Step One Misperceptions and Confusion

There are many sayings - some trite but true, others not - that one hears around the tables in Alcoholics Anonymous (and many of its sister organizations). One of these sayings is that: "Step One is the only Step we do 100%." But is this what our literature says? Is this truly our collective experience? My reading of our literature, and my own experience, says it is not.

This particular saying seems to originate in the essay on Step Six in The Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, where (at page 68) we read: "Only Step One, where we made the 100 percent admission we were powerless over alcohol, can be practiced with absolute perfection. The remaining eleven Steps state perfect ideals. They are goals toward which we look, and the measuring sticks by which we estimate our progress."

Note that in this passage it is only "the 100 percent admission we were powerless over alcohol" which can be "practiced with absolute perfection." The alcoholic addict practices this first part of the First Step with perfection each day when he or she does not drink and/or drug. This says nothing about the second (and more difficult) half of the First Step, where we admit that our lives have become unmanageable. The two halves of the First Step are separate, but intricately interrelated concepts. They are not interchangeable.

Yet, in his essay on Step One in The Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, even Bill seems to treat the two parts as being the same, or at least he muddies the distinction between them. At page 23 of the Twelve and Twelve, discussing those "who were scarcely more than potential alcoholics," Bill asks: "Since Step One requires an admission that our lives have become unmanageable, how could such as these take this Step?"

His answer is that we "raise the bottom the rest of us hit to the point where it would hit them." And, if this does not work, he suggests that to these "doubters" we might say: "Perhaps you are not an alcoholic after all. Why don't you try some more controlled drinking, bearing in mind meanwhile what we have told you about alcoholism."

WTF???? He suggests that a person who is struggling with the idea that his life has become unmanagaeable should go out and try more drinking? This does not make sense. In my experience it has been beneficial to suggest such a tactic to a person who is unclear whether or not he or she is powerless over alcohol, after all that is the crux of the matter and a proposition that we must accept 100 percent. By contrast, I both struggle myself (and see many many others struggle) with the idea that life is, in fact, unmanageable . . . and will remain so. After all, if life became manageable, we would just manage it by ourselves, and what need would we have for the remaining eleven Steps?

Remember, in the How It Works reading, we hear the following, over and over: "Our description of the alcoholic, the chapter to the agnostic, and our personal adventures before and after [stopping drinking], make clear three pertinent ideas: (a) That we were alcoholic and could not manage our own lives. (b) That probably no human power could have relieved our alcoholism.  (c) That God could and would if He were sought."

I have practiced the first half of Step One with 100 percent effectiveness for the past 21 years, but day upon day I struggle with the second half of Step One - i.e., ceding control and management of my life to a Power greater than myself. Thus, whenever I have a problem toaday, I can recognize that it is, in effect, a problem with the second half of Step One. I can still be driven blindly by my small, egoic self, although thankfully (a) this does not happen as frequently as it once did, and (b) I have the tools to correct - and clean up after - such self-centered thinking and behaviour.

Not picking up a drink (and in my case a mind-altering drug) is the only part of the program that I have so-far managed to practice with 100 percent success, and it is likely to remain that way. Remember, on this spiritual path we strive for perfection, all the while knowing that we will inevitably fall short. Meanwhile, with the Grace of God, one day at a time we stay sober.

The 'Three Delusions'

There are 'three delusions' - actually one illusion, and two delusions - specifically referenced in the 'Big Book' of Alcoholics Anonymous. The 'first delusion' speaks to the first part of Step One (that we are "powerless over alcohol"), the 'second delusion' speaks to both parts of the First Step, while the 'third delusion' addresses the last half of the First Step (that our lives have become, are, and remain "unmanageable"). An understanding of all three delusions is critical if we are to work the rest of the 12 Steps to the best of our abilities.

The 'first delusion' is in the first paragraph in the chapter entitled "More About Alcoholism," in which we read: "The idea that somehow, someday he will control and enjoy his drinking is the great obsession of every abnormal drinker. The persistence of this illusion is astonishing. Many pursue it into the gates or insanity or death." (Emphasis added.) For the real alcoholic (or alcoholic addict) this illusion can entirely stymie all attempts at recovery, and may prove fatal if the victim of this delusion is unable because of it to move beyond his or her craving for alcohol.

In The Doctor's Opinion preface to the 'Big Book' we read: "We believe . . . that the action of alcohol on . . . chronic alcoholics is a manifestation of an allergy; that the phenomenon of craving is limited to this class and never occurs in the average temperate drinker. These allergic types can never safely use alcohol in any form at all, and once having formed the habit and found they cannot break it, once having lost their self-confidence, their reliance upon things human, their problems pile up on them and become astonishingly difficult to solve." (Emphasis added.)

