View Poll Results: Which spiritual principle is excercised when using a clarity statement?
Acceptance
12
32.43%
Patience
1
2.70%
Tolerance
3
8.11%
None of the Above
21
56.76%
Voters: 37. You may not vote on this poll
Clarity Statements (approved version)
I'm an addict.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hyde Park, NY
Posts: 1,201
den·ti·fy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-dnt-f)
To consider as identical or united; equate.
To associate or affiliate (oneself) closely with a person or group.
Anonymous:
2: not known or lacking marked individuality
Oops.......I should have highlighted the definitions I was referenceing
To consider as identical or united; equate.
To associate or affiliate (oneself) closely with a person or group.
Anonymous:
2: not known or lacking marked individuality
Oops.......I should have highlighted the definitions I was referenceing
I'm an addict.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hyde Park, NY
Posts: 1,201
The deffinition of simple, isn't too....
sim·ple Audio pronunciation of "simple" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (smpl)
adj. sim·pler, sim·plest
1. Having or composed of only one thing, element, or part. See Synonyms at pure.
2. Not involved or complicated; easy: a simple task. See Synonyms at easy.
3. Being without additions or modifications; mere: a simple “yes” or “no.”
4. Having little or no ornamentation; not embellished or adorned: a simple dress.
5. Not elaborate, elegant, or luxurious. See Synonyms at plain.
6. Unassuming or unpretentious; not affected.
7.
1. Having or manifesting little sense or intelligence.
2. Uneducated; ignorant.
3. Unworldly or unsophisticated. See Synonyms at naive.
8. Not guileful or deceitful; sincere.
9. Humble or lowly in condition or rank: a simple woodcutter.
10. Ordinary or common: a simple head cold.
11.
1. Being a fundamental or rudimentary element; basic.
2. Not important or significant; trivial.
12. Biology. Having no divisions or branches; not compound: a simple leaf; a simple eye or lens.
13. Music. Being without figuration or elaboration: a simple tone.
n.
1. A single component of a complex, especially one that is unanalyzable.
2. A fool; a simpleton.
3. A person of humble birth or condition.
4. A medicinal plant or the medicine obtained from it.
Kinda ironic, huh?
sim·ple Audio pronunciation of "simple" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (smpl)
adj. sim·pler, sim·plest
1. Having or composed of only one thing, element, or part. See Synonyms at pure.
2. Not involved or complicated; easy: a simple task. See Synonyms at easy.
3. Being without additions or modifications; mere: a simple “yes” or “no.”
4. Having little or no ornamentation; not embellished or adorned: a simple dress.
5. Not elaborate, elegant, or luxurious. See Synonyms at plain.
6. Unassuming or unpretentious; not affected.
7.
1. Having or manifesting little sense or intelligence.
2. Uneducated; ignorant.
3. Unworldly or unsophisticated. See Synonyms at naive.
8. Not guileful or deceitful; sincere.
9. Humble or lowly in condition or rank: a simple woodcutter.
10. Ordinary or common: a simple head cold.
11.
1. Being a fundamental or rudimentary element; basic.
2. Not important or significant; trivial.
12. Biology. Having no divisions or branches; not compound: a simple leaf; a simple eye or lens.
13. Music. Being without figuration or elaboration: a simple tone.
n.
1. A single component of a complex, especially one that is unanalyzable.
2. A fool; a simpleton.
3. A person of humble birth or condition.
4. A medicinal plant or the medicine obtained from it.
Kinda ironic, huh?
Certified NA Counselor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Newport Beach Ca., US
Posts: 458
-
If you pick a sense to a word you ought to stick to it, or at least own the fact that the sense is fluctuating. To demonstrate, let's insert this definition you claim into the subsequent context with which you used the word "identify" and check its syntax.
[I]den·ti·fy
To consider as identical or united; equate.
To associate or affiliate (oneself) closely with a person or group.
Anonymous:
2: not known or lacking marked individuality OK, now let's insert this definition into the following.
If someone doesn't fell comfortable comming to NA b/c they identify themselves as an alcoholic, then maybe they would find more identification in AA. If someone doesn't feel comfortable comming to NA because they (consider as identical) themselves as an alcoholic, then maybe they would find more identification in AA.
Does this make sense? Would YOUR english teacher let you write her a paper using that grammer?
Maybe you could try the word "introduce" instead of "identify."
Yes, throughout the fellowship you will hear people use the syntax "identify as an ___________." Yet I implore you to study that grammer, to do some critical thinking, ... you know what - go ask an english teacher.
If you use a trait, you can identify as a something, ex. you identify the virus as the one that causes the bird flu.
But when your in an "anonymous" fellowship, you are inherently bearing no traits or catagorical qualities.
However, in NA or AA, you can identify with others, here you can substitue your definition and it makes perfect sense, hence the word "associate."
then maybe they would find more identification in AA. Then maybe they would find more (association) in AA.
Does this make more sense?
Now, try to contrast and compare the words "identification" and "empathy."
andyaddict
Los Angeles
If you pick a sense to a word you ought to stick to it, or at least own the fact that the sense is fluctuating. To demonstrate, let's insert this definition you claim into the subsequent context with which you used the word "identify" and check its syntax.
