AA is all about talking when it is really about listening. My very life depends upon my thinking of you and how I can help you get your needs met. How can I help you if I'm not listening to you. I can't hear you if I am so involved in getting my point across, so I must practice the principle of sacrifice. I've got set aside my need for recognition and prestige and work towards the good of the whole.

The Big Book states that an attitude of respect and tolerance towards the views of others is what makes us more useful. So, tolerance and respect are two principles I can practice. When I listen to you, I am showing respect for you. Another principle I can practice is humility-not that I know what that is. I think I might mean that maybe I am just one of you. Maybe it means that I should keep my mouth shut sometimes. I can compromise if need be, if that means it will benefit the group. Other times I may have to stick to my guns and agree to disagree with my friends, or be willing to take criticism from the people who don't really like me (and there are a few). Or maybe I can set aside my ideas if yours are better.

Finally, "Principles, before personalities." All of the above lead to that. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be personalities here. If we were all the same, not much would get done. If any two of us were the same, one of us would be unnecessary. But I do know that A.A. certainly doesn't need two of me-LOL! But it does need all of us.
Jim

[earthnocentric]

I agree that "The A.A. Group" pamphlet is priceless.

In a 12 step world of opinions running rampant about what A.A. is and is not, "The A.A. Group " pamphlet is a no nonsense "clif notes" on the matter. Anyone serious about their A.A. meetings would do well to have a copy at their disposal. At my home group we have the literature comitmentee keep us stocked up.

[nandm]

I think that controversy in and of itself is not a negative thing. A discussion should have a variety of opinions in it. The key differene between a discussion of differing views and what has been present in several recent threads has been the personal attacks on individuals. There is nothing wrong with not agreeing on a topic but when that disagreement gets to a childish name calling level it is time for people to regroup, catch their breath and when they are able to return to the discussion and discuss their cause without resorting to personal attacks.

I have actually learned a lot from discussing topics with people who had differeing views than me. There have also been times when I had to agree to disagree. It is far to easy though for people to take someone disagreeing with their opinion as someone disagreeing or disapproving of them. I have found that for me when I start taking the disagreement personally, I need to step back because that is when I stop hearing what the other person says and close my mind to learning.

Just my few cents worth.

[jimhere]

Originally Posted by nandm

I think that controversy in and of itself is not a negative thing. A discussion should have a variety of opinions in it. The key differene between a discussion of differing views and what has been present in several recent threads has been the personal attacks on individuals. There is nothing wrong with not agreeing on a topic but when that disagreement gets to a childish name calling level it is time for people to regroup, catch their breath and when they are able to return to the discussion and discuss their cause without resorting to personal attacks.

I have actually learned a lot from discussing topics with people who had differeing views than me. There have also been times when I had to agree to disagree. It is far to easy though for people to take someone disagreeing with their opinion as someone disagreeing or disapproving of them. I have found that for me when I start taking the disagreement personally, I need to step back because that is when I stop hearing what the other person says and close my mind to learning.

Just my few cents worth.

Excellent points, Judith.

Precisely why I started this thread.

[CarolD]

SR membership requires we follow SR guidelines.

http://www.soberrecovery.com/forums/...ting-tips.html (Policies, Rules & Posting Tips)

We are not an AA group. ...SR is privately owned
and our site owners allow us the privledge
of sharing within their posted rules.

Just wanted to clarify preceisly for members
who might be unaware.

[bballdad]

I have seen a group conscience make descisions that eventually destroyed that group
so,maybe they was not well informed?After thinking over it for several years,I believe they got in too big a hurry to make a descision..

[RufusACanal]

Good thread. It has taken me the months I have been a part of SR to grasp and accept the unique differences between the guidelines of AA and the those of SR. "But why" was my reoccurring question when confronted with thinking or views that did not easily fit into my new life. As I think back over previous encounters here, I always had the option not to reply to comments I did not agree with or place the member on IGNORE. What value is there for me today to justify getting upset with another member over their inability to agree with my thinking, feelings or beliefs unless my goal is to be right? Would I treat a Sponsee, a Home Group member or a new guy this way? No. If my attempts to pass on my next stupendous thought to the new guy fail for whatever reason, I am not going to grab the guy and physically shove it down his throat; give me the anonymity of a website though and I will posture like a championship wrestler.

There are actions and behaviors in the world that I do not tolerant. We each have many of these in common because of the social contract we maintain as a society. The predominant thought I have had of late is my repeated failure to see that each time I resurrect the old behavior in any form; I am saying that I am unable to find the necessary solution in my new life. When I resort to justified intolerance with any person I immediately sever my connection to the hand of a greater power. This is another glaring example of my run amok EGO. I am saying in essence that this particular path has failed, so I will use what is familiar. I will without much thought deviate from the ever present grace to self imposed prison walls.

[kevin 311]

jim, thanks for your OP -- it was good to read that elaboration of what AA intends by "group conscience"

I find AA meetings very good opportunities to practice listening with a clear head, which in my case does need some effort

on a web forum though, tbh I skim through many of the longer posts in general and then might reread one more closely if it catches my interest

I'm glad that AA topics and issues can be discussed here by people from different locales and viewpoints -- I'm sure it has been beneficial for my understanding

[jimhere]

Originally Posted by CarolD

SR membership requires we follow SR guidelines.

http://www.soberrecovery.com/forums/...ting-tips.html (Policies, Rules & Posting Tips)

We are not an AA group. ...SR is privately owned
and our site owners allow us the privledge
of sharing within their posted rules.

Just wanted to clarify preceisly for members
who might be unaware.