A true alcoholic addict "can never safely use alcohol in any form at all." The illusion that he or she may once again control and enjoy his drinking has thus got to be thoroughly and wholly smashed. Do not perish under the delusion that you may one day be able to drink again, just like old times. At the end of your active addiction it did not work anymore, nor will it work if you resume where you left off.

The 'second delusion' is set out in the second paragraph of the "More About Alcoholism" chapter. New paragraph; new idea. In it, we read: "We learned that we had to concede to our innermost selves that we were alcoholics. This is the first step in recovery. The delusion that we are like other people, or presently may be, has to be smashed." (Emphasis added.)

This 'second delusion' is, as stated above, pertinent to both the first and second halves of Step One. There is an old saying in A.A. that once a cucumber becomes a pickle it can never become a cucumber again. This is illustrated by the story (at pages 32-33) of the man who quit drinking at age thirty, only to retire and commence drinking again at age fifty. Within two months of doing so he was promptly hospitalized for alcoholism. His story illustrates how the physical allergy never goes away and, so it seems, in our experience the untreated obsession for alcohol only grows worse with time and never better.

On a more subtle level, however,  this 'second delusion' speaks to the unmanageability of our lives. "Selfishness" or  "self-centeredness," we read at page 62 of the 'Big Book' "is the root of our troubles." And, we read elsewhere that "the alcoholic is an extreme example of self-will run riot." Looking back, each time we came to were we not a little bit more self-absorbed? Was the painful inner dialogue of "self" or the "ego" not a little more strident and painful? After years and years of escaping that painful inner dialogue of self though the bottle (and or drugs), in recovery we are faced with an inner dialogue that is seems to be much, much stronger and more unsettling than it is for the so-called 'normal' person. Does this not resonate with how we know ourselves to be?

In sobriety, desparately trying to 'manage" that which seems to be (and is) unmanageable - i.e., life, all of it - is our inner narrative not so painful that it leads many to try and drown out such thoughts once more with booze and/or drugs? All too often - and sometimes fatally - this seems to be the case.

The 'third delusion' is found after the description of the alcoholic as "an actor" on pages 60 and 61 of the 'Big Book.' In the middle paragraph on page 61, we read: "What is (the alcoholic's) basic trouble? Is he not really a self-seeker even when trying to be kind? Is he not a victim of the delusion that he can wrest satifaction and happiness out of the world if only he manages well?" (Emphasis added.)

Life is inherently unmanageable, we will come to see. Who can immediately change the circumstances that befall him or her? No one, of course. Who can shape how others act and react to their circumstances. Again, the answer is no one. Yet, at a very subtle level, the alcoholic addict still mired in habitual, self-centered alcoholic thinking thinks he can and must somehow control the uncontrollable.

If we can see through the delusion that we can somehow "wrest satisfaction and happiness out of the world" by managing well, we come to the point where we can, effectively and in reality, "turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understand Him." Until we do so, we are left helplessly on our own trying to manage the unmanageable through the application of our self-centered will as best we can. This is the height of the insanity of alcoholism, even in sobriety. It drives many mad unless, and until, it is overcome.

Unless we see through the 'first delusion' we cannot stay sober. Unless we smash the 'second delusion' we may stay sober, but we will remain trapped within the insanity of our old ways of thinking. But once we accept and see through all 'three delusions' we can - and will - be enabled to live in what Bill W. describes as "the Sunlight of the Spirit." We will have recovered from "a seemingly hopeless state of mind and body."

Our Delusions and Obsessions

"Most of us have been unwilling to admit that we were real alcoholics. No person likes to think he is bodily and mentally different from his fellows. Therefore, it is not surprising that our drinking careers have been characterized by countless vain attempts to prove we could not drink like other people. The idea that somehow, someday he will control and enjoy his drinking is the great obsession of every abnormal drinker. The persistence of this illusion is astonishing. Many pursue it into the gates of insanity or death."

"We learned that we had to fully concede to our inner most selves that we were alcoholic. This is the first step in recovery. The delusion that we were like other people, or presently may be has to be smashed. (Emphasis added.)

-- Alcoholics Anonymous, page 30 --

These opening paragraphs are amongst the most important paragraphs in the entire 'Big Book' of Alcoholics Anonymous. They identify (a) how we set about taking Step One, and (b) the delusionary and obsessive nature of the disease of alcoholism.

The first two chapters are concerned primarily in painting an identifiable picture of the alcoholic and in broadly outlining the fact that within Alcoholics Anonymous we have found a common solution to the problem of our alcoholic addiction. In fact, the second paragraph tells us just how we begin this process of recovery from our addiction: i.e., by "fully conceding to our innermost selves that we were alcoholic." This speaks to the first half of Step One, but it is a beginning point, or, better yet a "rallying point" upon which we can all agree.

