moving the ????????
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2012
Location: canada
Posts: 7,242
moving the ????????
might be better to have a more general thread for questions, so i'm trying over here, as i really want to understand this:
Originally Posted by RR:TNC page 173
"People who have made a Big Plan do not have relapses, or even lapses; they never drink or use again.
Of course, some people who consider a Big Plan and even go through the motions of making one change their minds and simply decide to drink or use drugs. They do not have relapses; they have drinks. They have not failed, nor did AVRT fail them. They are free to do as they wish, and they are victims of nothing.
Others may go through a period of uncertainty and conflict when they have not made a final commitment to abstinence, and they drink or use with a great deal of self-consciousness. This kind of experimenting, if it occurs at all, usually serves to strengthen understanding of how the Addictive Voice works and usually results in rapid progress toward secure abstinence."
-- Jack Trimpey
Robby, you posted this partly in response to my question re how, ultimately, it is different to say "if you drank again, it's because your BP wasn't a REAL BP" from "it didn't work for you because you didn't work it right (the program/steps)".
okay, so, after looking at this some more, this is how i read it: Trimpey says if you drink again, it is because you changed your mind, or you have not made a final commitment.
i read this to say, by extension: if you drink again AFTER you have made a big plan, it proves that in fact you did NOT make a big plan.
this strikes me as the most circular of arguments, and no different from my repeated decisions to quit.
and then judging if the decision/commitment was "real" by the result. and then, when it "didn't work", saying that it didn't work because it wasn't really ironclad enough.
what's interesting to me here is also how this is so entirely contradictory to how so many of us describe our own experiences. certainly MY experience was one of making the decision to never drink again, and then some time during that day or the next knowing i would buy booze on the way home from work. knowing it with certainty, but try as i might having no knowledge of how i reached that decision or ever deciding to buy it or ever going through anything resembling a struggle of any sort... i had suddenly decided without a conscious process.
this was desperately torturous to me.
what i'm saying is that i cannot identify anything resembling a moment or process such as Trimpey or soberlicious speak of: a moment of changing my intent.
and the snag i see in this Trimpey quote is that it discounts my experience by saying i misinterpret my own experience, OR by writing the criteria such that everyone who has, inside themselves, made a final commitment to abstinence and then drinks again simply did NOT make that commitment.
it is just as self-referencing a closed-loop-system as "it works if you work it, and if it doesn't work for you it's because you didn't work it right".
there is no room there for the person like me, and like so many others who drank again "against their will". because JT simply says it's not possible.
because he simply keeps claiming entirely free choice/will.
which is fine if addiction and alcoholism weren't conditions which impair the ability to choose freely in this area.
superficially it seems like the difference is vast: Trimpey says: you changed your mind. AA says: you didn't work it right.
Trimpey assumes you didn't want to NOT drink anymore.
AA allows for what's much closer to my own experience: drinking again when i didn't want to.
which is what i hear lots of people here saying: they drank again in spite of not really wanting to go back to drinking again.
they drank again after making a BP even though they want to be rid of drinking.
ach, sorry for this long muddled post.
would really appreciate people engaging with me about this. though yeah, there will likely be more questions.
Originally Posted by RR:TNC page 173
"People who have made a Big Plan do not have relapses, or even lapses; they never drink or use again.
Of course, some people who consider a Big Plan and even go through the motions of making one change their minds and simply decide to drink or use drugs. They do not have relapses; they have drinks. They have not failed, nor did AVRT fail them. They are free to do as they wish, and they are victims of nothing.
Others may go through a period of uncertainty and conflict when they have not made a final commitment to abstinence, and they drink or use with a great deal of self-consciousness. This kind of experimenting, if it occurs at all, usually serves to strengthen understanding of how the Addictive Voice works and usually results in rapid progress toward secure abstinence."
