Steppers, answer me this...
Why would Boniface, who dedicated his life to conquering paganism, help Bill Wilson write a book that allows one to pick a god/higher power of one's choosing? Wouldn't Boniface have insisted on the Catholic God, given his history? How do you square this?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02656a.htm
Boniface returned to Upper Hessia and repaired the losses which occurred during his absence, many having drifted back into paganism; he also administered everywhere the Sacrament of Confirmation. He continued his work in Lower Hessia. To show the heathens how utterly powerless were the gods in whom they placed their confidence, Boniface felled the oak sacred to the thunder-god Thor, at Geismar, near Fritzlar. He had a chapel built out of the wood and dedicated it to the prince of the Apostles. The heathens were astonished that no thunderbolt from the hand of Thor destroyed the offender, and many were converted. The fall of this oak marked the fall of heathenism. Tradition tells us that Boniface now passed on to the River Werra and there erected a Church of St. Vitus, around which sprang up a town which to the present day bears the name of Wannfried. At Eschwege he is said to have destroyed the statue of the idol Stuffo. Thence he went into Thuringia.
The difficulties that confronted him here were very great Christianity had indeed made great progress, but it had become mixed up with heretical tenets and pagan customs. This was due to a great extent to some Celtic missionaries, several of whom had never been ordained, while others had been raised to the priesthood by non-Catholic bishops, though all performed priestly functions. These taught doctrines and made use of ceremonies at variance with the teaching and use of the Roman Church, especially in regard to the celebration of Easter, the conferring of baptism, celibacy, the papal and episcopal authority. Besides, many were wanting in education, some scarcely able to read or write, and equally ready to hold services for the Christians and to offer sacrifices to the idols for the heathens. A neighbouring bishop (probably of Cologne) also gave trouble, by laying claim to a part of the district under Boniface's jurisdiction and treating his authority as an intrusion, thereby indirectly strengthening the party of the heretics. All this caused him great anxiety and suffering as may be seen from his letters to England. He overcame all, thanks to his episcopal dignity and to his own personality, full of courage and zeal in the cause which he defended, and supported by the authority of the pope and of Charles Martel.
- Pennywise's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
Pennywise
Sun, 07/29/2012 - 18:18
Permalink
The one that says it is crazy
The one that says it is crazy to believe that the spirits of dead people speak to you from beyond the grave.
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
becket
Sun, 07/29/2012 - 19:14
Permalink
OK. So then, by association,
OK. So then, by association, Bill Wilson was "crazy", is that right? Did you know that hearing voices can be a byproduct of depression? So then, considering his lifelong depression, would you still say he was "crazy" or just ill? Or don't you accept that depression is an illness?
“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
LisaMarie
Sun, 07/29/2012 - 19:19
Permalink
Very good point, becket. Bill
Very good point, becket. Bill did suffer horribly from severe depression.
Pennywise
Sun, 07/29/2012 - 19:35
Permalink
That's a complicated question
That's a complicated question that goes beyond my expertise to provide an authoritative answer. Nevertheless, for the sake of discussion, I'll try:
1) I am well aware that "crazy" is a colloquial term that has no objective medical definition. To me, if someone hears voices that aren't there, esspecially to the point of having a conversation with those voices or basing decisions on what those voices say, that person is crazy.
2) I am not a medical doctor. That said, I don't put much stock in what metal mental health professionals say. As a layperson, my hunch is that much like alcoholism, depression is fake disease that was voted into existence to make people money. That's not to say that depression is not caused by biological chemicals/processes in the brain, as every thought we have is caused by our neurophysiology/neurobiology.
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
causeandeffect
Sun, 07/29/2012 - 19:31
Permalink
It wasn't a fake disease for
It wasn't a fake disease for me, Penny. Not for a long shot.
Troll free AA critical forum
http://www.expaa.org/
"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
becket
Sun, 07/29/2012 - 20:29
Permalink
It has not been a "fake
It has not been a "fake disease" for me, either. I think it played a significant part in my attraction to the power of alcohol.
You say the voices aren't there, but for some they are there. Schizophrenic Roky Erickson used to have radios blasting in every room of his house, turned to static, to try to drown out the voices. His brother had major depressive illness and eventually killed himself. The worst side effect I have from depression is tinnitus; depression is often coincident with chronic tinnitus.
Someone here also mentioned restless leg syndrome as being a "fake disease". My mother had it and I have it, and it worsens with age. It's not an imaginary malady cooked up for insurance companies. It's a genuine medical condition, the origin of which is unclear.
Just because you haven't experienced these things does not mean they do not exist.
“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
Gunthar2000
Sun, 07/29/2012 - 20:41
Permalink
There is no such diease...
as the spiritual disease that AA describes in it's literature.
AA is a religious cult dressed up to look like a treatment for alcoholism.
Gunthar2000
http://www.expaa.org/
becket
Sun, 07/29/2012 - 21:10
Permalink
I didn't mention any
I didn't mention any spiritual disease, Gunthar200.
