IJ

[Paul Mackin]

On Mar 24, 2006, at 1:02 PM, jd wrote:

> Doesn't Wallace pretty much flat-out talk about how AA is replacing
> one addiction with another, giving in to a higher being you don't
> believe in, etc?


Been too long since I read the book but I am reminded of that old  
story about Smokers Anonymous. When you feel  you have to have a  
cigarette you call up a fellow member to come over and have a drink  
with you. Not that Smoking is a higher power.




> I could be mistaken, but I think he certainly, if
> unintentionally, sheds light on the fact that these people are NOT
> actually recovered: chain smoking, drinking endless cups of coffee,
> self-deprecating to the point that the Self isn't important at all,
> giving up rational thought for the guidance of an invisible higher
> being... etc...
>

A central tenet of Alcoholics Anonymous or Dopers Anonymous  is that  
one never recovers.  They use the term 'recovering alcoholic' (in the  
case of AA) to describe the maximal success achievable.

It's not an exact science.

Being addicted to alcohol or heroin is a lot worse than being  
addicted to a Higher Power.

I used to be a smoker and gave up without believing in anything  
supernatural.

I drink a lot of  vodka. In fact that's where I going right now.,



.