I am aware of that Carol. But most of the people who post on this forum are AA members.
Jim

[sugErspun]

Are there any AA principals,concepts,literature that are in direct conflict with the rules of SR? I can find some the other way around, but none when you come from the AA angle.

I have not been able find any.

[jimhere]

Originally Posted by sugErspun

Are there any AA principals,concepts,literature that are in direct conflict with the rules of SR? I can find some the other way around, but none when you come from the AA angle.

I have not been able find any.

Once again-if AA's Traditions are as Bill said "Guides to better ways of working and living together," why can't we as members of the SR community and as AA members use these principles as guides to our conduct here on SR?

My grand sponsor used to say that 99% of living a spiritual life is simply learning good manners. Listening, respect, and tolerance are good manners. Flaming, attacking, belittling, and name-calling are not. SR rules prohibit these behaviors. The principles shown me in the steps, traditions, and concepts don't prohibit anything, but I find that if I don't practice them, the pain of seperation eventually becomes more than I can stand. If I do practice them as a way of living, I can become usefully and happily whole. These are living principles, not rules. They are principles that I live by in a society where there are no rules.
Jim

[miss communicat]

Originally Posted by jimhere

My grand sponsor used to say that 99% of living a spiritual life is simply learning good manners. Listening, respect, and tolerance are good manners.

They are principles that I live by in a society where there are no rules.
Jim

seems to me that good manners require a certain degree of maturity, perspective and self restraint. These are qualities that are the function of time, cultivation and intent.

My grand sponsor says that the primary purpose of AA is to stay sober, help other alcoholics achieve sobriety and to grow up.

The last part, about growing up (not the same as simply growing old...lol) is left unspoken these days, as it offends so many of us. (And, btw, I have always preferred your idea, Jim, that our primary purpose, besides achieving sobriety and helping others do the same, is to fit ourselves to serve God's will and to be useful people).

At any rate, I, for one, still need models, mentors, exemplars and teachers of how to grow up, but I do feel I have good manners. The problem with reliance upon good manners is that it doesn't always serve God's will, nor keep me living soberly. But it sure beats BAD manners!

thanks~

[CarolD]

Perhaps I was being too subtle

Members who find our SR Policy Rules & Regs
impossible or too restrictive ...
can find another resource .

[jimhere]

Originally Posted by CarolD

Perhaps I was being too subtle

Members who find our SR Policy Rules & Regs
impossible or too restrictive ...
can find another resource .

I personally don't find them restrictive or impossible at all. As has been said I don't see any conflict here at all. Funny, a thread about being "nice" is even controversial.
Jim

[sugErspun]

Originally Posted by jimhere

I personally don't find them restrictive or impossible at all. As has been said I don't see any conflict here at all. Funny, a thread about being "nice" is even controversial.
Jim

How else would alcoholics have it?

[bballdad]

jim,thanks for posting this topic.Great Topic!

I am thinking of how it applys to me,my family, and my home group,not the internet so to speak.It has taught me a lot...

many times in the past,my home group have got in too big a hurry to resolve something and we was not fully informed and we hurried up and voted on it..but over time we have learned to slow down some and seek better understanding before we make a descision.I also have learned that it is ok for several of us to have different opinions.We still get along fine.I am not allways going to have it my way,but a few times I do.Thats fine too.
I use the same principle in my family some times to solve problems,especially concerning my teenage kids.

we sit down,look at the problem,and go around the table and share what each one thinks is the solution.Then we vote on it.I have found my teenage kids have some great ideas!After the meeting they seems to go about the solution with more happiness,enthusiam and less rebellion.It teaches them the value of working together,listening to others with a open mind,and gives them some experience of descision making in the family and they feel more a part of the family.I love it!

This is achieved by the group members through the sharing of full information, individual points of view, and the practice of A.A. principles. To be fully informed requires a willingness to listen to minority opinions with an open mind." A good idea can come from any one, any time, but I need to be listening.

[jimhere]

Originally Posted by bballdad

jim,thanks for posting this topic.Great Topic!

I am thinking of how it applys to me,my family, and my home group,not the internet so to speak.It has taught me a lot...

many times in the past,my home group have got in too big a hurry to resolve something and we was not fully informed and we hurried up and voted on it..but over time we have learned to slow down some and seek better understanding before we make a descision.I also have learned that it is ok for several of us to have different opinions.We still get along fine.I am not allways going to have it my way,but a few times I do.Thats fine too.
I use the same principle in my family some times to solve problems,especially concerning my teenage kids.

we sit down,look at the problem,and go around the table and share what each one thinks is the solution.Then we vote on it.I have found my teenage kids have some great ideas!After the meeting they seems to go about the solution with more happiness,enthusiam and less rebellion.It teaches them the value of working together,listening to others with a open mind,and gives them some experience of descision making in the family and they feel more a part of the family.I love it!

This is achieved by the group members through the sharing of full information, individual points of view, and the practice of A.A. principles. To be fully informed requires a willingness to listen to minority opinions with an open mind." A good idea can come from any one, any time, but I need to be listening.

Thank you for this post-a great example of putting these principles to work in areas of life other than AA. It has been said this thread was an attempt to teach members about how a group conscience works. Not so. Like any other thread, I hoped to generate discussion and a sharing of experiences and viewpoints. Your post bballdad is a fine example of the type of sharing I had hoped would come about.

I think I should clarify something. I did not mean to give the impression that SR is a group conscience. What I was attempting to say was that these principles can be applied during our discussions here on SR. This applies to my own behavior as well.
Jim