“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
Pennywise
Mon, 07/30/2012 - 03:51
Permalink
That's kind hat I thought you
That's what I thought you would say, i.e., that the voices really are there for some people. The problem with that, however, is that you now have no basis for diagnosing or treating schizophrenia. Chiefly, if the voices are truly there, then what's the problem? If I am speaking to you, it makes no sense to diagnose you as schizophrenic if you hear my words. I appreciate your input and this is not a slam in the least, but it can be challenging talking with you sometimes (even though I enjoy it much) because you seem to deny any objective basis for analyzing anything at all, including the voices schizophrenic mental patients hear that no one else does. Indeed, you have no way of refuting someone who says restless leg syndrome is not a real disease, because if it is not real to that person, you have no ground for arguing that your view is objectively superior. I have to ask myself (and you) how science is supposed to work under a Becketian philosophy where the truth of any observation cannot be ascertained beyond the subjective mind of each individual observer.
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
live_free_or_die
Tue, 07/31/2012 - 05:19
Permalink
reserved
What part of reserved do you not understand judge beckit. I was waiting for your response to pennyW.
Are you not thinking clearly? Talking to appliances again are ya judge?
Alcoholics Anonymous: MyNotGodHasItCovered®
http://www.expaa.org/
http://bereanresearch.com/
http://badrecovery.blogspot.com/
NOT AA:
Rational Recovery, SOS, HAMS
http://alcoholabusesolutions.com/
becket
Mon, 07/30/2012 - 12:29
Permalink
Now, what is this, lfop? A
Now, what is this, lfop? A deleted comment? Isn't that interesting, in the wake of the scourging First Thing First endured after deleting his comments. Care to explain why your deletion is any different?
“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
becket
Mon, 07/30/2012 - 12:03
Permalink
Response to Pennywise
You yourself believe that the DSM-IV is, what did you say?, the most evil book on earth - well, it's a paraphrase, but you understand what I'm driving at. So, if all the time and money and research that went into that compendium is nothing but nefarious bullshit, then you will have to start from scratch to develop and implement diagnoses of all mental disorders.
" If I am speaking to you, it makes no sense to diagnose you as schizophrenic if you hear my words." Why not? I could hear you speaking to me and still be a schizophrenic.
You know me well enough to appreciate that I do not put more stock science than I do in human experience. I am grateful for science, and there have been many times that I have had to trust science. But I also give full credit to a person's subjective, experiential life. I don't understand how you can hold up science as the gold standard and simultaneously pillory the DSM-IV. Yes, we have to start somewhere. Maybe that will be your springboard to developing a more reasonable scientific reference for mental illnesses.
"I have to ask myself (and you) how science is supposed to work under a Becketian philosophy where the truth of any observation cannot be ascertained beyond the subjective mind of each individual observer." Even science has its limitations. Doctors should treat patients first, diseases second. With all they have invested in schooling and sacrificing whatever they have had to sacrifice to become doctors, I'm sure they are very anxious to put their book-learning to work. But so many doctors buy into their own supremacy, forget how to be human, forget how to connect with the patient, and the result is shoddy medicine. If they dismiss voices in a patient's mind, what else are they overlooking or denying? And when did that secretary schedule tee time for - was it 2 p.m. or 3?
Science is only as sharp as its practitioners. If a doctor disregards the human element, or tolerates his patients with something akin to annoyance, he should be in research, not clinical application. The whole patient should be treated, not just the parts one can see and whose existence the doctor can verify. The voices that a schizophrenic hears are real to him, yes; even if a doctor cannot hear them, they are real to the doctor because they are symptomatic. That makes them real. So to say no one else hears them is not quite accurate. "Chiefly, if the voices are truly there, then what's the problem?" Indeed.
I don't argue that my view is "objectively superior", although there are plenty of people here who would argue that I do. I speak the way I speak. I write the way I write. If someone finds the way I communicate to be haughty or coming from a supposed superior place, that interpretation is on them, not on me. If my symptoms or my experiences or my ideas or my philosophy is not accepted by someone, or by a group of people, I keep going. Haven't you watched me do that on this forum?
“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
Pennywise
Mon, 07/30/2012 - 14:26
Permalink
Response to Becket
You yourself believe that the DSM-IV is, what did you say?, the most evil book on earth - well, it's a paraphrase, but you understand what I'm driving at. So, if all the time and money and research that went into that compendium is nothing but nefarious bullshit, then you will have to start from scratch to develop and implement diagnoses of all mental disorders.
I agree. The DSM is written by money grubbing political hacks and is largely bad science. We should burn the DSM, execute its authors, and start over.
Why not? I could hear you speaking to me and still be a schizophrenic.
The point is that you should not diagnose someone as schizophrenic based on the real voices he hears. Such a diagnosis should be based on the voices he hears that do not exist. You claim that if the voices he hears are real to him, then they are real. I disagree. I think there is an objective fact as to whether the sound waves he think he is hearing are actually being transmitted. There is even scientific equipment that can verify whether those sound waves are real.
You know me well enough to appreciate that I do not put more stock science than I do in human experience. I am grateful for science, and there have been many times that I have had to trust science. But I also give full credit to a person's subjective, experiential life. I don't understand how you can hold up science as the gold standard and simultaneously pillory the DSM-IV. Yes, we have to start somewhere. Maybe that will be your springboard to developing a more reasonable scientific reference for mental illnesses.
