in na there is a dillema
Certified NA Counselor
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Newport Beach Ca., US
Posts: 458
Originally Posted by GotItFirstTime 
Contempt prior to investigation
This quote first appeared in a story in the First Edition of Alcoholics Anonymous on page 380. The quote began the story "An Artist's Concept":
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to investigation."-- HERBERT SPENCER
The story was dropped from subsequent editions and the quote was moved to appear at the end of Appendix II called "Spiritual Experience". This would be on page 570 in the Third Edition
Spencer was a very widely known English philosopher, scientist, theologin during the 1800's. He was also among the creators of the field of sociology. He was among the greatest minds of Victorian England.
Who then would you believe?
This quote first appeared in a story in the First Edition of Alcoholics Anonymous on page 380. The quote began the story "An Artist's Concept":
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to investigation."-- HERBERT SPENCER
The story was dropped from subsequent editions and the quote was moved to appear at the end of Appendix II called "Spiritual Experience". This would be on page 570 in the Third Edition
Spencer was a very widely known English philosopher, scientist, theologin during the 1800's. He was also among the creators of the field of sociology. He was among the greatest minds of Victorian England.
Who then would you believe?
Herbert - you the man!
Remember Darwin's quote" "Survival of the Fittest?"
Funny thing is that it wasn't Darwin's quote at all, it was Spencer's.
a
Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dumas Texas
Posts: 35
Originally Posted by kj3880
I don't know what this has to do with NA and NA traditions and literature.
Love,
KJ
Love,
KJ
Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dumas Texas
Posts: 35
Originally Posted by godsonmyside
Wecome Back Bruce!!
Or you can attend the group conscience and ask them about what Tradition 2 an 3 and 5 mean. Or maybe Practice Step 3- Make that decision to Let it go.
I attended a group that read the Clarity statement and the Person who read it Identified as an Alcoholic/Addict- Made sense to me. we as members have opinions, If its not our Home Group, we are not part of the Group Conscience, there "Loving God" or NA Guide(you know the guy that tells everyone what to do) wants it there.
Peace,
Todd J.
Or you can attend the group conscience and ask them about what Tradition 2 an 3 and 5 mean. Or maybe Practice Step 3- Make that decision to Let it go.
I attended a group that read the Clarity statement and the Person who read it Identified as an Alcoholic/Addict- Made sense to me. we as members have opinions, If its not our Home Group, we are not part of the Group Conscience, there "Loving God" or NA Guide(you know the guy that tells everyone what to do) wants it there.
Peace,
Todd J.
"You know that I've said many times, a long time ago, that a man without a dream is only half a man, and a fellowship without a vision is a farce. And I still believe that and know damn well that we can find fulfillment in living a day at a time here. And a day at a time our vision and our Fellowship can become a greater reality. They're the things that I'm still interested in. Two years ago at the convention, when I had just regained my voice, I said then that as long as I live I would use what voice and what strength I have to further the efforts of Narcotics Anonymous and that other beautiful fellowship I belong to, Alcoholics Anonymous; and I intend to do that. But it's going to take all of me, and it's going to take all of you, and all the people that you're going to talk to, and all of the people you're going to carry the message to, to make this a greater reality."
________________________________________________
" When you look at another, or look at yourself, look on their strength with pride and their weakness with compassion. What I have to remember, personally, is that I'm here, and possibly all of you are here, because of people who'll never be here. The newcomer is the life blood of this organization, always has been, always will be. If I ever have an epitaph on my headstone it should read something like this: All we did was sow some seeds and worked and wrought to make this work, so that we and others could live-in Peace, in Freedom and in Love"
Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: md
Posts: 3,042
I feel like at some point we have to stand on our own, as a fellowship in our own right, with our own literature and traditions, grateful to AA for their permission to adapt their traditions and steps, but leaning on no one. Why not now?
Evolving Addict
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New York State
Posts: 3,067
For some folks it is important to know NA and AA history...for others, it isn't. They could care less because they've got current, real-life stuff going on. Like...staying clean today.
I've shared for many years on every NA Tradition and not once did I have to mention AA's ES&H. It isn't necessary for a sensible (or sane) discussion. An analogy that comes to mind is that I'm the child of my parents...but I'm not identical to either. Folks who know me (and never met my mother or father) don't require me to enlighten them on my ancestry in order to know me well. I may come from them, but I am not them.