-- Jack Trimpey
Robby, you posted this partly in response to my question re how, ultimately, it is different to say "if you drank again, it's because your BP wasn't a REAL BP" from "it didn't work for you because you didn't work it right (the program/steps)".
okay, so, after looking at this some more, this is how i read it: Trimpey says if you drink again, it is because you changed your mind, or you have not made a final commitment.
i read this to say, by extension: if you drink again AFTER you have made a big plan, it proves that in fact you did NOT make a big plan.
this strikes me as the most circular of arguments, and no different from my repeated decisions to quit.
and then judging if the decision/commitment was "real" by the result. and then, when it "didn't work", saying that it didn't work because it wasn't really ironclad enough.
what's interesting to me here is also how this is so entirely contradictory to how so many of us describe our own experiences. certainly MY experience was one of making the decision to never drink again, and then some time during that day or the next knowing i would buy booze on the way home from work. knowing it with certainty, but try as i might having no knowledge of how i reached that decision or ever deciding to buy it or ever going through anything resembling a struggle of any sort... i had suddenly decided without a conscious process.
this was desperately torturous to me.
what i'm saying is that i cannot identify anything resembling a moment or process such as Trimpey or soberlicious speak of: a moment of changing my intent.
and the snag i see in this Trimpey quote is that it discounts my experience by saying i misinterpret my own experience, OR by writing the criteria such that everyone who has, inside themselves, made a final commitment to abstinence and then drinks again simply did NOT make that commitment.
it is just as self-referencing a closed-loop-system as "it works if you work it, and if it doesn't work for you it's because you didn't work it right".
there is no room there for the person like me, and like so many others who drank again "against their will". because JT simply says it's not possible.
because he simply keeps claiming entirely free choice/will.
which is fine if addiction and alcoholism weren't conditions which impair the ability to choose freely in this area.
superficially it seems like the difference is vast: Trimpey says: you changed your mind. AA says: you didn't work it right.
Trimpey assumes you didn't want to NOT drink anymore.
AA allows for what's much closer to my own experience: drinking again when i didn't want to.
which is what i hear lots of people here saying: they drank again in spite of not really wanting to go back to drinking again.
they drank again after making a BP even though they want to be rid of drinking.
ach, sorry for this long muddled post.
would really appreciate people engaging with me about this. though yeah, there will likely be more questions.
Adventures In SpaceTime
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 5,827
Yes, moving the question to its own thread for open discussion is likely a good idea. 
Bringing comparisons of AVRT and AA into the discussion of how drinking again manifests after previously quitting is something I'm not likely to be much involved in - speaking for myself. The two ways are not really comparable in a one-for-one manner, all else being equal, is my experience.
I will say this:
I claim to make personal use of both AA and AVRT. I claim to have great success taking what I need and desire, and thereafter being more out-of-the-box with applying both approaches.
I have learned by previous recent threads, my claimed experiences are much more the exception, and certainly not as common as I had once thought. Interestingly, I'm now much more less likely to detail the mechanics of my experiences. Live and learn, lol.
My informed opinion is neither AVRT or AA is suggesting the requirement for circular excuses to explain having a return to drinks after quitting. For me anyways, both approaches correctly allow for whomever to have drinks without the drinker needing to beat themselves up over it.
I also think that people have different opinions on what a return to drinking means generally - if it can even be fairly generalised for that matter.
So although I enjoy your posts fini, I'm not really in agreement with the initial premise that either AVRT or AA is getting it wrong. I don't hear either approach 'officially' stating what you are suggesting, even though I have heard people speak from their personal experiences about being reflective of what you too seem to be stating.
As is already known, I've not ever, not even once, returned to drinking after making use of AA and AVRT. Before such use, I was not successful in quitting, but simply took breaks between my "drunks" ie I succeeded in failing at moderation, lol.
I really don't have any experience at "failing" with either AVRT or AA. This is the prime reason I posted what Jack is saying so as to hopefully bring it into the discussion that one can succeed at drinking while still not failing at not drinking.