Experience can be a great aid to science. Indeed, the study of science would be impossible without it. The question is what to do when science contradicts what our experiences suggest is so. Moreover, not all science is "good science." The DSM, or the manuals they used 500 years ago to identify witches, are examples of poor science. Naturally, poor science detracts from good science and should be disregarded.
Even science has its limitations. Doctors should treat patients first, diseases second. With all they have invested in schooling and sacrificing whatever they have had to sacrifice to become doctors, I'm sure they are very anxious to put their book-learning to work. But so many doctors buy into their own supremacy, forget how to be human, forget how to connect with the patient, and the result is shoddy medicine. If they dismiss voices in a patient's mind, what else are they overlooking or denying? And when did that secretary schedule tee time for - was it 2 p.m. or 3?
Fair enough. But at some point, to effectively treat the condition, the doctors are going to have to proceed under the assumption that the voices in a patient's head are only in his head and not actually being transmitted as sound waves or by some supernatural medium from beyond the grave.
I don't argue that my view is "objectively superior", although there are plenty of people here who would argue that I do. I speak the way I speak. I write the way I write. If someone finds the way I communicate to be haughty or coming from a supposed superior place, that interpretation is on them, not on me. If my symptoms or my experiences or my ideas or my philosophy is not accepted by someone, or by a group of people, I keep going. Haven't you watched me do that on this forum?
If a man gets scientifically diagnosed with AIDS but says he is going to keep fucking chicks without a condom because in his mind he doesn't have AIDS, are you go to allow him to do so on the ground that every person's beliefs are equally true, or are you going to act on the premise that the medical diagnosis of having AIDS is superior to his personal beliefs about the matter?
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
becket
Mon, 07/30/2012 - 15:01
Permalink
a) What would be the point
a) What would be the point of executing the hacks? Wouldn't expecting them to endure the shame and dishonor be more delicious?
b) I contend that if the voices the schizophrenic hears are real to him but no one else can hear them, his own experience trumps the experience of a doctor, because that is what has to be dealt with and treated. He is the one experiencing this symptom. The symptom is real. If voices did not exist as some byproduct of faulty synapses or some other brain disorder we would not know to treat him or how to treat him. Symptoms inform.
c) "The question is what to do when science contradicts what our experiences suggest is so." Much modern science has so far has contradicted the alcoholic who experiences an obsession and compulsion to drink, that pesky craving phenomenon, instead claiming the excessive drinking is willful misconduct. Their experiences suggest that the craving phenomenon is real. Who should come out on top of this argument?
d) "But at some point, to effectively treat the condition, the doctors are going to have to proceed under the assumption that the voices in a patient's head are only in his head and not actually being transmitted as sound waves or by some supernatural medium from beyond the grave." Doctors are scientists. They are not exorcists. But if the DSM infuriates you, how would you measure any given medical condition? And I cannot imagine Big Pharma holds a corner in your heart; it does and does not on this end. I had to try dozens of medications over the course of two frightening and disjointed years to find a chemical cocktail that worked for my condition. This while divorcing my husband and raising my 15-month old alone, freelancing in my field. It was a terror. Yet I wonder now whether another approach might have been better for me. Don't discount the placebo effect. Placebos are still used in clinical studies and in homeopathy, and they do have power to persuade. The human body and mind are very complex. We are like Neanderthals taking a stab at fixing people. As great as an MRI machine is today, in 100 years it will look like a hand-crank telephone. We are all learning. The only thing is, doctors seem to have forgotten that they don't know everything.
e) "If a man gets scientifically diagnosed with AIDS but says he is going to keep fucking chicks without a condom because in his mind he doesn't have AIDS, are you go to allow him to do so on the ground that every one's beliefs are equally real, or are you going to act on the premise that the medical diagnosis of having AIDS is superior to his personal beliefs about the matter?" First of all, the schizophrenic hears the voices - they are real to him. The man with AIDS actually has AIDS but denies it. Apples and oranges.
Am I going to allow him? I can't control another person's life. How would I know he has AIDS? What confirmation would it be kosher to ask him for, my being a third party in the deal? What legal problems would I be opening myself up by tattling that someone has - or might have - AIDS? There are too many variables in this scenario. And morally speaking, I'm not convinced I have the right to say anything to anyone if I find out a man has AIDS. The "chicks" he's doing have a responsibility to have the son of a bitch tested before they sleep with him, after that sero-conversion window has been met. It does take us back to a more provincial time. If it puts a crimp in someone's opportunity to have an orgasm, that's too bad, but it's not my job to regulate anyone's sex life. If they're too stupid to take real precautions, there will be consequences. They won't be mine.
“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
Pennywise
Mon, 07/30/2012 - 16:13
Permalink
Response # 2 to Becket
a) What would be the point of executing the hacks? Wouldn't expecting them to endure the shame and dishonor be more delicious?
Fine.
b) I contend that if the voices the schizophrenic hears are real to him but no one else can hear them, his own experience trumps the experience of a doctor, because that is what has to be dealt with and treated. He is the one experiencing this symptom. The symptom is real. If voices did not exist as some byproduct of faulty synapses or some other brain disorder we would not know to treat him or how to treat him. Symptoms inform.