The first paragraph speaks, more than anything else, to the craving for alcohol that arises each and every time that the alcoholic addict drinks. Once our system gets its hit of alcohol, the phenomenon of craving arises and we have little or no control over how much we will then drink. Our brain and therefore our whole body crave more. Thus, despite earnestly wanting to control and enjoy our dirinking like other non-alcoholics appear to do, we lose all control. And despite our best efforts and intentions we will crave more and, in nearly all instances, we will drink more. The illusion (or delusion) that we will one day again control and enjoy our drinking has to be smashed. Alcohol addiction is a progressive and fatal disease.

The second paragraph, above, is even more subtle. Having fully conceded to our innermost selves that we are alcoholic, it begins to speak about the obsessive nature of the alcoholic addict. At first, when not drinking, the alcoholic addict obsesses over booze. Even in sobriety, instead of obsessing over wehn and where he or she is going to drink, the alcoholic obsesses over the fact that he or she is not drinking.  This becomes crucially important, because it is far too easy to substitute another obsessioin  - for work, sex, gambling, exercise, you fill-in-the-blank - to replace the obsession over booze (and in many instances, drugs) once that obsession lifts.

Quite clearly, we are told that we are not like other people, nor will we be. Not only does the phenomenon of craving arise once we begin to drink, but over the years of drinking addictively, we have developed a mind that has become obsessive by nature. Even when not drinking, and even more in the beginning of our recovery from alcoholic addiction, our minds are all too easily preoccupied with obsession, mainly an obsession over how we are going to run our lives in a way that is satisfactory to us. (Later, at page 61 of the 'Big Book,' we will read how the alcoholic addict is "a victim of the delusion that he can wrest satisfaction and happiness out of life if he only manages well.")

Putting all this together, and facing these illusions and/or delusions, we are enabled to admit "to our innermost selves" that we are alcoholic and cannot manage our own lives - i.e., the First Step in our recovery from an otherwise progressive and fatal disease of the mind and body. "We are convinced to a man," we read at the bottom of page 30, "that alcoholics of our type are in the grip of a progressive illness. Over any considerable time we get worse, never better."

Even with this said however, we are told that "(d)espite all we can say, many who are real alcoholics are not going to believe they are in that class," and that "(b)y every form of self-deception and experimentation, they will try to prove themselves exceptions to this rule, (and) therefore non-alcoholic."

Our hats are off to such people. "Best of luck," we say. But most of us will simply save them a chair in their home group, trusting that once exposed to A.A. they will of themselves become desperate enough to return and hopefully find the common solution we have found for all.

"In Denial" or Victims of Our "Delusions"?

There is a fundamental difference between the meaning of "denial" and "delusion." Often used interchangeably in discussions, they are not used interchangably in A.A. literature. In fact, "denial," which appears to be oft-discussed in treatment centers (for example, in the sense of denying the effect that one's alcoholic addiction has on others), is not even discussed in the 'Big Book' of Alcoholics Anonymous. On the other hand, three particular delusions are discussed at some length in A.A.'s basic text.

Denial, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is merely "a statement that something is not true," although in its psychological sense, it can mean the usually subconscious "suppression of an unacceptable truth or emotion." Thus, being unable to accept the truth of the harm one has done to others over the course of active addiction, for example, one may deny (consciously or subconsiously) the truth that any harm has been done. In this instance, one is either lying to others (if the denial is conscious), or lying to one's self (if it is subconscious).

Delusion, on the other hand, is defined as "a false belief or impression," while, in its psychological sense it is viewed as "a symptom or form of mental disorder." Irrespective of whether something is true, such as the reality of one's addiction, there is a delusionary but honestly-held belief that it is not true. One is not, in such instance, lying to oneself. Rather in this instance, the alcoholic addict is mentally delusional.

Recalling that the 'Big Book' is explicit in pointing out that "the problem of the alcoholic centers in his mind," and that both alcoholism and addiction are classified as mental illnesses by the medical profession, what is likely to be the reality of the crap floating around in our psyche? Are we simply "in denial," as some like to think; or, are we, in fact, "delusional"?

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

There are three specific delusions - each dealing with aspects of the First Step - that are discussed in the 'Big Book.' Two of these instances are discussed on page 30, while the remaining is discussed on page 61.

In the first paragraph of page 30, we read: "The ideas that somehow, someday he will be able to control and enjoy his drinking again is the great obsession of every abnormal drinker. The persistence of this illusion is astonishing. Many pursue it into the gates of insanity or death." Although he or she may honestly believe that it is not true at the time, in recovery we come to see that, in fact - despite our knowing or believing it at the time - we were obsessed with controlling and enjoying our drinking, just as much as we physically craved alcohol itself once we started drinking.