A bit of a paradox, I suppose it could be said. Still, it looks very clear to me "drinking" and "not drinking" do not point-for-point have comparable "equal opposites" available for discussion. Same kind of thing for "sobriety" and "abstinence" too.
Bringing comparisons of AVRT and AA into the discussion of how drinking again manifests after previously quitting is something I'm not likely to be much involved in - speaking for myself. The two ways are not really comparable in a one-for-one manner, all else being equal, is my experience.
I will say this:
I claim to make personal use of both AA and AVRT. I claim to have great success taking what I need and desire, and thereafter being more out-of-the-box with applying both approaches.
I have learned by previous recent threads, my claimed experiences are much more the exception, and certainly not as common as I had once thought. Interestingly, I'm now much more less likely to detail the mechanics of my experiences. Live and learn, lol.
My informed opinion is neither AVRT or AA is suggesting the requirement for circular excuses to explain having a return to drinks after quitting. For me anyways, both approaches correctly allow for whomever to have drinks without the drinker needing to beat themselves up over it.
I also think that people have different opinions on what a return to drinking means generally - if it can even be fairly generalised for that matter.
So although I enjoy your posts fini, I'm not really in agreement with the initial premise that either AVRT or AA is getting it wrong. I don't hear either approach 'officially' stating what you are suggesting, even though I have heard people speak from their personal experiences about being reflective of what you too seem to be stating.
As is already known, I've not ever, not even once, returned to drinking after making use of AA and AVRT. Before such use, I was not successful in quitting, but simply took breaks between my "drunks" ie I succeeded in failing at moderation, lol.
I really don't have any experience at "failing" with either AVRT or AA. This is the prime reason I posted what Jack is saying so as to hopefully bring it into the discussion that one can succeed at drinking while still not failing at not drinking.
A bit of a paradox, I suppose it could be said. Still, it looks very clear to me "drinking" and "not drinking" do not point-for-point have comparable "equal opposites" available for discussion. Same kind of thing for "sobriety" and "abstinence" too.
Not The Way way, Just the way
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: US
Posts: 1,413
Originally Posted by fini 
...
what's interesting to me here is also how this is so entirely contradictory to how so many of us describe our own experiences. certainly MY experience was one of making the decision to never drink again, and then some time during that day or the next knowing i would buy booze on the way home from work. knowing it with certainty, but try as i might having no knowledge of how i reached that decision or ever deciding to buy it or ever going through anything resembling a struggle of any sort... i had suddenly decided without a conscious process.
this was desperately torturous to me.
...
what's interesting to me here is also how this is so entirely contradictory to how so many of us describe our own experiences. certainly MY experience was one of making the decision to never drink again, and then some time during that day or the next knowing i would buy booze on the way home from work. knowing it with certainty, but try as i might having no knowledge of how i reached that decision or ever deciding to buy it or ever going through anything resembling a struggle of any sort... i had suddenly decided without a conscious process.
this was desperately torturous to me.
...
I suppose I can imagine learning AVRT the way a secret agent might learn how not to cave in to divulging classified information if cornered by the enemy. "IT" wants you to drink. The enemy wants you to "spill the beans".
But I do feel like saying something about the Big Plan.
To me there is a great irony in the name Big Plan, because I believe that, except for one single quality, the Big Plan is quite tiny in all its other aspects.
It takes a very tiny amount of time to implement - about ten seconds, spoken slowly to self.
It takes a very tiny amount of energy to carry out - zero calories.
It takes a very tiny amount of intelligence to understand - small children learn "never"s quite regularly.
It is about NOT doing an extremely exacting behavior - ingesting an easily identified chemical into the blood.
It can only be done the tiniest number of times, ONCE - because a person cannot lie to him/herself. Yep, that's why.
It has a very tiny degree of respect in our society - because so many people lie TO OTHERS about having made it.
It elicits a very tiny amount of trust when shared with others - because other people cannot truly know if a person made the Big Plan.