I've shared for many years on every NA Tradition and not once did I have to mention AA's ES&H. It isn't necessary for a sensible (or sane) discussion. An analogy that comes to mind is that I'm the child of my parents...but I'm not identical to either. Folks who know me (and never met my mother or father) don't require me to enlighten them on my ancestry in order to know me well. I may come from them, but I am not them.
Certified NA Counselor
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Newport Beach Ca., US
Posts: 458
Weak analogy
If the two things that are being compared aren't really alike in the relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it commits the fallacy of weak analogy.
A is like B.
B has property P.
Therefore, A has property P.
(Where the analogy between A and B is weak.)
If the two things that are being compared aren't really alike in the relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it commits the fallacy of weak analogy.
A is like B.
B has property P.
Therefore, A has property P.
(Where the analogy between A and B is weak.)
Lost-n-Found
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cairo
Posts: 923
When I first came into the program, I could care less about 12 step 'history'. I was half dead, probably even more.
I still believe it is a luxury (a plus), hardly a necessity, to be well-informed and articulate in 12 step history.
I remember hearing the clarity statement for the first time and going WTF are these people talking about. I could not relate or understand the purpose of the statement. With a group conscience, much later, it was removed from my HG by a majority.
If a majority was to bring back again, i would have to accept it, but I would understand if 'the most important' person in the meeting did not.
I still believe it is a luxury (a plus), hardly a necessity, to be well-informed and articulate in 12 step history.
I remember hearing the clarity statement for the first time and going WTF are these people talking about. I could not relate or understand the purpose of the statement. With a group conscience, much later, it was removed from my HG by a majority.
If a majority was to bring back again, i would have to accept it, but I would understand if 'the most important' person in the meeting did not.
Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dumas Texas
Posts: 35
Like America today, like our congress before us now, people want to "pick and chose" history so they can re-write it anyway they want. Why would anyone want to re-write the brilliant and provable history of the first 12 steps. As the progressives move forward, as Political Correctness takes over every aspect of our being, there are those who want to leave out the most vital parts of our fellowships history. They deny God, they deny His importance and want to ignore the association between what Jimmy K wanted and what they want today. It's really just that simple. We ignore the TRUTH when it is the TRUTH that will set us free. Spiritual Principles are NOT debatable, they are the corner stone of our fellwship. Yet when we chose to ignore that a cornerstone exist, we weaken our foundation considerably. Chosing to ignore the first 30 years of the 12 steps leaves a stone with NO cement. You folks do as you wish, "stand on your own" if you like. I'll grab hands with whatever soul is about to drown and help them no matter what they call themselves.
Certified NA Counselor
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Newport Beach Ca., US
Posts: 458
Originally Posted by GotItFirstTime
Like America today, like our congress before us now, people want to "pick and chose" history so they can re-write it anyway they want.
You know the problem with history here is that if it doesn't support our position, or worse yet, undermines it... "It isn't necessary for a sensible (or sane) discussion."
a
Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: md
Posts: 3,042
Show me something of the literature that has our World Board writing in an anti-AA fashion. I've never seen or heard anything like that. As far as I know, NA, as a whole, respects and admires AA as a sister fellowship. There shouldn't be any controversy here.
NA adapted, not adopted, the steps and traditions for addicts' use. Gratitude to AA for their pioneering work in 12-step recovery is appropriate. But using excerpts of their literature in NA meetings, or in NA literature, is inappropriate, IMO.
Moreover, NA literature seems to be just exactly right for all addicts to use, where AA is exactly right for the precise, exclusive needs of the alcoholic. And there is nothing wrong there, that is exactly what the separate fellowships are designed to do.
Love,
KJ
NA adapted, not adopted, the steps and traditions for addicts' use. Gratitude to AA for their pioneering work in 12-step recovery is appropriate. But using excerpts of their literature in NA meetings, or in NA literature, is inappropriate, IMO.
Moreover, NA literature seems to be just exactly right for all addicts to use, where AA is exactly right for the precise, exclusive needs of the alcoholic. And there is nothing wrong there, that is exactly what the separate fellowships are designed to do.