In the following paragraph - new idea, new paragraph, new meaning - we read that "(t)he delusion that we are like other people, or presently may be, has to be smashed." This, of course, can have two meanings. First, it can mean that because of our physical "allergy" to alcohol we will never be able to drink normally. But, second, and more importantly, it also means that as a result of years of addiction, we are quite literally "not like other people." Other people, we will read later, are also like actors who want to run the show (see pages 60-62), but whereas other people may also be selfish and self-centered, the alcoholic addict (thanks to years of practice honing these traits and way of thinking) "is an extreme example of self-will run riot." Others are self-centered, we are extremely so. That is our natural propensity, and it is not going to be overcome without a struggle.

Yet, while the selfishness and self-centeredness of the alcoholic addict may differ in degree from the so-called "normal" person, we share a common delusion: "What is (the actor's) basic trouble?" we are asked. "Is he not a victim of the delusion that he can wrest satisfaction and happiness out of this world if he only manages well?"

Life is inherently unmanageable. We admit this in the second-half of Step One. Problems arise because we get sucked into the delusion that we both have to, and have the ability to, manage life - all of it - even with other self-managing "normal" people pushing back against our arrogant and desperate efforts to manage the whole affair with all their might.

"The description of the alcoholic, the chapter to the agnostic, and our stories before and after," we read at page 60 of the 'Big Book', "make clear three pertinent ideas:

(a) That we were alcoholic and could not manage our own lives.
(b) That probably no human power could have relieved our alcoholism.
(c) That God could and would if He were sought." (Emphasis added.)

Just to the extent that we entertain the illusion that we will "control and enjoy our drinking," we will continue to drink. Just to the extent that we entertain the delusion that "we are like other people, or one day will be," we will continue to suffer. Just to the extent that we entertain the delusion that we can "wrest satisfaction and happiness out of this world" if we manage well, we will become insufferable - both to others, and to ourselves.

With true recovery we overcome all these delusions. We realize that we could not and cannot control and enjoy drinking; that we were not and are not like other people; and, we did not and do not need to control and manage life. On these terms, life becomes acceptable to us on its terms - no matter the circumstances - and we find that we can respond to life's circumstances and people instead of blindly reacting to them.

Ego, Humility and Grace

"By this time in all probability we have gained some measure of release from our more devastating handicaps. We enjoy moments in which there is something like real peace of mind. . . .Where humility had formerly stood for a forced feeding on humble pie, it now begins to mean the nourishing ingredient which can give us serenity."

"This improved perception of humility starts another revolutionary change in our outlook. Our eyes begin to open to the immense values which have come straight out of painful ego-puncturing."

-- The Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, page 74 --

In a very real sense, Step Seven is the completion of the second half of Step One: Having admitted we could not manage our own lives - let alone life itself - and having determined to turn our will and our lives "over to the care of God as we understood him," we now confirm our decision to leave the management of life at that level, rather than vainly resuming the practice of managing life ourselves. This is ego-deflation at depth, and "painful ego-puncturing" at that, as we have been trained all of our lives that we must manage everything - or else!

At first the practice of humility is frightening. "What will become of me if such-and-such happens?" we ask ourselves, only to see in time that things never happen in precisely the way we imagine them and that, in most instances, our fears never materialize. We experience great pain, however, because we - or rather our egoic inner dialogue - assume that they will.

This, process of fear, desire and suffering continues just so long as we identify with the ego and believe whatever it thinks. The moment we realize that we are not the ego - that we are not whatever thought pops into our heads - the suffering stops. Yet it resumes immediately once we lose that awareness. Thus, the practice of Step Seven is repeatedly turning our will and lives over to the care of our Higher Power, and not just in making a decision to do so. In time we will become evermore humble in the truest sense of the word, in that we will be increasingly free of our egoic "self," and each time we experience suffering it will become a sign that we once more need to center ourselves in order to "Let Go, and Let God."

"For us," we read in Step Seven, "this process of gaining a new perspective was unbelievably painful. . . . It was only at the end of a long road, marked by successive defeats and humiliations, and the final crushing of our self-sufficiency, that we began to feel humility as something more than a condition of groveling despair." (Emphasis added.) Fortunately, however, we eventually learn that the requisite degree of humility needed to overcome the ego may "come quite as much from our voluntary reaching for it as it could from unremitting suffering."

"A great turning point in our lives," we read, "came when we sought for humility as something we really wanted, rather than as something we must have. It marked the time when we could commence to see the full implication of Step Seven: "Humbly asked Him to remove our our shortcomings."" For, in the end, we can only find grace within God, and it is in practicing Step Seven that we are freed from the egoic self and obtain to that level of grace with its ensuing peace of mind.