Fine. And if the voices are caused by a brain tumor, but the patient thinks they are caused by spirits, we'll have the doctors just do a voodoo dance around the operating table. No need to bother removing the tumor since the patient's experience tells him that his symptoms are caused by evil spirits and not the tumor. Is that seriously how you think doctors should proceed?
c) "The question is what to do when science contradicts what our experiences suggest is so." Much modern science has so far has contradicted the alcoholic who experiences an obsession and compulsion to drink, that pesky craving phenomenon, instead claiming the excessive drinking is willful misconduct. Their experiences suggest that the craving phenomenon is real. Who should come out on top of this argument?
They should put the alcoholic in a room and put a gun to his head and a drink in front of him. They should tell him that if he takes the drink they will shoot him, and if he refrains for 24 hours they will set him free. If he refrains, our crude scientific experiment will have shown that he in fact does have control over whether he drinks. If he takes the drink, they should blow his head off and put him out of his misery.
d) "But at some point, to effectively treat the condition, the doctors are going to have to proceed under the assumption that the voices in a patient's head are only in his head and not actually being transmitted as sound waves or by some supernatural medium from beyond the grave." Doctors are scientists. They are not exorcists. But if the DSM infuriates you, how would you measure any given medical condition? And I cannot imagine Big Pharma holds a corner in your heart; it does and does not on this end. I had to try dozens of medications over the course of two frightening and disjointed years to find a chemical cocktail that worked for my condition. This while divorcing my husband and raising my 15-month old alone, freelancing in my field. It was a terror. Yet I wonder now whether another approach might have been better for me. Don't discount the placebo effect. Placebos are still used in clinical studies and in homeopathy, and they do have power to persuade. The human body and mind are very complex. We are like Neanderthals taking a stab at fixing people. As great as an MRI machine is today, in 100 years it will look like a hand-crank telephone. We are all learning. The only thing is, doctors seem to have forgotten that they don't know everything.
All good points. I'm not a doctor so I can't get too specific. What I can say is that if a patient comes to a doctor's office claiming that a dead monk is talking to him from the netherworld, the doctor should not consult a priest to see if the patient could actually be conversing with the dead. The doctor should immediately conclude that whatever is wrong with the patient, the problem is not that he is being visited by supernatural spirits.
As far as the placebo effect is concerned, some placebos have negative side effects. If a placebo is neutral it is one matter, but it is highly questionable whether we should offer someone a placebo when the placebo can be dangerous.
e) "If a man gets scientifically diagnosed with AIDS but says he is going to keep fucking chicks without a condom because in his mind he doesn't have AIDS, are you go to allow him to do so on the ground that every one's beliefs are equally real, or are you going to act on the premise that the medical diagnosis of having AIDS is superior to his personal beliefs about the matter?" First of all, the schizophrenic hears the voices - they are real to him. The man with AIDS actually has AIDS but denies it. Apples and oranges.
Am I going to allow him? I can't control another person's life. How would I know he has AIDS? What confirmation would it be kosher to ask him for, my being a third party in the deal? What legal problems would I be opening myself up by tattling that someone has - or might have - AIDS? There are too many variables in this scenario. And morally speaking, I'm not convinced I have the right to say anything to anyone if I find out a man has AIDS. The "chicks" he's doing have a responsibility to have the son of a bitch tested before they sleep with him, after that sero-conversion window has been met. It does take us back to a more provincial time. If it puts a crimp in someone's opportunity to have an orgasm, that's too bad, but it's not my job to regulate anyone's sex life. If they're too stupid to take real precautions, there will be consequences. They won't be mine.
That sounds like a dodge, but I'll give you another hypothetical and hope that you will address the merits instead of finding a way to avoid:
Let's say your 5 year old daughter says demons are attacking her. You bring her to the doctor, and the doctor does a brain scan. The doctor says that a tumor is growing in her brain and will kill her within 24 hours if he does not operate fast. Your daughter says that the operation won't work and that to save her you must take her out of the hospital and bring her to see a dragon that lives in a cave in the mountains. Your daughter believes this with all her heart, and you believe that your daughter believes this. Do you deem the doctor's opinion superior and act on it, or do you take your daughter to the mountain to find the dragon that she is 100% convinced will save her life? Would you want the doctor to spend even five minutes deciding whether your daughter's purposed course of action might work?
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
becket
Tue, 07/31/2012 - 12:05
Permalink
Here's a quick answer and if
Here's a quick answer and if you want to discuss it some more I'm willing; I just didn't have a lot of time:
My arguments are really addressing what is “real”, not what the best course of action would be; indeed, I asked you what were your thoughts if the DSM-IV were disregarded as a guide. I’m no doctor. I’m just trying to determine what is real here. I don’t like reading that symptoms are not real. They are. I suggest nothing about a voodoo dance or a refusal to remove the tumor on someone’s brain. I’m just advocating for the reality of the symptom. Sheesh.