Originally Posted by Blake
[I]den·ti·fy
To consider as identical or united; equate.
To associate or affiliate (oneself) closely with a person or group.
Anonymous:
2: not known or lacking marked individuality
Originally Posted by Blake
If someone doesn't fell comfortable comming to NA b/c they identify themselves as an alcoholic, then maybe they would find more identification in AA.
Does this make sense? Would YOUR english teacher let you write her a paper using that grammer?
Maybe you could try the word "introduce" instead of "identify."
Yes, throughout the fellowship you will hear people use the syntax "identify as an ___________." Yet I implore you to study that grammer, to do some critical thinking, ... you know what - go ask an english teacher.
If you use a trait, you can identify as a something, ex. you identify the virus as the one that causes the bird flu.
But when your in an "anonymous" fellowship, you are inherently bearing no traits or catagorical qualities.
However, in NA or AA, you can identify with others, here you can substitue your definition and it makes perfect sense, hence the word "associate."
Originally Posted by Blake
then maybe they would find more identification in AA.
Does this make more sense?
Now, try to contrast and compare the words "identification" and "empathy."
andyaddict
Los Angeles
1 bite&all resistance crumbles
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: IRELAND
Posts: 2,208
Andyaddict
What's with the nasty tone? It's so un-NA like!!!!
My 2 cents...I go to AA. My sister is a drug addict. We went together to her first NA meeting. She is now 2 months clean. I went too and identified myself as an addict, which I am.
I LOVED the meeting, I went to two more with her plus one AA (this was while on holiday in South Africa0)
What's the argument again???!??!????
I was welcomed by NA and my sister is clean thanks to NA.
That's good news, right?
What's with the nasty tone? It's so un-NA like!!!!
My 2 cents...I go to AA. My sister is a drug addict. We went together to her first NA meeting. She is now 2 months clean. I went too and identified myself as an addict, which I am.
I LOVED the meeting, I went to two more with her plus one AA (this was while on holiday in South Africa0)
What's the argument again???!??!????
I was welcomed by NA and my sister is clean thanks to NA.
That's good news, right?
I'm an addict.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hyde Park, NY
Posts: 1,201
Thats be some awsome news Mrs. Cathy, I am feeling very proudly with you sister...Tell her to keep comming back.
"If someone doesn't feel comfortable comming to NA b/c they (associate or affiliate (oneself) closely with) an alcoholic, then maybe they would find more identification in AA."
Yes the grammar is a little screwy, but that is b/c we are replacing the word with a deffinition and if it would be better gramatically to do so, then there would be no need for the word. The syntax of the sentance must change slightly to accomodate.
then maybe they would find more (association or affiliation) in AA.
This makes semse to me. (again I probably wouldn't use this in a conversation....I'd use it as I wrote it.)
To quote the basic text,
" When my addiction brought me to the point of complete powerlessness, uselessness and surrender some fifteen years ago (Written in 1965), there was no N.A. I found A.A., and in that Fellowship met addicts who had also found that program to be the answer to their problem. However, we knew that many were still going down the road of disillusion, degradation and death, because they were unable to identify with the alcoholic in A.A. Their identification was at the level of apparent symptoms and not at the deeper level of emotions or feelings, where empathy becomes a healing therapy for all addicted people. With several other addicts and some members of A. A. who had great faith in us and the program, we formed, in July of 1953, what we now know as Narcotics Anonymous. We felt that now the addict would find from the start as much identification as each needed to convince himself that he could stay clean, by the example of others who had recovered for many years."
At your suggestion I called a friend of mine in the program (Karren P) who is an english teacher. She said that the phrase "identification as addicts is all inclusive" is propper gramatical use of the word identification....THen again this is louisiana and our school system isn't something to write home about....
If we bear no traits in an anonymous program, why use names at all, why share about our lives? It is our own personal traits (experience, strength and hope, character defects) that allow us to relate to one another and for this program to work. Anonymity is about seeing the similarities not the differences, not washing out all our defining characteristics. You can't have empathy without that recognition.
NA and AA are 2 seperate fellowships for a reason. THe clarity statement simply tries to keep that clear. NA is all inclusive and we deal with the underlying disease of addiction instead of the apparent symptoms.
It all comes down to group conscience weather clarity statements are used in a meeting, if you don't like them that much, go to a different meeting or try to get it removed from your home group.
How do you feel about the blue card in AA?
"If someone doesn't feel comfortable comming to NA b/c they (associate or affiliate (oneself) closely with) an alcoholic, then maybe they would find more identification in AA."
Yes the grammar is a little screwy, but that is b/c we are replacing the word with a deffinition and if it would be better gramatically to do so, then there would be no need for the word. The syntax of the sentance must change slightly to accomodate.
then maybe they would find more (association or affiliation) in AA.
This makes semse to me. (again I probably wouldn't use this in a conversation....I'd use it as I wrote it.)
