Stephen King's Response To "Million Little Pieces"

[Selena_Kitt]

Read it HERE

I was wondering when someone was going to get around to pointing out... um... he's an ADDICT... lying is like breathing to an addict...

and hey, more free advertising...

 

[cloudy]

I'm getting to where I appreciate Stephen King's non-fiction so much more than his fiction.

He tells it like it is.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

He tells it like it is.

He always does. In both places. In his fiction, you just kind of have to squint a little

 

[impressive]

I'm getting to where I appreciate Stephen King's non-fiction so much more than his fiction.

He tells it like it is.

I haven't read a word of his fiction in over a decade (unless, of course, he's lying in the article).

But, yeah ... I dig his "Oprah got even" take on this sitchy-a-shun.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

So, publicity is the guy's new crutch? How typical! That's why a lot of these addicts turn to cults and other religious BS as a substitute. They need to replace one crutch with another! Of course, one might say the same about my religion, except that I have not given up my addiction (caffeine) and paganism is too ancient to qualify as a cult.

 

[R. Richard]

I lived, for a time, in a very nasty inner city environment. One of the dwellers theriin was a drug addict named Bruce. One day an emaciated Bruce was hauled off to prison for the armed robbery that was the only way to support his heroin habit. A couple of years later, Bruce returned. He was 200 pounds of sculpted weight lifing muscle. Within a year, an emaciated Bruce was hauled off to prison for the armed robbery that was again the only way to support his heroin habit. Everyone seemed quite surprised.

I asked them why they were surprised.

They told me, "He rehabilitated himself so well in prison!"

I said, "Bruce was a heroin addict. In prison, he couldn't get heroin. Thus, he became an iron addict. When he got out of prison, he switched his addiction back to the heroin he really preferred. What rehabilitation?"

Answer: "Well, it really is a shame."

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I'm an addict myself, though I no longer use. I resent the accusation that addicts are somehow qualitatively different than other people and that we're compulsive liars. I resent the hell out of it.

My Frey may be full of shit, but Mr King is a little too full of himself.

You tell me which one is worse.

--Zoot

 

[Norajane]

One of the comments underneath King's article asked the question whether we pay this much attention to the lies of our politicians.

What is so special about this guy? Cause Oprah promoted his book and now she's pissed she was made a fool?

We've got the Prez and his lieutenants lying about WMD's and freedom and wars, illegal wire taps, Valerie Plame, etc., and the nation is stressing about what this guy may or may not have been lying about?

 

[Pure]

king's piece makes a good story, as RR's.

in the first piece 'addicts lie' (just to keep in practice) and in the second, 'once an addict always an addict (just the addiction changes).

both assertions have some truth to them.

but looking at the first, I think it has more to do with money; both the boozers and the crack heads have to get (so as to spend) large amounts of money, so [assuming they're not independently wealthy] unless they're dealers, those around them will have their pockets picked, possessions, stolen, whatever. however, taking the cases of 'addictions' to online porn or playing snakes and ladders, i see not much reason to lie (unless mom's around, in the first case).**

there is also the small question of 'what's addiction'? i'm sure about yours being 'out of control,' since you missed your wife's birthday party, but as to my avidity for stock car racing and consequent neglect of my son, that's different. everything's an addiction now (which is just a reprise of 'everything's an illness')

somehow Frey is worse; with that puppy dog look and his slimy evasions; King despite some grandiosity has cultivated an imagination and sold many pieces that are what they purport to be (horror stories) to those that (correctly) think them to be what they purport to be.
=====


**also in support of zoot's basic point are the facts about some famous liars of late, leaving aside politicians: those reporters for the NY Times, and the New Republic, for instance. again money and status seem to be operative. so the sets of addicts and status seekers both partially overlap the set of liars, but neither of the former falls entirely with the latter.

 

[Sex and Death]

Spiritus Contra Spiritum

I'm an addict myself, though I no longer use. I resent the accusation that addicts are somehow qualitatively different than other people and that we're compulsive liars. I resent the hell out of it.