Is it not possible that terror can make us behave in ways that are not native to our lives? A drunk could refrain from drinking for 24 hours if a gun were pointed to his head, but I am, again, validating the reality of the craving phenomenon, the obsession and compulsion. He might be eaten up by it, but terror could make temporarily make him transcend it. I was terrorized as a child by a rapist. You better believe I did exactly everything he told me to do. I was saturated with Catholic indoctrination which expressly forbade my engaging in these horrible behaviors, but I did them because I thought he would kill me. If you have never personally been terrorized, and this is all academic to you, research the effects of genuine terror.
I don’t think a doctor should consult a priest if someone is hearing the voice of a monk. If it is within the doctor’s scope of discipline and the patient’s ability to pay him, the doctor should do whatever he can to help the patient (before tee time). As far as placebos go, I don’t know of a placebo having negative side effects. A placebo is all inert ingredients. I am just saying that there are many circumstances under which people are influenced by threat or suggestion. A placebo is a suggestion that things can get better. Prayer is a placebo. The lottery is a placebo. If people believe their lives can improve with something, chances are they can improve, sometimes temporarily, sometimes with greater longevity.
As for the 5-year-old daughter scenario, I would tell this child that I would take her to see the dragon after we see the doctor for surgery. It might help her to heal faster. Of course this would mean that I would have to figure out how to make that happen for her (the dragon visit). But there is a vast difference between my making decisions about my five-year-old daughter’s health and well-being and interfering with decisions to be made between an adult patient and his doctor.
“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
Pennywise
Tue, 07/31/2012 - 14:36
Permalink
Response #3 to Becket
Here's a quick answer and if you want to discuss it some more I'm willing; I just didn't have a lot of time:
I do wish to discuss it.
My arguments are really addressing what is “real”, not what the best course of action would be; indeed, I asked you what were your thoughts if the DSM-IV were disregarded as a guide. I’m no doctor. I’m just trying to determine what is real here. I don’t like reading that symptoms are not real. They are. I suggest nothing about a voodoo dance or a refusal to remove the tumor on someone’s brain. I’m just advocating for the reality of the symptom. Sheesh.
Isn't the best course of action usually determining by first figuring out what is real? I never said symptoms are not real. Can you understand the difference between saying on one hand that the delusions a schizophrenic experiences are real symptoms of a metal illness, while on the other hand saying that the delusions themselves do not coincide with reality? In other words, do you recognize that the monk in a man's head is merely a symptom of a disease and in no way indicates that a monk actually lives in his head? Do you agree that the doctors should thus search to cure the disease as opposed to entertaining the possibility that a monk actually lives in the patient's brain?
Is it not possible that terror can make us behave in ways that are not native to our lives? A drunk could refrain from drinking for 24 hours if a gun were pointed to his head, but I am, again, validating the reality of the craving phenomenon, the obsession and compulsion. He might be eaten up by it, but terror could make temporarily make him transcend it. I was terrorized as a child by a rapist. You better believe I did exactly everything he told me to do. I was saturated with Catholic indoctrination which expressly forbade my engaging in these horrible behaviors, but I did them because I thought he would kill me. If you have never personally been terrorized, and this is all academic to you, research the effects of genuine terror.
I don't deny the reality of cravings. I experience cravings every day and dream about booze every night. It's part of my life and probably will be forever. What I deny is the reality of powerlessness. If we want to, we can choose not to give in to cravings. I successfully carry out that choice every day.
I don’t think a doctor should consult a priest if someone is hearing the voice of a monk. If it is within the doctor’s scope of discipline and the patient’s ability to pay him, the doctor should do whatever he can to help the patient (before tee time). As far as placebos go, I don’t know of a placebo having negative side effects. A placebo is all inert ingredients. I am just saying that there are many circumstances under which people are influenced by threat or suggestion. A placebo is a suggestion that things can get better. Prayer is a placebo. The lottery is a placebo. If people believe their lives can improve with something, chances are they can improve, sometimes temporarily, sometimes with greater longevity.
Placebos can be harmful. For example, a person can spend too much money on lottery tickets chasing a placebo effect and not have enough left over for baby formula. A placebo can also turn into a dependency. Indeed, AA is at best a placebo, and you should see by now how AA has hurt many people. I know you and Ironic have this thing about Wikipedia, but I'll quote it anyway:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo
As for the 5-year-old daughter scenario, I would tell this child that I would take her to see the dragon after we see the doctor for surgery. It might help her to heal faster. Of course this would mean that I would have to figure out how to make that happen for her (the dragon visit). But there is a vast difference between my making decisions about my five-year-old daughter’s health and well-being and interfering with decisions to be made between an adult patient and his doctor.
So the bottom line is that you would put your daughter's opinion on the back-burner, deem the doctor's opinion superior, and allow the doctor to perform the operation regardless of your daughter's belief that it will not work. I'd do the same thing.
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
becket
Tue, 07/31/2012 - 16:54
Permalink
Conan/btnben: DO NOT READ!
Conan/btnben: DO NOT READ! It is long and covers many topics other than the superficial bullshit you write. Go eat some kippers or a little boiled meat. This won't take long.