To quote the basic text,
" When my addiction brought me to the point of complete powerlessness, uselessness and surrender some fifteen years ago (Written in 1965), there was no N.A. I found A.A., and in that Fellowship met addicts who had also found that program to be the answer to their problem. However, we knew that many were still going down the road of disillusion, degradation and death, because they were unable to identify with the alcoholic in A.A. Their identification was at the level of apparent symptoms and not at the deeper level of emotions or feelings, where empathy becomes a healing therapy for all addicted people. With several other addicts and some members of A. A. who had great faith in us and the program, we formed, in July of 1953, what we now know as Narcotics Anonymous. We felt that now the addict would find from the start as much identification as each needed to convince himself that he could stay clean, by the example of others who had recovered for many years."
At your suggestion I called a friend of mine in the program (Karren P) who is an english teacher. She said that the phrase "identification as addicts is all inclusive" is propper gramatical use of the word identification....THen again this is louisiana and our school system isn't something to write home about....
If we bear no traits in an anonymous program, why use names at all, why share about our lives? It is our own personal traits (experience, strength and hope, character defects) that allow us to relate to one another and for this program to work. Anonymity is about seeing the similarities not the differences, not washing out all our defining characteristics. You can't have empathy without that recognition.
NA and AA are 2 seperate fellowships for a reason. THe clarity statement simply tries to keep that clear. NA is all inclusive and we deal with the underlying disease of addiction instead of the apparent symptoms.
It all comes down to group conscience weather clarity statements are used in a meeting, if you don't like them that much, go to a different meeting or try to get it removed from your home group.
How do you feel about the blue card in AA?
I'm an addict.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hyde Park, NY
Posts: 1,201
It's sorta like their "clarity statement"
http://home.capecod.net/~action-12st.../bluecard.html
I'm all for it, it used to bother me when I used to go to AA, but now I recognize that it is there to preseve AA's message and protect their traditions.
http://home.capecod.net/~action-12st.../bluecard.html
I'm all for it, it used to bother me when I used to go to AA, but now I recognize that it is there to preseve AA's message and protect their traditions.
Makijah
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Central WA state
Posts: 4
Hi all,
Here is a link to an issue of "About A.A." that is all about A.A.'s Singleness of Purpose.
Can't get link to work, but if you go to http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org/
and click on About A.A., and then go to About A.A. - Newletter for Professionals, and pull down menu go to Fall/Winter 2002 issue.
HERE IS A.A.'S SINGLENESS OF PURPOSE STATEMENT (which I had never heard until last years GSC disucssions, and is used in PI/CPC work):
Singleness of Purpose and Problems Other Than Alcohol
Some professionals refer to alcoholism and drug addiction as “substance abuse” or “chemical dependency.” Nonalcoholics are, therefore, sometimes introduced to A.A. and encouraged to attend A.A. meetings. Anyone may attend open A.A. meetings, but only those with a drinking problem may attend closed meetings.
A renowned psychiatrist, who served as a nonalcoholic trustee of the A.A. General Service Board, made the following statement: “Singleness of purpose is essential to the effective treatment of alcoholism. The reason for such exaggerated focus is to overcome denial. The denial associated with alcoholism is cunning, baffling, and powerful and affects the patient, helper, and the community. Unless alcoholism is kept relentlessly in the foreground, other issues will usurp everybody’s attention.”
Last year the topic of A.A.'s General Service Conference, "AA's Singleness of Purpose, the Cornerstone of A.A.", and it stirred up much debate and controversy within the Fellowship, at least in the Area where I live. There are many varied opinions, and I was serving as GSR of my homegroup at the time, representing Homegroup members with such a variety some would be considered program "purists" as I've seen them called here, others (newer people) were be the opposite, and strongly believe AA should be opened up to be all inclusive as NA is. The discussions on this topic alone were so divergent that our group actually split into 2 separate groups as a result, which I believe was necessary, and serves the Fellowship better. It was meant to be.
Anyway here is a link for some interesting reading for any who are interested. I got to read some wonderful background material that included much information on NA and AA, last year. Very educational.
I'd like to see the 2 Fellowships work in cooperation with each other to carry the message. I believe that the strength of each program does lie in NA's purity of program, and AA's Singleness of Purpose. I think this is a very important topic for survival of both Fellowships and for carrying the message to those who still suffer. I believe that getting into the right Fellowship, can make or break a person, and sometimes be a matter of life or death.
Grateful for today,
Makijah
Here is a link to an issue of "About A.A." that is all about A.A.'s Singleness of Purpose.
Can't get link to work, but if you go to http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org/
and click on About A.A., and then go to About A.A. - Newletter for Professionals, and pull down menu go to Fall/Winter 2002 issue.
HERE IS A.A.'S SINGLENESS OF PURPOSE STATEMENT (which I had never heard until last years GSC disucssions, and is used in PI/CPC work):
Singleness of Purpose and Problems Other Than Alcohol
Some professionals refer to alcoholism and drug addiction as “substance abuse” or “chemical dependency.” Nonalcoholics are, therefore, sometimes introduced to A.A. and encouraged to attend A.A. meetings. Anyone may attend open A.A. meetings, but only those with a drinking problem may attend closed meetings.