Nevertheless, all these qualities of smallness are totally blown away by the one ultimate and vastly large quality of the Big Plan. It lasts forever, beyond even the age of the universe.
Any shorter time is not the Big Plan.
As I reminisce about how the Big Plan has worked for me. Ahhhhhh, what a gem of perfection it is. It has benefited me and freed up soooo much time. I love it. You can, too.
Sober Alcoholic
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,539
Fini, I think you actually put your finger on a problem with both. You have pointed out a tautology present in both AA and AVRT . With AVRT “judging if the decision/commitment was "real" by the result” and again with AA by judging if the steps were “worked” sufficiently by that same result. The result defines the adequacy of process that previously took place. With such a definition there can be no “failure” of either method.
The trouble with turning a genuine failure into a retroactive definition of an inadequately followed program or method is that we learn little or nothing in the process.
The trouble with turning a genuine failure into a retroactive definition of an inadequately followed program or method is that we learn little or nothing in the process.
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2012
Location: canada
Posts: 7,242
Robby,
i'll have to think more about what you're saying, but will just respond for now that my premise is not that avrt or aa get anything wrong.
if that's the impression my questions give, then i seriously misworded.
......that one can succeed at drinking while still not failing at not drinking.
yes. that's where my questions originate. at the "explanation" for this odd scenario.
i'll have to think more about what you're saying, but will just respond for now that my premise is not that avrt or aa get anything wrong.
if that's the impression my questions give, then i seriously misworded.
......that one can succeed at drinking while still not failing at not drinking.
yes. that's where my questions originate. at the "explanation" for this odd scenario.
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2012
Location: canada
Posts: 7,242
GT,
sigh. i feel entirely unheard by you.
my questions are not about why someone should use AVRT, or why and how it's beneficial.
nor did i ever have trouble identifying the ludicrous stuff my "beast" could come up with to try and get me to drink.
nor was i into "recoverism" or have ever gone to AA until several years after i quit. wanted to know more/better what that place is really like.
had no learned helplessness about my alcoholism. in fact, the opposite.
as i've said repeatedly.
i'm not talking about any of that.
nor do i have any difficulty with regards to not drinking.
hasn't been an issue.
don't know how to reword my initial post to explain it better, but really do feel you did not address what i'm getting at.
i'm talking about AVRT-enthusiast response to drinking again after a person made what they believe to be a BP.
sigh. i feel entirely unheard by you.
my questions are not about why someone should use AVRT, or why and how it's beneficial.
nor did i ever have trouble identifying the ludicrous stuff my "beast" could come up with to try and get me to drink.
nor was i into "recoverism" or have ever gone to AA until several years after i quit. wanted to know more/better what that place is really like.
had no learned helplessness about my alcoholism. in fact, the opposite.
as i've said repeatedly.
i'm not talking about any of that.
nor do i have any difficulty with regards to not drinking.
hasn't been an issue.
don't know how to reword my initial post to explain it better, but really do feel you did not address what i'm getting at.
i'm talking about AVRT-enthusiast response to drinking again after a person made what they believe to be a BP.
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2012
Location: canada
Posts: 7,242
awuh,
yes, 'tautology' is a word going through my head yesterday.
thank you, you're putting very concisely what i am asking about:
With such a definition there can be no “failure” of either method.
"the program" and "the technique/BP" both seem to have the exact same response to a return to drinking.
yes, 'tautology' is a word going through my head yesterday.
thank you, you're putting very concisely what i am asking about:
With such a definition there can be no “failure” of either method.
"the program" and "the technique/BP" both seem to have the exact same response to a return to drinking.
Not The Way way, Just the way
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: US
Posts: 1,413
Originally Posted by awuh1
...You have pointed out a tautology... With AVRT “judging if the decision/commitment was "real" by the result” ...
The person making it cannot help but know whether or not they made it because a person cannot lie to him/herself - it's absolute at the point in time of making it, so any future self judgement is a moot point. (and future doubt is the AV)
And other people can NEVER know whether another person has truly made the Big Plan - so any judgements can never be verified and are futile.