"Isn't the best course of action usually determining by first figuring out what is real? I never said symptoms are not real. Can you understand the difference between saying on one hand that the delusions a schizophrenic experiences are real symptoms of a metal illness, while on the other hand saying that the delusions themselves do not coincide with reality? In other words, do you recognize that the monk in a man's head is merely a symptom of a disease and in no way indicates that a monk actually lives in his head? Do you agree that the doctors should thus search to cure the disease as opposed to entertaining the possibility that a monk actually lives in the patient's brain?"
Auditory hallucinations experienced by a schizophrenic are not voluntary, as far as I know. Believing a monk is speaking to you is a matter of voluntarily embracing a faith. If Bill Wilson was speaking to a monk, that is not a problem. If Bill Wilson believed a monk was speaking back or, more pointedly, inspiring him to write, he was voluntarily engaged in that conversation. These are two different situations.
The monk did not move a Penske truck full of chairs and lamps and a t.v. into Bill Wilson's head, and I think if he were here today he would laugh at the suggestion. Is it your position that he was schizophrenic? Are you saying alcoholism is a disease? Can you recognize the marketing power of having a one-on-one relationship with a dead monk? Catholics buy that shit all the time. Right there you have at least thousands of potential Big Book purchases lined up just on the outside chance that Bill Wilson was not exaggerating. As we all know, he wasn't stupid.
Isn't the best course of action usually determining by first figuring out what is real? I never said symptoms are not real. Can you understand the difference between saying on one hand that the delusions a schizophrenic experiences are real symptoms of a metal illness, while on the other hand saying that the delusions themselves do not coincide with reality? In other words, do you recognize that the monk in a man's head is merely a symptom of a disease and in no way indicates that a monk actually lives in his head? Do you agree that the doctors should thus search to cure the disease as opposed to entertaining the possibility that a monk actually lives in the patient's brain?
The "delusion" experienced by the schizophrenic may not coincide with my reality. I'm not the doctor. I don't have to make that determination. As far as I'm concerned, the voices are real if he hears them. That is his reality. They are a symptom of a problem, because we are not supposed to "hear" voices. It's up to his physician to untangle it. If I stand next to him and he says he's hearing voices, and that is real to him, but I don't hear them, it doesn't mean they're not real. It means I don't hear them. If at the same time I am hearing "Giant Steps" in my head, and he can't hear it, it doesn't mean the melody and the colors and the soul and the brilliance of John Coltrane is a figment of my imagination. I hear it note for note. The schizophrenic cannot play back the notes for the doctor but he can describe it. Then the doctor interprets, just like all jazz fans, what the hell it means. "Get yer groove on, doc."
The doctor's reality is that he a doctor. He may have the skills to help the schizophrenic. He certainly has a bank account that is open for business. At some point the reality of the patient succumbs to the reality of the doctor in a show a faith. If the schizophrenic can afford to be helped, and the doctor is willing and confident, then the doctor should help him. All parties are agreeable, all forms are signed, treatment guaranteed paid for. What's not to like?
I'm unaware that Bill Wilson ever asked for psychiatric help to address the monk's voice in his head. Did he actually believe the monk lived in his brain? Never heard that one. Not trying to be flip here; just concluding that we are not going to see eye to eye on this.
"I don't deny the reality of cravings. I experience cravings every day and dream about booze every night. It's part of my life and probably will be forever. What I deny is the reality of powerlessness. If we want to, we can choose not to give in to cravings. I successfully carry out that choice every day."
Congratulations. So do I. Yet I had twenty years of not carrying out that choice every day. Did Bill Wilson get me sober? Did God/god get me sober? Did AA get me sober? Did absolute emptiness and desperation get me sober? Did I get me sober? The answer is: yes.
If you do not believe in powerlessness then your course of action will be different than mine. I believe I was powerless until I was un-powerless. I relied on a higher power to prop me up until I could stand alone. That is a matter of faith, which you, as an atheist do not have. Or would it be more accurate to say that your faith is in yourself?
"Placebos can be harmful. For example, a person can spend too much money on lottery tickets chasing a placebo effect and not have enough left over for baby formula. A placebo can also turn into a dependency. Indeed, AA is at best a placebo, and you should see by now how AA has hurt many people . . . "
Booze: harmless if used in moderation. Placebo: harmless if used in moderation. Powerlessness: you say there is no such thing. How can you argue for and against powerlessness? I am still on the fence as to how people come to get harmed in AA, but I do understand that AA is vastly different now than it was when I was going to meetings. There wasn't much meddling and judging of character and criminal element and Jesus worshipping back then.
"So the bottom line is that you would put your daughter's opinion on the back-burner, deem the doctor's opinion superior, and allow the doctor to perform the operation regardless of your daughter's belief that it will not work. I'd do the same thing."
I would put my daughter's wishes on the burner directly beside the burner holding the doctor's opinion, but yes, I would, as the mother of a minor child, allow the doctor to perform surgery. That would be my primary responsibility as her caregiver. The surgery may work. The surgery may not work. I must be prepared equally for both outcomes and so must she. That would include a discussion with my daughter about powerlessness and power, fear and courage, saying "yes" or "no" to life, trust, and many other points. But if it were my daughter who is now 25, my job is to stand a little behind behind, not in front, and allow her to decide for herself what she wants to do. She might make a decision that is excruciatingly painful for both of us, but I would learn to accept it and live in every moment she shares with me and allow her to determine her own course.