A renowned psychiatrist, who served as a nonalcoholic trustee of the A.A. General Service Board, made the following statement: “Singleness of purpose is essential to the effective treatment of alcoholism. The reason for such exaggerated focus is to overcome denial. The denial associated with alcoholism is cunning, baffling, and powerful and affects the patient, helper, and the community. Unless alcoholism is kept relentlessly in the foreground, other issues will usurp everybody’s attention.”
Last year the topic of A.A.'s General Service Conference, "AA's Singleness of Purpose, the Cornerstone of A.A.", and it stirred up much debate and controversy within the Fellowship, at least in the Area where I live. There are many varied opinions, and I was serving as GSR of my homegroup at the time, representing Homegroup members with such a variety some would be considered program "purists" as I've seen them called here, others (newer people) were be the opposite, and strongly believe AA should be opened up to be all inclusive as NA is. The discussions on this topic alone were so divergent that our group actually split into 2 separate groups as a result, which I believe was necessary, and serves the Fellowship better. It was meant to be.
Anyway here is a link for some interesting reading for any who are interested. I got to read some wonderful background material that included much information on NA and AA, last year. Very educational.
I'd like to see the 2 Fellowships work in cooperation with each other to carry the message. I believe that the strength of each program does lie in NA's purity of program, and AA's Singleness of Purpose. I think this is a very important topic for survival of both Fellowships and for carrying the message to those who still suffer. I believe that getting into the right Fellowship, can make or break a person, and sometimes be a matter of life or death.
Grateful for today,
Makijah
Vision of Hope
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Living on This side of the green!!
Posts: 1,057
Heres the biggest deal there is, we are addicts who have found a New Way to live, and we pick apart this bunch of B@llSh!t. We all have 2 things in common, Addiction and Recovery. Different rates of disease and different rates of recovery. I can honestly say, I know when I NO longer have to stand for non-existing vertues.
Andy,
Whats up with that! you dont post for months and the clarity statement pops up and here you are. Are you to good to share your Experience, Strength and Hope with the newer members? Or have you graduated to the intillectual side of Narcotics Anonymous?
Peace,
Todd J.
Andy,
Whats up with that! you dont post for months and the clarity statement pops up and here you are. Are you to good to share your Experience, Strength and Hope with the newer members? Or have you graduated to the intillectual side of Narcotics Anonymous?
Peace,
Todd J.
Certified NA Counselor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Newport Beach Ca., US
Posts: 458
I dunno, I think my tone could be read in a nasty tone - why did you read it that way? lol (god im sick - i crack me up)
I do, however, appreciate how civil Blake has kept his side of the argument and how much he brings to the table - I'm afraid he's gonna learn something though - just my opinion. Research has a way of opening people’s eyes. The sad part is, that most often, in arguments such as these, the opposition begins to get belligerent and that's where the argument ends and the attacks begin.
Blakey, check out that portion from Jimmy K that you quoted from Chapter Eight; notice the syntax with which Jimmy uses the words "identify?" Notice he says "identify with" something as opposed to as something. It would make sense that he meant to "associate," correct? Notice how in the same paragraph you quoted there was the word "empathy?" What's the difference between empathy and identification to you? (psst. Webster knows)
In the introduction it says (out of context) "our identification as addicts is all inclusive." Could that also mean our "association" as addicts? When it comes to addiction in NA, our membership of addicts could be all inclusive and never exclusive, with respect to any mind changing, mood altering chemical right?
Maybe the word "identification" used in the Basic Text was never meant to be synonymous to a label, could this too be possible?
The "blue" card, that little stint that directs a meeting’s members to share about their "problems and solutions with alcohol?" It's a joke, Bill Wilson would be rolling over in his grave, God bless his soul. You go to AA, have you read the Big Book? Have you noticed it said IN THE BIG BOOK that alcohol was only a SYMPTOM of our problem? How about in AA's 12 & 12 where it says (out of context) "AAs cannot be dictated to - individually or collectively" on the top of page 174?
How about AA's preamble from the Grapevine that reads "we share our experience, strength, and hope with each other," not we edit our experience, strength and hope, right? I've torn many an AA meeting up if someone dared to try to enforce that rhetoric, it's nonsense.
How about in AAs Tradition Three where it states "we must never compel anyone to pay anything, believe anything, or conform to anything." (p. 141) In the Big Book it says "be careful never to brand him as an alcoholic. Let him draw his own conclusion.' (p. 92)
andyaddict
Los Angeles
I do, however, appreciate how civil Blake has kept his side of the argument and how much he brings to the table - I'm afraid he's gonna learn something though - just my opinion. Research has a way of opening people’s eyes. The sad part is, that most often, in arguments such as these, the opposition begins to get belligerent and that's where the argument ends and the attacks begin.