My Frey may be full of shit, but Mr King is a little too full of himself.

You tell me which one is worse.

--Zoot

It’s always interesting to hear the co-mingled perspectives of addicts, those who are not addicts and those who do not know they are addicts. It’s also interesting, yet strangely understandable, that we have such a poor understanding of such a pervasive problem in our culture. I offer my perspective as a possibility and perspective that has worked for me and with the disclaimer that all faults are my own and any truth glimpsed is of a greater domain.

Also, since this is a big dish of “chitlins,” if you don’t want to finger through the tripe to get to the bacon, just read the parts in bold.

I don't think King is saying that addicts are qualitatively different from other people. I think he is describing qualities of addiction as a psychological dynamic and condition. Addicts, in fact, are not qualitatively different than others who are not stuck in addiction because addiction is a dynamic pattern that is inherent to the human psyche and not solely to those identified as addicts.

Any addict that says that compulsive lying is not a quality of their active addiction is lying, and surely stuck in the denial phase of the condition. Most people make the mistake of thinking that addiction is the continuing physical use of some substance or other despite negative consequences, but that is not true at all. Addiction is neither the substance used, nor the use of a substance. Substance use is just one symptom of addiction. Addiction is obsession and compulsion, which can be defined as egoically uncontrollable continuous thinking and behavior. When we are stuck in the patterns of our addictions all that we think, feel and do is obsessive and compulsive because all that we think, feel and do is under the influence, so to speak, not of a substance, but of the psychological dynamic and condition of addiction. Here's an old saw that still cuts: How do you know when an addict is lying? His lips are moving.

Doc, as a recovering addict you probably know that an addict's resentment is their own, and, as such, is their own responsibility to deal with. An addict's resentment is not a problem for the person, place or thing at which they are resentful. Even if the person, place or thing did actually cause harm to the addict, the addict does not have the luxury of blaming or seeking justice without dealing with their part in the issue because unresolved issues will be harnessed by our addiction and used to lead us into relapse. But an addict can use their resentment towards a person place or thing as a great excuse to relapse into their addiction. Resentments, hurts and fears must be dealt with and let go of by addicts or they will pile up and become something tripped over into addiction.

Relapse does not mean returning to substance use. Relapse means once again attaching or identifying one's will or ego with the dynamic of addiction that lives is in the collective psyche of all humans. What makes addiction pathological is not that it exists in our psyche, but that we identify with it by attaching our will/ego to it. Part of the deceitful nature of addiction is that it keeps the healthy aspects of our personality hidden from us and manipulates the healthy aspects of our personality into the service of our addiction without our conscious awareness. The psyche is a circle of 360 degrees, and addiction is only one degree of the whole. We can never get rid of addiction from our psyche, but we can manage to disconnect our will from it and re-attach that will to a healthier aspect of psyche. That process of disconnecting our will form addiction and attaching our will to a healthier part of ourselves is the early phase of recovery.

The 12 Step recovery process advocates that we disconnect our will form our addiction self and reconnect our will to something greater than ourselves. I am continually struck by the fact that we call alcohol “spirits,” and that we call using drugs “getting high.” Both appellations tell us that the aim of addiction is to help us connect to something greater than and (initially) outside ourselves, to develop spiritually, to live “ecstatically” (latin, “ex stasis,” to move outside of one’s self and open to what is greater and unites us all). Addiction is the right way to go but the wrong way to get there.

Addiction is healing. The aim of addiction is our psychological and spiritual maturation and development. I am an addict, and a professional in the addictions field, and my addiction has been a gift. It continues to challenge me to let go of my arrogance and self will and to cultivate a deeper connection with something greater than myself and surrender, moment to moment, to its love and guidance. My addiction would rather lead me to destroy my life, and the lives of those around me, than to allow me to live a numb, comfortable, meaningless and unexamined life in denial of the Big Love that unites us all and wants me to give everything I’ve got to give in this lifetime. My addiction offers me the possibility of deep humility and surrender. I have never known a man or woman to do anything stronger than surrender.