“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
Pennywise
Tue, 07/31/2012 - 17:44
Permalink
Response #4 to Becket
I really appreciate the reply. Rather than break it down bit by bit, I have one question for you. I'd like to leave AA and Bill Wilson out of this if that is OK.
For purposes of this question, please assume the following:
1) A patient has a brain tumor that will kill him within 24 hours if it is not removed.
2) The ONLY goal is to save the patient's life. Please set aside all objections related to the patient's autonomy to choose his own course of medical treatment. Again, all we care about for purposes of this exercise is saving the patient.
3) The patient is 100% convinced that the ONLY thing that will save him is if the doctors do a voodoo dance around the operating table.
4) The doctors cannot do both the voodoo dance and perform the surgery. They have time to either do the voodoo dance or the surgery, but not both.
5) No one is available to do the voodoo dance while the doctors do the surgery.
6) There are no other options. The doctors must either do the voodoo dance, do the surgery, or do nothing.
7) Please assume the absence of any condition or option that you can think of that would allow the doctors to avoid the voodoo dance versus surgery dilemma.
Now, assuming all of the above, why shouldn't the doctors opt to do the voodoo dance instead of the surgery, or is it your position that both options are equally acceptable toward achieving the sole purpose of saving the patient's life?
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
becket
Tue, 07/31/2012 - 22:48
Permalink
Who decides?
Who decides?
“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
Pennywise
Wed, 08/01/2012 - 03:28
Permalink
A dispassionate third party
A dispassionate third party observer who has no goal other than saving the patient. But of course then you'll say that such an observer would be basing his decision on his own subjective beliefs and experiences.
I guess when it comes down to it, you do not believe that there is any objective course of action that would be more likely to work. The voodoo dance and the surgery are both equally likely to save the patient depending on what the doctor and/or patient "believes." Beliefs are all that matter, and a doctor who chooses to perform the voodoo dance can never be objectively wrong in his assessment that doing the voodoo dance is more likely than surgery to save the patient's life. Quite respectfully, that is a shocking proposition to me. It seems to go against everything we know about the world. It makes me wonder how airplanes can crash when every person boards the plan believing that it will land safely.
I also find your use of the Solzhenitsyn quote ironic. To you, there is no truth to add to or subtract from. EVERYTHING is ENTIRELY subjective. There is NO objective reality about ANYTHING AT ALL. If a person believes he can fly like Superman, there is no objective basis in your universe to say that he will plummet to his death if he leaps off the top of the Empire State Building.
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
Pennywise
Wed, 08/01/2012 - 03:46
Permalink
Another question:
Another question:
Becket, do you believe the universe existed before humans were around to form beliefs? Was there any reality prior to humanity?
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
becket
Thu, 08/02/2012 - 17:24
Permalink
Yes, I do believe the
Yes, I do believe the universe has been here for at least ten years. Why do you ask? Did dinosaurs have realities? Of course they did. Was there one Universal Truth for them? Doubtful.
“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
Pennywise
Thu, 08/02/2012 - 18:16
Permalink
I ask because presumably,
I ask because presumably under your philosophy, where beliefs are the be all and end all, there could be no natural universe if there were no beings capable of forming beliefs. For example, in the absence of humans (or a non human mind), the earth could not revolve around the sun because there would be no being capable of believing in the laws of astrophysics.
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
becket
Thu, 08/02/2012 - 18:06
Permalink
I asked because I would not
I asked because I would not be a dispassionate party. If the dispassionate third party were to decide, wouldn't you be compelled to ask him/her? Or am I supposed to pretend I am the dispassionate third party?
I still have a subjective truth under construction.
“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
Ironic
Wed, 08/01/2012 - 05:28
Permalink
Having unprotected sex with
Having unprotected sex with someone when you are HIV+ and not informing them can lead to an attempted murder charge.
Though your not the one with the supposed criminal justice degree.
becket
Thu, 08/02/2012 - 17:23
Permalink
I don't deny that, but since
I don't deny that, but since I don't have AIDS it's not under my jurisdiction. It is between the consenting adults. It's not my business unless I am asked to intervene somehow.
“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
Clara
Thu, 08/02/2012 - 18:10
Permalink
Ah, but I did know about it.
Ah, but I did know about it. I know how hard it is to avoid talking about me, Ironic.
I believe that the laws started to change when Rock Hudson's lover brought suit against his estate, claiming that Rock's medical condition was deliberately hidden even from his lover so as to continue a relationship with him. He was awarded civil damages despite not ever contracting the disease because he should have been told.
Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.
causeandeffect
Sun, 07/29/2012 - 19:34
Permalink
Hallucinations usually don't
Hallucinations usually don't dictate books. LOL!
Troll free AA critical forum
http://www.expaa.org/
"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
becket
Sun, 07/29/2012 - 20:30
Permalink
"Hallucinations usually don't
"Hallucinations usually don't dictate books."
Perhaps not, but who's to say they cannot inspire books? Or music? Or art?
“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
LisaMarie
Sun, 07/29/2012 - 18:38
Permalink
Penny, you would find this
Penny, you would find this crazy, you are an atheist.