Love,
KJ
Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dumas Texas
Posts: 35
NA adapted, not adopted, the steps and traditions for addicts' use. Gratitude to AA for their pioneering work in 12-step recovery is appropriate. But using excerpts of their literature in NA meetings, or in NA literature, is inappropriate, IMO.
__________________________________________________ _____________
Actually that is not true. Jimmy K was offered the Big Book exactly as it was written and given permission to remove alcoholic and replace it with addict. At the meeting of the original board the others, not Jimmy, wanted their own book in their own words. And this is how the ego has affected the addict ever since.
The example I propose is this: In the beginning there were the Oxford Group and the Washitonians. Each developed rules and regulations that others could not/would not adhere too. The Oxford group had a set of 61 rules. Upon mailing those 61 rules to the GSO, it was written back - "Rule #62 - Don't take yourself so damn serious". Just as this word of advise was passed down one fellowship to another - AA to the Oxford Group, then so should information of vital importance be passed down from AA to NA. However, in recent NA history, that would be unacceptable. AA, by chose left the first 164 pages alone so that everyone could/would see the original AA program as written by the founders. No such thing in NA. Each edition, each year changes are indeed made that keeps the newcomer from seeing the original NA program as written by the founders. WHY? We blame this on the World Literture Conference and the groups conscience. Yet, how can that be when many votes are split 51/49 without a newcomer getting the chance to vote due to some rules about clean time? That is not quarrem nor is it a conscience. Each year the World Literture Committee finds a motion to remove all mention of God or HIM from the Basic text. Each edition it gets votes down prior to printing. Why is that? God, Tradition 2 will always preveal whether it is in the home groups or the nation level. Quotes and Tapes from Jimmy Kinnon are readily avalible, have you listened to any lately? Do you really care? Or is it that your own personal identity is so wrapped up in NA that any drop of the truth would destroy your ideas?
Doctor Bob's dying words to Bill W. " let's not losse this thing up Bill " in others words , Bill leave it alone it is working just fine!
__________________________________________________ _____________
Actually that is not true. Jimmy K was offered the Big Book exactly as it was written and given permission to remove alcoholic and replace it with addict. At the meeting of the original board the others, not Jimmy, wanted their own book in their own words. And this is how the ego has affected the addict ever since.
The example I propose is this: In the beginning there were the Oxford Group and the Washitonians. Each developed rules and regulations that others could not/would not adhere too. The Oxford group had a set of 61 rules. Upon mailing those 61 rules to the GSO, it was written back - "Rule #62 - Don't take yourself so damn serious". Just as this word of advise was passed down one fellowship to another - AA to the Oxford Group, then so should information of vital importance be passed down from AA to NA. However, in recent NA history, that would be unacceptable. AA, by chose left the first 164 pages alone so that everyone could/would see the original AA program as written by the founders. No such thing in NA. Each edition, each year changes are indeed made that keeps the newcomer from seeing the original NA program as written by the founders. WHY? We blame this on the World Literture Conference and the groups conscience. Yet, how can that be when many votes are split 51/49 without a newcomer getting the chance to vote due to some rules about clean time? That is not quarrem nor is it a conscience. Each year the World Literture Committee finds a motion to remove all mention of God or HIM from the Basic text. Each edition it gets votes down prior to printing. Why is that? God, Tradition 2 will always preveal whether it is in the home groups or the nation level. Quotes and Tapes from Jimmy Kinnon are readily avalible, have you listened to any lately? Do you really care? Or is it that your own personal identity is so wrapped up in NA that any drop of the truth would destroy your ideas?
Doctor Bob's dying words to Bill W. " let's not losse this thing up Bill " in others words , Bill leave it alone it is working just fine!
Evolving Addict
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New York State
Posts: 3,067
I, for one, am grateful that change is constant. What is needed at one stage of development isn't always needed for another. I recall when I needed training wheels on a bike and someone to stand beside me, helping me to keep from falling. Once I learned how to maintain my balance and ride a bike independently, I became free to ride as I choose. As a matter of fact, I eventually rode better than my teacher (over time). As far as America goes, I could easily look back and glamorize or glorify the "days of old" and whine about how messed up things are today. But doing that would only close my mind to all the advantages and blessings I have that didn't exist in those times. I don't deny that history is important, yet I understand that if I'm always looking back I can't accurately see where I am...let alone where I'm going.