Blakey, check out that portion from Jimmy K that you quoted from Chapter Eight; notice the syntax with which Jimmy uses the words "identify?" Notice he says "identify with" something as opposed to as something. It would make sense that he meant to "associate," correct? Notice how in the same paragraph you quoted there was the word "empathy?" What's the difference between empathy and identification to you? (psst. Webster knows)
In the introduction it says (out of context) "our identification as addicts is all inclusive." Could that also mean our "association" as addicts? When it comes to addiction in NA, our membership of addicts could be all inclusive and never exclusive, with respect to any mind changing, mood altering chemical right?
Maybe the word "identification" used in the Basic Text was never meant to be synonymous to a label, could this too be possible?
The "blue" card, that little stint that directs a meeting’s members to share about their "problems and solutions with alcohol?" It's a joke, Bill Wilson would be rolling over in his grave, God bless his soul. You go to AA, have you read the Big Book? Have you noticed it said IN THE BIG BOOK that alcohol was only a SYMPTOM of our problem? How about in AA's 12 & 12 where it says (out of context) "AAs cannot be dictated to - individually or collectively" on the top of page 174?
How about AA's preamble from the Grapevine that reads "we share our experience, strength, and hope with each other," not we edit our experience, strength and hope, right? I've torn many an AA meeting up if someone dared to try to enforce that rhetoric, it's nonsense.
How about in AAs Tradition Three where it states "we must never compel anyone to pay anything, believe anything, or conform to anything." (p. 141) In the Big Book it says "be careful never to brand him as an alcoholic. Let him draw his own conclusion.' (p. 92)
andyaddict
Los Angeles
Certified NA Counselor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Newport Beach Ca., US
Posts: 458
Makijah seems to be on top of the AA boat here. I'm sure he could supply us a site where Bill has shared his views on "Problems Other Than Alcohol." This information pamphlet sums it up pretty good, if you don't read anything else into it.
Bill notes AA's singleness of purpose but notes the only restriction AA has in this category is for those who DO NOT have or think they might have a problem with alcohol. Nowhere in AA's literature does it say that you must conform to be accepted, you don't have to take any steps, go to meetings, get a sponsor, or even say that you're an alcoholic. The only thing that is required is that a person has a desire to stop drinking, even as AA's 12 & 12 puts it - if you are the victim of another addiction even worse stigmatized than alcoholism (p. 142).
Sorry I could not put this in the previous post, my duty called and he wanted me to play with him. Once in a while my kid still takes precedence over matters.
andyaddict
Los Angeles
Bill notes AA's singleness of purpose but notes the only restriction AA has in this category is for those who DO NOT have or think they might have a problem with alcohol. Nowhere in AA's literature does it say that you must conform to be accepted, you don't have to take any steps, go to meetings, get a sponsor, or even say that you're an alcoholic. The only thing that is required is that a person has a desire to stop drinking, even as AA's 12 & 12 puts it - if you are the victim of another addiction even worse stigmatized than alcoholism (p. 142).
Sorry I could not put this in the previous post, my duty called and he wanted me to play with him. Once in a while my kid still takes precedence over matters.
andyaddict
Los Angeles
Certified NA Counselor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Newport Beach Ca., US
Posts: 458
Originally Posted by godsonmyside
Andy,
Whats up with that! you dont post for months and the clarity statement pops up and here you are. Are you to good to share your Experience, Strength and Hope with the newer members? Or have you graduated to the intillectual side of Narcotics Anonymous?
Peace,
Todd J.
Whats up with that! you dont post for months and the clarity statement pops up and here you are. Are you to good to share your Experience, Strength and Hope with the newer members? Or have you graduated to the intillectual side of Narcotics Anonymous?
Peace,
Todd J.
aa
la
I'm an addict.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hyde Park, NY
Posts: 1,201
I'm not afraid I'm gonna learn something, infact that is why I'm participating in this conversation, isn't it good to stay teachable?
em·pa·thy (mp-th)
n.
1. Direct identification with, understanding of, and vicarious experience of another person's situation, feelings, and motives.
2. The projection of one's own feelings or emotional state onto an object or animal.
I find empathy with other addicts because I find identify with their situation, feelings and motives.
Would you be able to identify the tatoo on my chest in my avatar as the Narcotics Anonymous logo? So it could be construed that the word lable is an acceptable synonym for identify in some situations? (proper grammar aside) If so, what is wrong with the phrase, "I identify myself as an addict."?
I respect AA's singleness of purpose, that is why I don't go to AA anymore. I am not an alcoholic and I am not powerless over alcohol. Isn't this why we have NA? Didn't it spring from the need of other addicts like myself needing to find a greater sense of identification than they could find in AA?
For me it is clear that AA and NA are two completely seperate programs of recovery and the have 2 distinctly different messages. Maybe I'm wrong, it's just my opinion. I think it gets a little dangerous to try to blur the lines between the two. DO you think either groups primary purpose would be served better if the groups merged and became one? Me neither, I think that is why the clarity statement and blue card came into existence.
Don't get me wrong, I love and respect AA, it just isn't for me.
It is my personal experience that the use of the clarity statement and people explaning it to me has helped me stay clean. It helped me, so I will share that experience with anyone that could possibly benifit from it. From me shifting the focus off the symptoms of my disease and on to the cause I have been able to find some acceptance in my first step.