The trouble with turning a genuine failure into a retroactive definition of an inadequately followed program or method is that we learn little or nothing in the process.
If I decide to separate from my Beast and not have a drink - success - I remained abstinent.
By the time I see and smell that glass of alcohol getting close to my mouth, my deciding to swallow it or not is so obviously in my conscious control, there's no possibility of failure. A person with a Big Plan will always be unable to swallow it.
This is how I understand AVRT.
Not The Way way, Just the way
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: US
Posts: 1,413
Originally Posted by fini
don't know how to reword my initial post to explain it better, but really do feel you did not address what i'm getting at.
i'm talking about AVRT-enthusiast response to drinking again after a person made what they believe to be a BP.
Sober Alcoholic
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,539
GT you use the phrase “alleged to have made a Big Plan” and yet you state “whether or not someone makes the Big Plan is utterly immune from judgement”. If in fact a BP is “utterly immune from judgement” the word “alleged” is not appropriate. You can’t have it both ways.
“If I decide to go along with my Beast and have a drink - success - I drank.
If I decide to separate from my Beast and not have a drink - success - I remained abstinent.”
This is exactly what I was talking about. Air tight reasoning by way of tautology. You said it yourself, “there's no possibility of failure”.
“If I decide to go along with my Beast and have a drink - success - I drank.
If I decide to separate from my Beast and not have a drink - success - I remained abstinent.”
This is exactly what I was talking about. Air tight reasoning by way of tautology. You said it yourself, “there's no possibility of failure”.
Not The Way way, Just the way
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: US
Posts: 1,413
Originally Posted by awuh1
GT you use the phrase “alleged to have made a Big Plan” and yet you state “whether or not someone makes the Big Plan is utterly immune from judgement”. If in fact a BP is “utterly immune from judgement” the word “alleged” is not appropriate. You can’t have it both ways.
“If I decide to go along with my Beast and have a drink - success - I drank.
If I decide to separate from my Beast and not have a drink - success - I remained abstinent.”
This is exactly what I was talking about. Air tight reasoning by way of tautology. You said it yourself, “there's no possibility of failure”.
“If I decide to go along with my Beast and have a drink - success - I drank.
If I decide to separate from my Beast and not have a drink - success - I remained abstinent.”
This is exactly what I was talking about. Air tight reasoning by way of tautology. You said it yourself, “there's no possibility of failure”.
"If I decide to go along with my Beast" is the opposite of "If I decide to separate from my Beast", so, as I understand tautology, I'm not "using different words to say the same thing" (this quote from Wikipedia Tautology page), I'm using the same word "success" to describe two very different things.
I suppose if I were to say "I believed I would never drink again and then had a drink a number of hours later" and also said "I had suddenly decided to drink without a conscious process" - that sounds to me like "a series of self-reinforcing statements that cannot be disproved because they depend on the assumption that they are already correct" (this quote from wikipedia Tautology page).
Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,937
I think some of this misses the forest for the trees. The point of AVRT (as I understand it) is realizing that you have agency; you're not simply "diseased" and doomed to be a drunk. The point is that you choose to drink and you choose not to. All is choice.
Having learned to recognize my AV, I have nearly 8 months without a drink under my belt. This isn't really a "trick", it's just the result of having the tools to understand my choices and why I make them.
If I drink today it's because I chose to. Would that be a "failure" of my big plan? The plan is just a collection of words. My plan to not drink can't really fail, although I can fail to follow it.
I can understand the urge to tinker around with the wording but I think the more important thing to do is to figure out how to make your big plan and avoid deviating when the Beast Voice gets loud.
Having learned to recognize my AV, I have nearly 8 months without a drink under my belt. This isn't really a "trick", it's just the result of having the tools to understand my choices and why I make them.