[The Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, pages 72 and 74]

Power, Coercion and Acceptance

In yet another paradox, the first half of Step One - the admittance that we are alcoholic - is perhaps the easiest one to take, yet admitting (and acting like one has admitted) that our lives "have become unmanageable" - the second half of Step One - is perhaps the most difficult of all. After all, from our earliest years on, we have been taught by our society and culture that life needs to be managed, and managed well - or else!

The great analogy of the alcoholic as "the actor" who insists on running all of the show, including, lights, scenery, ballet etc., is startlingly apt when we consider it deeply and see that it addresses the second half of Step One explicitly and directly.

"Most people try to live by self-propulsion," we read on page 60 of the 'Big Book' of Alcoholics Anonymous. "Each person is like an actor who wants to run the whole show, is forever trying to arrange the lights, the ballet, the scenery and the rest of the players in his own way. If only his arrangements would stay put, if only people would do as he wished, the show would be great. Everybody, including himself, would be pleased. Life would be wonderful. In trying to make these arrangements our actor may sometimes be quite virtuous. He may be kind, considerate, patient, generous, even modest and self-sacrificing. On the other hand, be may be mean, egotistical, selfish and dishonest. But as with most humans, he is more likely to have varied traits.

"What," we are asked, "Usually happens? The show doesn't come off very well. He begins to think that life doesn't treat him will. He decides to exert himself more. He becomes on the next occasion, still more demanding or gracious, as the case may be. Still the play does not suit hum. Admitting he may be somewhat at fault, he is sure that other people are more to blame. He becomes angry, indignant, self-pitying. What is his basic trouble? Is he not a self-seeker even when trying to be kind. Is he not a victim of the delusion that he can wrest satisfaction and happiness out of this life if he only manages well? Is it not evident to all the rest of the players that these are the things he wants? And do not his actions make each of them wish to retaliate, snatching all that they can get out of the show? Is he not, even in his best moments, a producer of confusion rather than harmony?

"Our actor is self-centered - ego-centric, as people like to call it today." (Emphasis added.)

Bluntly, or perhaps very, very, subtly, almost everyone of us - alcoholic addict and non-alcoholic addict alike -  try in our own ways to manipulate and shape life in order to satisfy our instinctive drives, staunch our fears, and/or quench our fundamentally unquenchable desires. We in A.A. (or any of its many sister organizations) are very fortunate, indeed, in that we learn that life is inherently unmanageable, it is already organized under a far Higher Power that we often cannot or do not see, and that our task is to accept and adapt ourselves to life, rather than trying to bend it to our own narrow self-interests.

That our futile grabs for power to control the fundamentally unmanageable is all-pervasive, and ultimately futile and frustrating is illustrated in the following passages written by the late, great Sufi teacher, Idries Shah:

"Almost all human organizations," Shah notes, "are power organizations."

"Since the receipt and and exercising of power is imagined to be connected with forceful behaviour," he observes, "people cannot any longer identify a power organization. Consequently they do not understand what they are doing and what is happening to them."

"As an example," he points out, "force and influence are contained in the 'emotional blackmail' situation to exactly the same extent as in one where anger or fothrightness are expressed."

"When people in authority have the reputation for being kind and soft-hearted, others assume (quite wrongly) that the pressure exerted by such people is not pressure at all. If someone says: 'You must do this because I would be disappointed if you did not,' he is saying exactly the same as 'Do this because I demand that you do it.'"

"To say that this fact has been observed already is of no importance whatever, because something which has been said or observed and not acted upon is as good as non-existent as a lesson."

"People try to exercise power upon those 'below' them," he notes. "But people upon whom power is supposed to being exercised are, in fact, by frustrating the effect of that power, themselves exercising power."

"Power situations can only exist," Shah observes, "where there is a contract arrived at violently or otherwise, in which people will do things or else things can be made uncomfortable for them. 'Do this or I will make you uncomfortable' is the formula for both types of power: the power exerted by people above on those below, and the power exerted from the people below upon those above."

"Where there is no such contract," he notes, "where one party can do without the other, NO POWER SITUATION CAN EXIST. Neither can it be deemed to exist. But, faced with a situation in which there is no power ingredient, people CONTINUE TO BEHAVE AS IF THEY CAN COERCE OR BE COERCED."

"In doing this," Shah points out, (people) give themselves away. To any observer who is aware of the power phenomenon, they clearly show that they belong to the power structure and want to operate it. They generally become furiously angry when this is pointed out to them.

[Idries Shah,"Knowing How to Know," pp. 79-80.]

At Step Three, we make a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understand Him. Yet, how often when we are in a situation where there is no effective power that we can personally exert ("a situation in which there is no power ingredient," to use Shah's terminology) do we act as if there is some personal power we can exert to change things? How many of us lean on the horn to let out our frustrations when stuck in slow traffic? How many seethe inwardly or act rudely when forced to wait at the checkout counter as a clerk checks the price of some item or another? How many of us are judgmental and inwardly self-righteous when they see people doing things that they assure themselves they would never do? Almost all of us, I am sure.