Maybe the version of the clarity statement you read has some sort of NAZI death tinge and is carried out with an iron fist?
In my homegroup I have never seen anyone get thrown out of a meeting if they identified then self as "alcoholic or addict and alcoholic" Our policy in general is to show some patience and tolerance for everyone, we read the clarity statement and after people keep comming back for a while they will usually "get it" or ask about it and someone will explain it in a loving and caring manner. Some people (one guy in particular) comes to meetings and allways identifies himself as an alcoholic, he has been around for a long time and it is his perogative to say what he wabts to say. He is fully accepted in our homegroup and is a part of. A clarity statement is only a suggestion made by that particular group. The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop using.
I still don't see how clarity statements break traditions...but I'm trying to learn.
Can you learn me sumthin?
em·pa·thy (mp-th)
n.
1. Direct identification with, understanding of, and vicarious experience of another person's situation, feelings, and motives.
2. The projection of one's own feelings or emotional state onto an object or animal.
I find empathy with other addicts because I find identify with their situation, feelings and motives.
Would you be able to identify the tatoo on my chest in my avatar as the Narcotics Anonymous logo? So it could be construed that the word lable is an acceptable synonym for identify in some situations? (proper grammar aside) If so, what is wrong with the phrase, "I identify myself as an addict."?
I respect AA's singleness of purpose, that is why I don't go to AA anymore. I am not an alcoholic and I am not powerless over alcohol. Isn't this why we have NA? Didn't it spring from the need of other addicts like myself needing to find a greater sense of identification than they could find in AA?
For me it is clear that AA and NA are two completely seperate programs of recovery and the have 2 distinctly different messages. Maybe I'm wrong, it's just my opinion. I think it gets a little dangerous to try to blur the lines between the two. DO you think either groups primary purpose would be served better if the groups merged and became one? Me neither, I think that is why the clarity statement and blue card came into existence.
Don't get me wrong, I love and respect AA, it just isn't for me.
It is my personal experience that the use of the clarity statement and people explaning it to me has helped me stay clean. It helped me, so I will share that experience with anyone that could possibly benifit from it. From me shifting the focus off the symptoms of my disease and on to the cause I have been able to find some acceptance in my first step.
Maybe the version of the clarity statement you read has some sort of NAZI death tinge and is carried out with an iron fist?
In my homegroup I have never seen anyone get thrown out of a meeting if they identified then self as "alcoholic or addict and alcoholic" Our policy in general is to show some patience and tolerance for everyone, we read the clarity statement and after people keep comming back for a while they will usually "get it" or ask about it and someone will explain it in a loving and caring manner. Some people (one guy in particular) comes to meetings and allways identifies himself as an alcoholic, he has been around for a long time and it is his perogative to say what he wabts to say. He is fully accepted in our homegroup and is a part of. A clarity statement is only a suggestion made by that particular group. The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop using.
I still don't see how clarity statements break traditions...but I'm trying to learn.
Can you learn me sumthin?
Vision of Hope
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Living on This side of the green!!
Posts: 1,057
Originally Posted by andyaddict
I've graduated, besides you guys have most of the other stuff taken care of. Oh, and I have posted a few other times, but since I'm it's finals week I'm letting off some steam. Then I've got a few more weeks till next quarter, Ill be back with NAWOL a bit more too.
aa
la
aa
la
Peace,
Todd J.
Certified NA Counselor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Newport Beach Ca., US
Posts: 458
Notice how the definition of empathy compliments my argument? It's all about feelings, not labels. Same goes for how I believe the context of "identification" was used in the Basic Text, is that hard to understand?
You seem pretty involved and intuitive for only being at 9 months; am I wrong to guess that, though not successive, you may have a little more experience than 9 months Blakey?
Oh, and have you ever been to Shreveport? Survivors Club right a bell? I spent a few years there and appreciated my experience.
I think those things came into existence because some people’s defects of character never went OUT of existence. I see expressions of intolerance and believe them born out of resentment - mmmm how spiritually refreshing.
In AA it is said alcohol is but a symptom and bottles are but a symbol. The AA text is littered with drugologues cleverly disguised with the word "sedatives" do to the sociological intolerance for drug addicts in those days. Hell, just as the Rockefeller laws came (and still haven't went), it was extremely against the law for addicts to socialize, much less publish the idea of it - they'd be shot!
AA did what they had to do in the 30s to get started, Bill knew that addiction was all inclusive but legally couldn't do a thing; he stuck with what society would accept. NA was supposed to be all inclusive, but that inclusivity is limited by those that think conformity is a part of the program.
Now, you give the impression that you are convinced and set in your ways; you also appear to resist my pressure to have you conform to my views. This resistance to conformity seems built in with addicts - we are, by nature or by nurture, non-conformists. This position most all of us can agree on.
So then, in an all inclusive program, filled to the brink with non-conformists and you yourself too a non-conformist, why would you want to do to others what you are reluctant to have done to yourself? Live and let live, the clarity statement is a conformity statement. Why is it that this "spiritual" program needs to be blurred by intolerance of any person wanting to call themselves an alcoholic?