If I drink today it's because I chose to. Would that be a "failure" of my big plan? The plan is just a collection of words. My plan to not drink can't really fail, although I can fail to follow it.
I can understand the urge to tinker around with the wording but I think the more important thing to do is to figure out how to make your big plan and avoid deviating when the Beast Voice gets loud.
Not The Way way, Just the way
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: US
Posts: 1,413
Originally Posted by MythOfSisyphus
Having learned to recognize my AV, I have nearly 8 months without a drink under my belt. This isn't really a "trick", it's just the result of having the tools to understand my choices and why I make them.
"...nearly 8 months without a drink under my belt [is] just the result of having the tools to understand my choices and why I make them..."
This procedure appeases the Beast because IT senses that not drinking is an ongoing choice process based on various conditions that IT will influence down the road in order to get out of jail early by trying to convince you that everything is lining up for you to have just a few little drinkypoos.
For myself, "my abstinence is the result of my AVRT Big Plan which is the tool by which I eliminated my ever having to make a choice about drinking again. After these many years I don't even care why I made it, but I know I did, and I'm totally comfortable with not having to dwell on whys and why nots about choosing to drink.
Not The Way way, Just the way
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: US
Posts: 1,413
Originally Posted by awuh1
"I'm using the same word "success" to describe two very different things." Yes you are. And because these two very different things are in fact opposites, it demonstrates a problem with the reasoning.
I succeeded quite well at keeping my losses to a minimum during the time I chose to drink dependently. I loved the deep pleasure and, up to the very end, decided it was worth the risk.
THEN:
I changed my mind about leading the life of a dependent drinker.
AND:
I succeeded quite well at becoming permanently abstinent.
CONSEQUENTLY:
I believe my reasoning does not demonstrate a problem.
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2012
Location: canada
Posts: 7,242
.....I chose to drink dependently. I loved the deep pleasure and, up to the very end, decided it was worth the risk.
GT,
we had different experiences. clearly.
i never chose to drink dependantly.
and deep pleasure wasn't what i experienced for the last many many years.
but all that is far away from my initial question.
awuh,
ever so relieved you got what i was trying to say. thank you.
GT,
we had different experiences. clearly.
i never chose to drink dependantly.
and deep pleasure wasn't what i experienced for the last many many years.
but all that is far away from my initial question.
awuh,
ever so relieved you got what i was trying to say. thank you.
Sober Alcoholic
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,539
GT, thanks for that clarification. There is a world of difference (it would seem to me) between someone talking about drinking as a “success” before, as opposed to after, a “big plan”. I take it then that by not addressing drinking that occurs after a “big plan” that you disagree with Jack Trimpey, as quoted by fini. You will remember that the thread was started with this quote,
"People who have made a Big Plan do not have relapses, or even lapses; they never drink or use again”.
At least in part, that seemed to be what fini was getting at when this thread was started, i.e. the drinking that takes place after the “big plan”, and the circuitous nature of the logic that judges the adequacy of that decision by subsequent events.
"People who have made a Big Plan do not have relapses, or even lapses; they never drink or use again”.
At least in part, that seemed to be what fini was getting at when this thread was started, i.e. the drinking that takes place after the “big plan”, and the circuitous nature of the logic that judges the adequacy of that decision by subsequent events.
Not The Way way, Just the way
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: US
Posts: 1,413
Originally Posted by GerandTwine
I first try to find out as detailed a chronology as possible of what particular thoughts and feelings the person was having around the time of their drinking that first drink after having alleged to have made a Big Plan.
Not The Way way, Just the way
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: US
Posts: 1,413
Originally Posted by awuh1
I take it then that by not addressing drinking that occurs after a “big plan” that you disagree with Jack Trimpey, as quoted by fini. You will remember that the thread was started with this quote,
"People who have made a Big Plan do not have relapses, or even lapses; they never drink or use again”.
"People who have made a Big Plan do not have relapses, or even lapses; they never drink or use again”.
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