Having nominally accepted our personal powerlessness to manage life, and having done (we assure ourselves) our best to turn our will and our lives over to the care of a Power greater than ourselves, we continue to forget our personal inability to manage life and, in accordance with Khan's analysis, we continue to behave as is we can coerce others to bend to our will, or we ourselves continue to be coerced to bend to the will of others.

Accepting the inherent unmanageability of life, and turning our will and our lives over to the care of the God of our understanding - and leaving it there - are ideals that take both great insight and years of practice to even approach.

Letting Go of Anger and Emotional Disturbances

"It is a spiritual axiom that every time we are disturbed, no matter what the cause, there is something wrong with us. If somebody hurts us and we are sore, we are in the wrong also. But are there no exceptions to this rule? what about "justifiable" anger? If somebody cheats us, aren't we entitled to be mad? Can't we be properly anger with self-righteous folk? For us of A.A. these are dangerous exceptions. We have found that justified anger ought to be left to those better qualified to handle it."

-- The Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, page 90 --

Why this "spiritual axiom?" Is it not because anger, and particularly "justified" anger, is inimical to our spiritual health and is always poised to delver us back into "the bondage of self" which lies at the root of our problem?

Each time we are "disturbed" - whether by anger, greed, jealousy lust, or some other emotion - it is a sure sign that we have a Step One problem; that is, we are right in there, again, trying to manage our lives (and the people in our lives) in a futile search for self-satisfaction and ego-gratification. In the famous passage on acceptance (at page 417 of the 'Big Book' of Alcoholics Anonymous), we read that:

"When I am disturbed, it is because I find some person, place thing or situation - some fact of my life - unacceptable to me, and I can find no serenity until I accept that person, place, thing, or situation as being exactly the way it is supposed to be at this moment. Nothing, absolutely nothing, happens in God's world by mistake." (Emphasis added.)

Notice that in both these passages we are talking of being "disturbed."  Identifying and recognizing when, in fact, we are disturbed is thus the key to dealing with an ever-varying world that is beyond our capacity (or calling) to manage and control. The solution to this Step One problem thus lies in the renewed application of Step Three. When we realize that we are disturbed, we need to act on our decision "to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God" as we understand Him. But how should we act in the face of such disturbances? Fortunately, we have instructions on what to do in such instances.

"(I)t is really easy to being the practice of Step Three," we read. "In all times of emotional disturbance or indecision, we can pause, ask for quiet, and in the stillness simply say: "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference. Thy will, not mine, be done.""

[The Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, pp. 40-41.]

There is nothing we can "change" in an instant other than our attitude - i.e., the level of our consciousness and thought. Thus, when disturbed we need to immediately move from the egoic resistance to life's circumstances, to higher consciousness and an acceptive, radical non-resistance to what is. ("To argue with 'what is' is insanity," said the philosopher-Emperor, Marcus Aurelius, "yet the thoughtless cannot resist doing so.")

Next, we must have the "courage" - which may only be found beyond the fear-based ego - to make the switch from egocentric to God-centric consciousness. Here, we must "take heart," which is the fundamental meaning of 'courage', a word that comes from the French and Latin word for 'heart' - 'cour.' ("Fearlessness," Gandhi observed, "is the first requirement of spirituality. A coward can never be moral.")

Lastly, we must know "the difference" between what we can and cannot change at the moment we are disturbed. It is, thus, essential that we know there is the small "self" of ego-consciousness, and the higher "Self" of God-consciousness, and that there is a vast different to the thought processes and emotional reactions of both states. For it is only in this latter 'self-less' state that we can "accept that person, place, thing, or situation" which disturbs us "as being exactly the way it is supposed to be at this moment."

At Step Three in the 'Big Book' we read:

"This is the how and why of it. First of all, we had to quit playing God. It didn't work. Next, we decided that hereafter in this drama of life, God was going to be our Director. He is the Principal; we are His agents. He is the Father, and we are His children. Most good ideas are simple, and this concept was the keystone of the new and triumphant arch through which we passed to freedom."

"When we sincerely took such a position, all sorts of remarkable things followed. We had a new Employer. Being all powerful, He provided what we needed, if we kept close to Him and performed His work well. Established on such a footing we became less and less interested in ourselves, our little plans and designs. More and more we became interested in seeing what we could contribute to life. As we felt new power flow in, as we enjoyed peace of mind, as we discovered we could face life successfully, as we became conscious of His presence, we began to lose our fear of today, tomorrow or the hereafter. We were reborn."