Go read page 63 in the text It Works: How and Why. Should NA be a self-righteous program?
aa
la
You seem pretty involved and intuitive for only being at 9 months; am I wrong to guess that, though not successive, you may have a little more experience than 9 months Blakey?
Oh, and have you ever been to Shreveport? Survivors Club right a bell? I spent a few years there and appreciated my experience.
I think that is why the clarity statement and blue card came into existence.
shifting the focus off the symptoms of my disease and on to the cause I have been able to find some acceptance in my first step.
AA did what they had to do in the 30s to get started, Bill knew that addiction was all inclusive but legally couldn't do a thing; he stuck with what society would accept. NA was supposed to be all inclusive, but that inclusivity is limited by those that think conformity is a part of the program.
Now, you give the impression that you are convinced and set in your ways; you also appear to resist my pressure to have you conform to my views. This resistance to conformity seems built in with addicts - we are, by nature or by nurture, non-conformists. This position most all of us can agree on.
So then, in an all inclusive program, filled to the brink with non-conformists and you yourself too a non-conformist, why would you want to do to others what you are reluctant to have done to yourself? Live and let live, the clarity statement is a conformity statement. Why is it that this "spiritual" program needs to be blurred by intolerance of any person wanting to call themselves an alcoholic?
Go read page 63 in the text It Works: How and Why. Should NA be a self-righteous program?
aa
la
I'm an addict.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hyde Park, NY
Posts: 1,201
Empathy is about feelings, but also lables too (to a degree). I am an insurance agent and right now I can empathize with other insurance agents with all the hurricane craziness going on down here. While I can share some feelings with other people effected by all of it to an extent, like contractors for example, I find a greater level of empathy with other people that identify (lable) themselves as insurance agents.
Your belief of how the basic text should be interperted is yours and it is your opinion, which I can respect. Opinions are based on perception and I don't percieve clarity statemens as evil, judgemental, intolerance.....it is simply a suggestion.
When I was using I was deffinately a reble/non-conformist, mostly out of spite and trying to fit in by not fitting in, if you know what I mean. Today I try to not act like I did when I was using (at least not so much).
If the clarity statement is a conformist statement then wouldn't that make all suggestions that we here so much be conformist in nature? It is suggested that you get a sponsor, make meetings, do service, study literature, work the steps, etc... Why is all that suggested? is it to make us all conform to identical paths of recovery? No, suggestions are there b/c it is the collective experience of people in the program that by following them, recovery is possible. Are they written in stone? No, otherwise they would be rules instead of suggestions.
I have followed most of the suggestions I have been given since I got clean, the few that I haven't accepted (the reble inside, I guess) have caused me some serious consequences.
I don't feel that intolerance that you are talking about towards the "alcoholic" like I said before, I have NEVER seen anyone kicked out of a meeting b/c they identified themselves as an alcoholic. If you have had some experience with that, don't be confused, it isn't the clarity statements fault, it is the person trying to play sheriff recovery's ****. The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop using.
Again, this is your opinion....maybe it is true, maybe it isn't. I try not to take other peoples inventory though and try not to point out other people's character defects (I have too many of my own to worry about other peoples) I have heard that we are never fully free of character defects anyway, I heard they just kinda become less obvious untill a new one pops up to replace the old one (why a daily inventiry is important) I could be off though, I haven't got past step 3 yet. Have you ever considered you may have a resentment against clarity statements and the "intollerant people that try to make you conform to their recovery", maybe not, who am I to say?
Yes I have only 9 months experience (almost 10, but I hear they don't front clean time) in narcotics anonymous. My only other exposure to recovery before 2/10/05 was a stay in detox back in 2000 when I attended AA for a couple months. As far as NA goes, I didn't think I belonged back then so I stuck with the Alkies...but kept drinking...WTF, right? At least I was lucky enough to have been exposed back then and knew where to come when I really was ready to quit.
I have never been to Shreveport, but I know some people in the program that used to live up there and I have heard of survivors club through them (they were trying to get a club house similar down here at one point) Joe and Yvette C. (they have only been around for a few years) My sponsor spent sometime there too, he's been around for a bit and you might know him, Ronnie P?
I appreciate this discussion, I am learning too. When I write (or type) out my beliefs, I get a better grasp on what exactally they are and why I have them. Thank you.
Your belief of how the basic text should be interperted is yours and it is your opinion, which I can respect. Opinions are based on perception and I don't percieve clarity statemens as evil, judgemental, intolerance.....it is simply a suggestion.
When I was using I was deffinately a reble/non-conformist, mostly out of spite and trying to fit in by not fitting in, if you know what I mean. Today I try to not act like I did when I was using (at least not so much).
If the clarity statement is a conformist statement then wouldn't that make all suggestions that we here so much be conformist in nature? It is suggested that you get a sponsor, make meetings, do service, study literature, work the steps, etc... Why is all that suggested? is it to make us all conform to identical paths of recovery? No, suggestions are there b/c it is the collective experience of people in the program that by following them, recovery is possible. Are they written in stone? No, otherwise they would be rules instead of suggestions.