For me, "standing on your own" isn't a bad thing. It doesn't mean that help isn't offered or received. And to suggest such a thing is baseless. Freedom, integrity and self-support are principles that shouldn't be debated (IMO) and can easily be viewed as the cornerstones of independence and/or autonomy.
NA isn't connected to other organizations (including AA). We cooperate, but do not affiliate ourselves. We are a separate and distinct fellowship and program in our own right. Our program is spiritual, not religious.
For me, "standing on your own" isn't a bad thing. It doesn't mean that help isn't offered or received. And to suggest such a thing is baseless. Freedom, integrity and self-support are principles that shouldn't be debated (IMO) and can easily be viewed as the cornerstones of independence and/or autonomy.
NA isn't connected to other organizations (including AA). We cooperate, but do not affiliate ourselves. We are a separate and distinct fellowship and program in our own right. Our program is spiritual, not religious.
Certified NA Counselor
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Newport Beach Ca., US
Posts: 458
Originally Posted by kj3880
Show me something of the literature that has our World Board writing in an anti-AA fashion. I've never seen or heard anything like that. As far as I know, NA, as a whole, respects and admires AA as a sister fellowship. There shouldn't be any controversy here.
Our members who have used these arguments to rationalize an anti-AA stand, thereby alienating many sorely needed stable members, would do well to re-evaluate and reconsider the effects of that kind of behavior.
NA has no opinion on outside issues - AA is an outside issue - the World Board, the supposed guardian of NA Traditions, violated the core of their being by stating that opinion.
a
Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dumas Texas
Posts: 35
Originally Posted by Gmoney
I, for one, am grateful that change is constant. What is needed at one stage of development isn't always needed for another. I recall when I needed training wheels on a bike and someone to stand beside me, helping me to keep from falling. Once I learned how to maintain my balance and ride a bike independently, I became free to ride as I choose. As a matter of fact, I eventually rode better than my teacher (over time). As far as America goes, I could easily look back and glamorize or glorify the "days of old" and whine about how messed up things are today. But doing that would only close my mind to all the advantages and blessings I have that didn't exist in those times. I don't deny that history is important, yet I understand that if I'm always looking back I can't accurately see where I am...let alone where I'm going.
For me, "standing on your own" isn't a bad thing. It doesn't mean that help isn't offered or received. And to suggest such a thing is baseless. Freedom, integrity and self-support are principles that shouldn't be debated (IMO) and can easily be viewed as the cornerstones of independence and/or autonomy.
NA isn't connected to other organizations (including AA). We cooperate, but do not affiliate ourselves. We are a separate and distinct fellowship and program in our own right. Our program is spiritual, not religious.
For me, "standing on your own" isn't a bad thing. It doesn't mean that help isn't offered or received. And to suggest such a thing is baseless. Freedom, integrity and self-support are principles that shouldn't be debated (IMO) and can easily be viewed as the cornerstones of independence and/or autonomy.
NA isn't connected to other organizations (including AA). We cooperate, but do not affiliate ourselves. We are a separate and distinct fellowship and program in our own right. Our program is spiritual, not religious.
Ah this is why the windshield is bigger then the rear view mirrors. Each equally important to driving, each a must for any vehical. We do not rip off the mirrors and throw them out just because we do not need them as much. The same is true for all history. This thread began with the idea that the NA Clarity Statment is something so profoundly needed that the entire Fellowship will crumble without it. That the horrorble attacks by " Alcoholic/Addicts" would some destroy the fragile foundation. However, if we were to admit that the entire foundation is actually built on AA's experence( the rear view mirror)as well as our own( the windshield) we would see the need for both. History has proven one important thing in both AA and NA, when a group does fold it is internal strife among it's member at fault, not external strife from world services. All one needs to start a group is a coffee pot and a resentment. This thread is living proof that the old AA saying " Live & Let Live " is dead.
Evolving Addict
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New York State
Posts: 3,067
Ah this is why the windshield is bigger then the rear view mirrors. Each equally important to driving, each a must for any vehical.