 Thus, if we ignore the "spiritual axiom" that in all instances of emotional disturbance it is we who are upset, all this falls away, and we are once again assuming sole responsibility to manage and direct a life which will immediately and rapidly spiral out of all control, resulting in emotional outbursts and actions we will later regret and have to make amends for - or it may result in much, much worse.

Ego, Fear and the Smaller "Self"

"More than most people," we read, "the alcoholic leads a double life. He is very much the actor. To the outer world he presents his stage character. This is the one he likes his fellows to see. He wants to enjoy a certain reputation, but knows in his heart he doesn't deserve it."

[Alcoholics Anonymous, page 75.]

"A double-minded man is unstable in
all his ways." (James: 1-8)

It is to be free of this duplicity - the double-mindedness of the "self" and our higher, God-consciousness - that we take Steps Five through Step Nine; sharing, perhaps for the first time ever, what we did when under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, and more significantly, what we did when stone cold sober. For it is in sharing these matters, examining our role in them, forgiving others and making amends to them where possible for the harm we have done, that we become able to live in our true nature, rather than in the fear-based false identity of the ego, or smaller "self."

Of course, this is not the first reference to the alcoholic as actor. The more recognizable description of the alcoholic as actor follows immediately after the "How It Works" reading that many groups use to open their meetings. Noting that "most people try to live by self-propulsion," we read:

"Each person is like an actor who wants to run the whole show, is forever trying to arrange the lights, the ballet, the scenery and the rest of the players in his own way. If his arrangements would only stay put. If only people would do as he wished, the show would be great. Everybody, including himself, would be pleased. Life would be wonderful. In trying to make these arrangements our actor may sometimes be quite virtuous. He may be kind, considerate, patient, generous even modest and self-sacrificing. On the other hand, he may be mean, egotistical, selfish and dishonest. But, as with most humans, he is more likely to have varied traits."

"What usually happens? The show doesn't come off very well. He begins to think life doesn't treat him right. He decides to exert himself more. He becomes on the next occasion, still more demanding or gracious, as the case may be. Still the play does not suit him. Admitting he may be somewhat at fault, he is sure that other people are more to blame. He becomes angry, indignant, self-pitying. what is his basic trouble? Is he not really a self-seeker even when trying to be kind? Is he not a victim of the delusion that he can wrest satisfaction and happiness out of this world if he only manages well?"

[Alcoholics Anonymous, p. 61. Emphasis added.]

 This delusion - that happiness and satisfaction may be attained by successful self-management - is the crux of the second part of Step One, and it lies on the cusp of Step Two and Step Three. Life, even the life of the individual, is inherently unmanageable. The individual is a part of a much greater whole, although this is not readily apparent to the egoic consciousness of the individual. Thus, in the throes of self-consciousness, we mistakenly feel compelled by fear to try and manage life's circumstances so that it comes out in a way we can accept and tolerate.

The trouble is, that such efforts very, very seldom work out to our satisfaction. Life itself, has far larger rhythms than the individual stuck in narrow self-consciousness can either see or admit. Knowing that we are extremely prone to jump in and manage life, despite its inherent unmanageability - which, of course, is the height of grandiose insanity - we can, if we so choose, decide to turn our will and our lives over to the care of a Power greater than our ordinary fear-ridden, egoic selves. In doing so, we begin to experience a working faith and the peace that comes from the acceptance of a Power greater than ourselves which is already a present and organizing fact in our lives and the life of the cosmos itself.

Such faith is not ordinarily available to the unaided self, because our egoic self-consciousness is merely a fabrication of unresolvable fears and unquenchable desires. We must therefore work to let go of our smaller "selves" and the fears that are rampant in them. For, as Mahatma Gandhi once remarked: "Fearlessness is the first requirement of spirituality. Cowards can never be moral." We are thus not asked, but begged, to "be fearless and thorough from the very start" in trying to live life according to the Twelve Steps and the spiritual principles behind them.

Three Delsuions: Control, Normalcy and Manageability

"'Denial,'" I've heard it said, "is a treatment center word, while 'delusion' is what we talk about in Alcoholics Anonymous." The reason for this is quite clear: denial is saying, to one's self or someone else, what one knows not to be true; while 'delusion' means saying that something that is not true is true - and believing, in fact, that it is. In most instances, therefore, the still practicing alcoholic addict is not 'in denial', but is 'delusional.' He or she really believes that he or she is not an alcoholic addict.

I remember that I used to say do the guys I partied with, "For me its recreational, for you it's therapeutic." How wrong I was, and I had no idea! I was clearly delusional when it came to my addiction. And it was only after being in recovery for a number of years, that I began to realize that this was not the only area of my life where I was completely delusional. My whole life, I came to realize, was nothing but an illusion.