The Big Lie of addiction is that it tells one that there is nothing greater than oneself. Addiction tells that lie because it mistakes the pain of growth for the absence of wholeness. If we believe we are the center of the universe then there is no reason to face the pain of growth because we are already whole and “perfect.” Problem solved, or so says our addiction. Our addictions know that we will have to face and deal with the deepest most painful wounds in our lives in order to become whole again by connecting to whatever is greater than ourselves. Addiction stops our growth and development so that we will not have to face the pain that leads to our psychological growth and spiritual (re)union.

Addiction is not inherently bad. It is healing. We can’t get rid of our addiction, at any rate, so we must find a way to redeem it. If we allow the council of our psyche to be governed by our addiction, it will lead us to destruction. But if we reorder the council of our psyche into proper alignment, orienting whatever we find to be greater than ourselves at the head of the circle and allowing our addiction to become one of many valued council members, then our addiction can give us the gift of revealing our deepest wounds and when they are being activated by life events. Our addictions know better than any part of us the true nature of our deepest wounds and pain. That revelation can help us make better quality life decisions if we don’t simply act obsessively and compulsively to avoid the pain.

I find Carl Gustav Jung’s letter to Bill W., the founder of Alcoholics Anonymous, fascinating, affirming and inspirational. Here it is:

Dear Mr. W.

Your letter has been very welcome indeed.

I had no news from Rowland H. anymore and often wondered what has been his fate. Our conversation which he has adequately reported to you had an aspect of which he did not know. The reason that I could not tell him everything was that those days I had to be exceedingly careful of what I said. I had found out that I was misunderstood in every possible way. Thus I was very careful when I talked to Rowland H. But what I really thought about was the result of many experiences with men of his kind.

His craving for alcohol was the equivalent, on a low level, of the spiritual thirst of our being for wholeness, expressed in medieval language: the union with God.*
How could one formulate such an insight in a language that is not misunderstood in our days?

The only right and legitimate way to such an experience is that it happens to you in reality and it can only happen to you when you walk on a path which leads you to higher understanding. You might be led to that goal by an act of grace or through a personal and honest contact with friends, or through a higher education of the mind beyond the confines of mere rationalism. I see from your letter that Rowland H. has chosen the second way, which was, under the circumstances, obviously the best one.

I am strongly convinced that the evil principle prevailing in this world leads the unrecognized spiritual need into perdition, if it is not counteracted either by real religious insight or by the protective wall of human community. An ordinary man, not protected by an action from above and isolated in society, cannot resist the power of evil, which is called very aptly the Devil. But the use of such words arouses so many mistakes that one can only keep aloof from them as much as possible.

These are the reasons why I could not give a full and sufficient explanation to Rowland H., but I am risking it with you because I conclude from your very decent and honest letter that you have acquired a point of view above the misleading platitudes one usually hears about alcoholism.

You see, "alcohol" in Latin is "spiritus" and you use the same word for the highest religious experience as well as for the most depraving poison. The helpful formula therefore is: spiritus contra spiritum.

Thanking you again for your kind letter

I remain

Yours sincerely

C. G. Jung*

"As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God." (Psalms 42:1)

 

[R. Richard]

On a practical level, addiction is not necessarily a bad thing. However, addiction to something like heroin is bad and destructive. If the addict can find a way to shift his addiction to something that is useful and valuable to the community, addiction can be good.

In the example I gave, if Bruce had been able to permanently shift his addiction to weight lifting instead of heroin, he might well have become a champion body builder.