I have followed most of the suggestions I have been given since I got clean, the few that I haven't accepted (the reble inside, I guess) have caused me some serious consequences.
I don't feel that intolerance that you are talking about towards the "alcoholic" like I said before, I have NEVER seen anyone kicked out of a meeting b/c they identified themselves as an alcoholic. If you have had some experience with that, don't be confused, it isn't the clarity statements fault, it is the person trying to play sheriff recovery's ****. The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop using.
I think those things came into existence because some people’s defects of character never went OUT of existence. I see expressions of intolerance and believe them born out of resentment - mmmm how spiritually refreshing.
Yes I have only 9 months experience (almost 10, but I hear they don't front clean time
) in narcotics anonymous. My only other exposure to recovery before 2/10/05 was a stay in detox back in 2000 when I attended AA for a couple months. As far as NA goes, I didn't think I belonged back then so I stuck with the Alkies...but kept drinking...WTF, right? At least I was lucky enough to have been exposed back then and knew where to come when I really was ready to quit.I have never been to Shreveport, but I know some people in the program that used to live up there and I have heard of survivors club through them (they were trying to get a club house similar down here at one point) Joe and Yvette C. (they have only been around for a few years) My sponsor spent sometime there too, he's been around for a bit and you might know him, Ronnie P?
I appreciate this discussion, I am learning too. When I write (or type) out my beliefs, I get a better grasp on what exactally they are and why I have them. Thank you.
Certified NA Counselor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Newport Beach Ca., US
Posts: 458
Maybe you are that sheltered, and also that smart.
As for a Ronnie, I think I remember a little fella with some time that moved, I think, down south about 5 years ago. I also think he had a daughter, who what quite young then but probably a teen now.
You've never seen anything mean, evil, or distasteful (yet) relating to such a statement - good. I remember a Southern California Convention here about 9 years ago where a young feller "introduced" himself as an alcoholic as the one with the least clean time at the end of a main speaker meeting. The crowd of a couple thousand boo'd, hissed, and jeered when they heard that evil word spoken in a microphone at their convention, how dare he! Wonder where they established the value that the word "alcoholic" was wrong?
I was threatened with physical violence when I was new, hmmmm. I've heard quite a few people shot down or sarcastic comments thrown at them in meetings when the "s" word is used. I've also noted that few of them ever came back after being treated with such welcome when our members were only passing a "suggestion" along, maybe somewhat tactlessly.
These other suggestion you bring forth, there are no semi-incoherent paragraphs of jargon read at the beginning of a meeting that "suggests" - We are presented with a dilemma when members don't get a sponsor, work these steps, go to meetings, blah blah blah. This happens in their own time, besides, do you think that you are going to automatically be loaded if someone you don't know says the "s" (sober) word while their sharing? In nine months, have you experienced people say that after they called themselves "alcoholic" seventy-six times that POOF! somehow they were magically drunk?
AA lingo doesn't get people loaded, 10X as many addicts are clean in AA using that lingo every day - so the argument that it's a jinx doesn't fly. There is, however, an attitude of self-righteous and intolerance directly linked to feelings of inadequacy which can tarnish our image (the convention story). This is what I think of whey people talk of "blurring" our message.
aa
la
How did page 63 come across to ya?
As for a Ronnie, I think I remember a little fella with some time that moved, I think, down south about 5 years ago. I also think he had a daughter, who what quite young then but probably a teen now.
You've never seen anything mean, evil, or distasteful (yet) relating to such a statement - good. I remember a Southern California Convention here about 9 years ago where a young feller "introduced" himself as an alcoholic as the one with the least clean time at the end of a main speaker meeting. The crowd of a couple thousand boo'd, hissed, and jeered when they heard that evil word spoken in a microphone at their convention, how dare he! Wonder where they established the value that the word "alcoholic" was wrong?
I was threatened with physical violence when I was new, hmmmm. I've heard quite a few people shot down or sarcastic comments thrown at them in meetings when the "s" word is used. I've also noted that few of them ever came back after being treated with such welcome when our members were only passing a "suggestion" along, maybe somewhat tactlessly.
These other suggestion you bring forth, there are no semi-incoherent paragraphs of jargon read at the beginning of a meeting that "suggests" - We are presented with a dilemma when members don't get a sponsor, work these steps, go to meetings, blah blah blah. This happens in their own time, besides, do you think that you are going to automatically be loaded if someone you don't know says the "s" (sober) word while their sharing? In nine months, have you experienced people say that after they called themselves "alcoholic" seventy-six times that POOF! somehow they were magically drunk?
AA lingo doesn't get people loaded, 10X as many addicts are clean in AA using that lingo every day - so the argument that it's a jinx doesn't fly. There is, however, an attitude of self-righteous and intolerance directly linked to feelings of inadequacy which can tarnish our image (the convention story). This is what I think of whey people talk of "blurring" our message.
aa
la
How did page 63 come across to ya?
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