There are three delusions (or illusions) that the 'Big Book' of Alcoholics Anonymous specifically addresses. The first two 'delusions' are discussed at the beginning of the "More About Alcoholism," while the third (and all important) 'delusion' is discussed following the description of the alcoholic addict as an "actor," in the "How It Works" chapter of the 'Big Book.'

At the beginning of the "More About Alcoholism" chapter, the first of these 'delusions' is set out in the following way:

"The idea that somehow, someday he will control and enjoy his drinking is the great obsession of every abnormal drinker. The persistence of this illusion is astonishing. Many pursue it into the gates of insanity or death."

In the next paragraph, we read that, "(t)he delusion that we are like other people, or presently may be, has to be smashed." This is the second of the three 'delusions.'

Finally, after the description of the alcoholic as "actor," on pages 60-61 of the 'Big Book,' we are asked:

"What is (the alcoholic's) basic trouble? Is he not a self-seeker even when trying to be kind? Is he not a victim of the delusion that he can wrest satisfaction and happiness out of this world if he only manages well?"

[Emphasis added.]

All of the 'three delusions' speak to Step One of AA's program of recovery. The first 'delusion' speaks to the first part of Step One, where we admit we are "powerless over alcohol," while the second and third 'delusions' speak to life's unmanageability.

Because, both physically and mentally, we are "powerless over alcohol" - because we simply metabolize it differently than does the non-alcoholic -  it is a delusion that one day we will somehow be able to control and enjoy drinking once again (if we ever had any control in the first place), even though we may well believe it to be true. It is a delusion.

Carl Jung
(1875-1961)

While the second 'delusion - "that we are like other people, or presently may be" - seems on its face to be related to both alcoholism and the first delusion, in essence, it is not. It is much more related to the self-centered, ego-centric, nature of the alcoholic addict's personality.

It is because we are not like other people (or perhaps that we are just like other people, only "way more so') that Carl Jung observed that wholesale psychic changes "in the nature of huge emotional displacements and rearrangements" are necessary for alcoholics to attain and maintain their sobriety.

Commenting on the nature of these "phenomena" that supplied the required psychic change necessary to arrest alcoholism, Jung observed that: "Ideas, emotions and attitudes that were once the guiding forces of the lives of these men are suddenly cast to one side, and a completely new set of conceptions and motives begin to dominate them."

[Alcoholics Anonymous, page 27.]

"Driven by a hundred forms of fear, self-delusion, self-seeking and self-pity," we are not, nor will we one day be just like other people. It is necessary for the alcoholic addict to concede this and set the fears and delusions of the alcoholic mind to one side before he or she can truly recover.

[Alcoholics Anonymous, page 62.]

Which brings us to the third delusion. The basic problem of the problem being egoic, self-centeredness, we claim a right and a necessary imperative to manage life - and manage life all by ourselves. And that is the great delusion, really. Life is inherently unmanageable by the individual, precisely because he or she is an individual - a part of a greater whole.

Life manages itself quite well, irrespective of our input and desires, all of which are driven by what it is we think we (or others) need to be happy and content. And, until we can fully concede that no matter how hard we try we will never be able to "wrest satisfaction and happiness out of this world" simply by managing well, we are not really in a position to believe that "a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity" - and, moreover, we are in no position to "turn our will and our lives over to the care" of such a Power.

And here's the kicker, until we concede that is delusional, in fact, to think we can somehow learn to 'manage life,' we will never be in a position to understand who we are, what we are, and what life is all about. Until we do so, we remain ever vulnerable to drink and drug; and, if long experience is valid, it seems very likely that the person who retains management rights over life will almost invariably do so.

Three Delusions: Facing the Truths of Our Addiction

There are three specific delusions set out in the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous.  Two of these delusions are set out in the first two paragraphs of the chapter "More About Alcoholism."  The third delusion - and the most important for the sober alcoholic addict - is set out on page 61 of the "How it Works" chapter, following the description of the alcoholic as "the actor who wants to rum the whole show." The first two delusions, I believe, relate directly to Step 1 and Step 2, respectively; while the third delusion speaks to the second half of Step 1, and illustrates the necessity of practicing Step 3.

Before looking at these specific delusions, it is important to distinguish a "delusion" from "denial". The word "denial" is a treatment-center word, it is not a word used widely in the AA literature (although, unfortunately, one inevitably runs across it all too often in certain discussion groups). "Delusion" on the other hand is most definitely an AA word. "Denial" is essentially a lie - I tell you something didn't happen, or isn't true, when I know that it is in fact untrue. "Delusion", on the other, is when I tell you something didn't happen or isn't true, and I honestly believe that is the case, when in reality it is nonetheless true. Note again, suffering under a delusion I may have been willfully blind to the truth, but nonetheless I believe wholeheartedly in its opposite.