JMHO.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

In the example I gave, if Bruce had been able to permanently shift his addiction to weight lifting instead of heroin, he might well have become a champion body builder.

well that's just a matter of social acceptability... really... that's not the issue...

addiction itself isn't the SUBSTANCE... so while it's more socially acceptable to be addicted to weight lifting, or working 80 hours a week, or the Internet *whistling and looking skyward* ... it doesn't mean the the person isn't addicted, or that the addiction is less harmful to the psyche. It's just less harmful to society, and possibly, physically less harmful to the person (although not always).

 

[Pure]

IF we say 'every continuing pattern of behavior, to which we feel strongly drawn, led, or driven, is an addiction' we have a very broad concept to which Sex and D's and Jung's points apply. If one's soul pants after God and you become a monk whose efforts are mainly devotions, prayers, etc., then you are an addict. as Selena point out, you may become recognized as a saint.

Neither Sex and D, nor Jung, however brought up this 'lying' issue.

There are 'addictions' which are in a gray area, as far as social sanction goes, like homosexual acts, and compulsive gambling. Do people lie about these? Certainly, for reasons Selena gave.

The addictions which are in the 'black'/bad area are often quite expensive, like crack addiction; IMO that is why lying constantly, needlessly, about everything becomes a pattern; one is always conniving for money for the next fix, 'dancing as fast as one can' so to say.

On the acceptable, 'light' side of addiction: It is quite clear that the young Bobby Fischer was addicted to chess. He kept a board by his bed. The addiction brought him world titles. I see no reason for him to lie about it. (Now, of course, he's gotten very strange, although his 'paranoia' that the US gov is 'after him' is in fact correct!)

---
PS Excellent posting, Sex and D.!!

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

One of the comments underneath King's article asked the question whether we pay this much attention to the lies of our politicians.

What is so special about this guy? Cause Oprah promoted his book and now she's pissed she was made a fool?

We've got the Prez and his lieutenants lying about WMD's and freedom and wars, illegal wire taps, Valerie Plame, etc., and the nation is stressing about what this guy may or may not have been lying about?

FINALLY, someone who has some perspective on things!

 

[Sex and Death]

On a practical level, addiction is not necessarily a bad thing. However, addiction to something like heroin is bad and destructive. If the addict can find a way to shift his addiction to something that is useful and valuable to the community, addiction can be good.

In the example I gave, if Bruce had been able to permanently shift his addiction to weight lifting instead of heroin, he might well have become a champion body builder.

JMHO.

A little truth can be a dangerous thing.

Positive outcome and self-destruction are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

When you are an addict (trust me, am one, know this ) you lie to yourself... you lie to yourself so much and so often that lying to others isn't just a means to an end... it becomes a way of being... and until you break out of the addiction, you don't even see it... you don't see how manipulative you are... part ofrecovering from addiction is learning to use your powers for good, so to speak. Addicts lie about their addictions, but they lie about things that have NOTHING to do with their addictions. They lie because that's what they do to themselves. It's a trick of that addict part... the addict part of us learns to use any and every means it can to justify being in control.

In the case of chess, it says, "We're winning world titles, what's so wrong with that?!" nevermind that your social life and skills are nonexistent and we're practically a hermit... In the case of the 80-hour-a-week workaholic, the addict says, "Look how much money we're making, your future is golden, your employer loves and depends on you." Never mind that your wife is having an affair because you're never home, or your kids don't even remember what you look like, or your arteries are closing by the minute from your stress levels.

The addict part of us will seek to lie, rationalize, manipulate, con, persuade, cajole... it will do anything it can to get what it wants. And it just might switch "substances" on you, too, while you're not looking...


as for "anything can be addiction"... hell yes. We are a cult of addicts in this culture, and we're starving for something to fill the hole. It's like a pulse.

 

[Sex and Death]

One of the comments underneath King's article asked the question whether we pay this much attention to the lies of our politicians.

What is so special about this guy? Cause Oprah promoted his book and now she's pissed she was made a fool?

We've got the Prez and his lieutenants lying about WMD's and freedom and wars, illegal wire taps, Valerie Plame, etc., and the nation is stressing about what this guy may or may not have been lying about?