Yes, this thread started as a discussion on the merits and drawbacks associated with Clarity Statements, and as with any debatable topic, various opinions have been offered. Some of us feel strongly one way or the other. Some of us could give a rat's a$$. Some groups use it, some don't. It was worded very well, earlier in this thread, about how group's have the right to be wrong and how autonomy gives them the freedom to choose how they function. This thread might just be an example of how the older than AA saying "Live and Let Live" isn't always applied...not just because of clarity statements, but also because of the resistance and crusades against them. I could talk (or write) till the cows came home on either the pros or cons, but it wouldn't change how groups around the world operate or why they do so.
Evolving Addict
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New York State
Posts: 3,067
Our members who have used these arguments to rationalize an anti-AA stand, thereby alienating many sorely needed stable members, would do well to re-evaluate and reconsider the effects of that kind of behavior.
Each time he stood on stage he thanked the Mother Program.....To exclude the Mother Program, to claim to be ******* Children of a lesser God would seem to me selfish and self rightous to say the least.
You know the problem with history here is that if it doesn't support our position, or worse yet, undermines it... "It isn't necessary for a sensible (or sane) discussion."
Miss me, Andy?
(where's my ignore button again?)
Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: md
Posts: 3,042
Our members who have used these arguments to rationalize an anti-AA stand, thereby alienating many sorely needed stable members, would do well to re-evaluate and reconsider the effects of that kind of behavior.
This quote has nothing to do with anti-AA sentiment, IMO. It is quite the contrary. It is stating that individual members have at times been alienating people who go to both fellowships and actually discouraging that alienating behavior.
There are people like that in every area, and in AA, too. When I originally went to meetings, I started at AA. I told my story very briefly at a meeting, in about a 2-minute share. I was told off immediately by several alcoholics who informed me that by sharing about my addiction I was in violation of their singleness of purpose doctrine. I respected that and never shared again at an AA meeting. But since then, I've found that there are more AA members who welcome addicts.
I was at a NA meeting last night where one old-timer found it necessary to expound on how he "never went anywhere else." Who cares? If you don't want to go anywhere else, or need to, that's your issue, IMO. I go to whatever meeting fits my very busy shift-work schedule. AA, NA, sometimes even CDA. And I respect whatever traditions each group has for their meetings when I'm there. I would never quote literature from one fellowship at anothers' meeting. And I wouldn't do it here in their forums either. IMO, it's disrespectful.
Love,
KJ
This quote has nothing to do with anti-AA sentiment, IMO. It is quite the contrary. It is stating that individual members have at times been alienating people who go to both fellowships and actually discouraging that alienating behavior.
There are people like that in every area, and in AA, too. When I originally went to meetings, I started at AA. I told my story very briefly at a meeting, in about a 2-minute share. I was told off immediately by several alcoholics who informed me that by sharing about my addiction I was in violation of their singleness of purpose doctrine. I respected that and never shared again at an AA meeting. But since then, I've found that there are more AA members who welcome addicts.
I was at a NA meeting last night where one old-timer found it necessary to expound on how he "never went anywhere else." Who cares? If you don't want to go anywhere else, or need to, that's your issue, IMO. I go to whatever meeting fits my very busy shift-work schedule. AA, NA, sometimes even CDA. And I respect whatever traditions each group has for their meetings when I'm there. I would never quote literature from one fellowship at anothers' meeting. And I wouldn't do it here in their forums either. IMO, it's disrespectful.
Love,
KJ
Certified NA Counselor
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Newport Beach Ca., US
Posts: 458
Originally Posted by Gmoney
Anything that happens within NA is not an outside issue...now is it?
a
Certified NA Counselor
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Newport Beach Ca., US
Posts: 458
Originally Posted by Gmoney
As I said, I'm the child of my parents...but I'm not identical to either. Folks who know me (and never met my mother or father) don't require me to enlighten them on my ancestry in order to know me well. I may come from them, but I am not them. That's what I said and that's what I meant. No confusion. The problem isn't with history (His-story), because none was provided to support or counter any position. Just an opinion was stated and disagreed with based on actual experience. Taking my comments out of context seems like someone is poking for a fight.
a
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