Persephone In Exile
Sun, 07/29/2012 - 17:41
Permalink
Oh, good lord (lower case). I
Oh, good lord (lower case). I haven't read a Becket post in months and finally I do, and, well....ANYway, I was questioning a different commenter on his apparent intolerance of people who don't believe (well, not intolerance, but mockery, which is bred from intolerance) in this sort of thing. In a thread about a man who WAS so wrapped up in himself as to not only believe that a saint was talking to him AND that everyone who wanted to beat a problem he had should do it in the exact way he said helped him. And get accused of doing the very same thing myself.
So, it seems nothing has changed since the last time I read a Becket post then, right? Very good, carry on.
http://badrecovery.blogspot.com/
becket
Sun, 07/29/2012 - 18:09
Permalink
Will do.
Will do.
“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
live_free_or_die
Mon, 07/30/2012 - 06:27
Permalink
Yep, keep coming back.
Crazy insane stepper that you are.
I really want to hear about your refridgerators day.
How is the fridge today?
How many books, songs, movies or poems has your fridge inspired judge?
Is your fridge your higher power judge becker?
Alcoholics Anonymous: MyNotGodHasItCovered®
http://www.expaa.org/
http://bereanresearch.com/
http://badrecovery.blogspot.com/
NOT AA:
Rational Recovery, SOS, HAMS
http://alcoholabusesolutions.com/
becket
Tue, 07/31/2012 - 16:55
Permalink
a) fine, and b) you'd be
a) fine, b) you'd be surprised, and c) only on days above a hundred degrees.
“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
LisaMarie
Sun, 07/29/2012 - 18:40
Permalink
Perse, are you also an
Perse, are you also an atheist? I am not judging and this isn't a set-up question. I am just asking.
Persephone In Exile
Sun, 07/29/2012 - 18:46
Permalink
Yes, I am. But that has
Yes, I am. But that has little to do with why I think Bill went round the twist.
http://badrecovery.blogspot.com/
LisaMarie
Sun, 07/29/2012 - 19:09
Permalink
I wasn't judging and i meant
I wasn't judging and i meant that. I have no idea why you have your opinions.
Off topic, luv your avatar.
Persephone In Exile
Sun, 07/29/2012 - 21:00
Permalink
That's OK by me.
That's OK by me.
Thanks, Clara loves it too.
http://badrecovery.blogspot.com/
Clara
Sun, 07/29/2012 - 21:19
Permalink
I do!
I do! It's the best MO had looked to date due to her makeover. It took enough. Thanks, PIE!
Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.
Persephone In Exile
Mon, 07/30/2012 - 09:41
Permalink
Sure thing, Clara! Anything
Sure thing, Clara! Anything to get to see you snipe over makeovers and our FLOTUS again!
http://badrecovery.blogspot.com/
becket
Mon, 07/30/2012 - 12:27
Permalink
Have you tried Gas-X or Beano
Have you tried Gas-X or Beano?
“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
Clara
Mon, 07/30/2012 - 13:17
Permalink
In all fairness, PIE, I can
In all fairness, PIE, I can see where you could have simply thanked Lisa Marie for her compliment and not brought another poster into it. Can you?
You can find me on other blogs regarding this woman, if you care to look.
Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.
Persephone In Exile
Mon, 07/30/2012 - 14:36
Permalink
Yes, I can. And yes, I can.
Yes, I can. And yes, I can. Very entertaining stuff.
http://badrecovery.blogspot.com/
Clara
Mon, 07/30/2012 - 15:06
Permalink
How entertained can you be
How entertained can you be with probably five posts? I don't blog on either Obama or MO as I find them to be so overall uninteresting and ineffective.
Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.
flannigan
Sun, 07/29/2012 - 12:34
Permalink
@ LisaMarie
What is 1300 years to a dead guy? Hard to keep track without a point of reference.
LisaMarie
Sun, 07/29/2012 - 14:37
Permalink
You have a point. Do you
You have a point. Do you think the world in 1939 was the same world religiously, as it was 1300 hundred years earlier. I don't. As I don't believe Americans believe in God as a whole the same way we did in 1939. Just as I don't believe, Penny, is serious about his question. How could he be when he says, he has sat in AA meetings for some time now. Unless Penny has no interaction with the other members and/or doesn't pay attention to the meeting, there is no way this question should even be asked. The AA he often talks about here, is an AA I am seriously not familiar with. I did not bother people with questions of their religious beliefs or opinions, while at a meeting.
Conan
Sun, 07/29/2012 - 14:16
Permalink
Too many Danny - just too many
"How could he be, when he says, he has sat in AA meetings, for some time now."
3 unnecessary commas in one sentence Danny. Your bad grammar is like a fingerprint.
Danny is currently "Rachel" - watch out folks, he's learned how to use a spell checker...lol
becket
Sun, 07/29/2012 - 14:25
Permalink
Bad grammar is a damn sight
Bad grammar is a damn sight less offensive than a reference to "fisting".
“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
Conan
Sun, 07/29/2012 - 14:44
Permalink
Agreed bucket
Tell Clara to stop threatening to fist people. It truly is offensive.
Danny is currently "Rachel" - watch out folks, he's learned how to use a spell checker...lol
Pages