Frey's moment in the sun and the Prez's issues of contention with some of the public are sourced in the same dynamic: the idolatry of unmitigated self will.

 

[Sex and Death]

IF we say 'every continuing pattern of behavior, to which we feel strongly drawn, led, or driven, is an addiction' we have a very broad concept to which Sex and D's and Jung's points apply. If one's soul pants after God and you become a monk whose efforts are mainly devotions, prayers, etc., then you are an addict. as Selena point out, you may become recognized as a saint.

Neither Sex and D, nor Jung, however brought up this 'lying' issue.

There are 'addictions' which are in a gray area, as far as social sanction goes, like homosexual acts, and compulsive gambling. Do people lie about these? Certainly, for reasons Selena gave.

The addictions which are in the 'black'/bad area are often quite expensive, like crack addiction; IMO that is why lying constantly, needlessly, about everything becomes a pattern; one is always conniving for money for the next fix, 'dancing as fast as one can' so to say.

On the acceptable, 'light' side of addiction: It is quite clear that the young Bobby Fischer was addicted to chess. He kept a board by his bed. The addiction brought him world titles. I see no reason for him to lie about it. (Now, of course, he's gotten very strange, although his 'paranoia' that the US gov is 'after him' is in fact correct!)

---
PS Excellent posting, Sex and D.!!

RE PS: Thank you for reading it (except you missed the parts where I addressed the lying issue).

RE Bobby Fischer: My contention is that there is a deep but subtle difference between addiction and one's raison d'etre (read: calling, vocation, fate). Perhaps they are easy to confuse if not veiwed through a heart greater than our own. Also, perhaps, I am full of shit.

RE replacing one addiction with another: If we define addiction as using a substance, then we can say that one addiction is more socially acceptable than another. If we define addiction as obsessive thinking and compulsive behavior then the subtsance of choice is irrelevant and we can be in active addiction even if we are not using a substacne. This has been referred to as being a "dry drunk." Frey is a dry drunk, and any recovering addict knows it when theyr read his book.

 

[4degrees]

I'm an addict myself, though I no longer use. I resent the accusation that addicts are somehow qualitatively different than other people and that we're compulsive liars. I resent the hell out of it.

My Frey may be full of shit, but Mr King is a little too full of himself.

You tell me which one is worse.

--Zoot

resentment is the number-one offender. hahaha my sponsor would tell me to start writing, if'n ya know what i mean, Sir.
i'm sure you do.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

RE PS: Thank you for reading it (except you missed the parts where I addressed the lying issue).

RE Bobby Fischer: My contention is that there is a deep but subtle difference between addiction and one's raison d'etre (read: calling, vocation, fate). Perhaps they are easy to confuse if not veiwed through a heart greater than our own. Also, perhaps, I am full of shit.

RE replacing one addiction with another: If we define addiction as using a substance, then we can say that one addiction is more socially acceptable than another. If we define addiction as obsessive thinking and compulsive behavior then the subtsance of choice is irrelevant and we can be in active addiction even if we are not using a substacne. This has been referred to as being a "dry drunk." Frey is a dry drunk, and any recovering addict knows it when theyr read his book.

"dry drunk"- yep, that sums the preppy boy up pretty well.

 

[Sex and Death]

FYI: Bill W. to C. G. Jung

From www.barefootsworld.net:

The below is the text of the letter dated 1/23/61, written by Bill Wilson to the Swiss psychologist & psychiatrist Dr. Carl Gustav Jung. Bill considered it a long overdue note of appreciation for Dr. Jung's contribution to A.A.'s solution for alcoholism. The Big Book refers to part of the story on pages 26 & 27. This letter ellicited Dr. Jung's immediate reply.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My dear Dr. Jung:


This letter of great appreciation has been very long overdue.

May I first introduce myself as Bill W., a co-founder of the Society of Alcoholics Anonymous. Though you have surely heard of us, I doubt if you are aware that a certain conversation you once had with one of your patients, a Mr. Rowland H., back in the early 1930's, did play a critical role in the founding of our Fellowship.

Though Rowland H. has long since passed away, the recollections of his remarkable experience while under treatment by you has definitely become part of AA history. Our remembrance of Rowland H.'s statements about his experience with you is as follows:

Having exhausted other means of recovery from his alcoholism, it was about 1931 that he became your patient. I believe he remained under your care for perhaps a year. His admiration for you was boundless, and he left you with a feeling of much confidence.

To his great consternation, he soon relapsed into intoxication. Certain that you were his "court of last resort," he again returned to your care. Then followed the conversation between you that was to become the first link in the chain of events that led to the founding of Alcoholics Anonymous.

My recollection of his account of that conversation is this: First of all, you frankly told him of his hopelessness, so far as any further medical or psychiatric treatment might be concerned. This candid and humble statement of yours was beyond doubt the first foundation stone upon which our Society has since been built.

Coming from you, one he so trusted and admired, the impact upon him was immense. When he then asked you if there was any other hope, you told him that there might be, provided he could become the subject of a spiritual or religious experience - in short, a genuine conversion. You pointed out how such an experience, if brought about, might remotivate him when nothing else could. But you did caution, though, that while such experiences had sometimes brought recovery to alcoholics, they were, nevertheless, comparatively rare. You recommended that he place himself in a religious atmosphere and hope for the best. This I believe was the substance of your advice.

Shortly thereafter, Mr. H. joined the Oxford Groups, an evangelical movement then at the height of its success in Europe, and one with which you are doubtless familiar. You will remember their large emphasis upon the principles of self-survey, confession, restitution, and the giving of oneself in service to others. They strongly stressed meditation and prayer. In these surroundings, Rowland H. did find a conversion experience that released him for the time being from his compulsion to drink.

Returning to New York, he became very active with the "O.G." here, then led by an Episcopal clergyman, Dr. Samuel Shoemaker. Dr. Shoemaker had been one of the founders of that movement, and his was a powerful personality that carried immense sincerity and conviction.

At this time (1932-34) the Oxford Groups had already sobered a number of alcoholics, and Rowland, feeling that he could especially identify with these sufferers, addressed himself to the help of still others. One of these chanced to be an old schoolmate of mine, Edwin T. ("Ebby"). He had been threatened with commitment to an institution, but Mr. H. and another ex-alcoholic "O.G." member procured his parole and helped to bring about his sobriety.

Meanwhile, I had run the course of alcoholism and was threatened with commitment myself. Fortunately I had fallen under the care of a physician - a Dr. William D. Silkworth - who was wonderfully capable of understanding alcoholics. But just as you had given up on Rowland, so had he given me up. It was his theory that alcoholism had two components - an obsession that compelled the sufferer to drink against his will and interest, and some sort of metabolism difficulty which he then called an allergy. The alcoholic's compulsion guaranteed that the alcoholic's drinking would go on, and the allergy made sure that the sufferer would finally deteriorate, go insane, or die. Though I had been one of the few he had thought it possible to help, he was finally obliged to tell me of my hopelessness; I, too, would have to be locked up. To me, this was a shattering blow. Just as Rowland had been made ready for his conversion experience by you, so had my wonderful friend, Dr. Silkworth, prepared me.

Hearing of my plight, my friend Edwin T. came to see me at my home where I was drinking. By then, it was November 1934. I had long marked my friend Edwin for a hopeless case. Yet there he was in a very evident state of "release" which could by no means accounted for by his mere association for a very short time with the Oxford Groups. Yet this obvious state of release, as distinguished from the usual depression, was tremendously convincing. Because he was a kindred sufferer, he could unquestionably communicate with me at great depth. I knew at once I must find an experience like his, or die.

Again I returned to Dr. Silkworth's care where I could be once more sobered and so gain a clearer view of my friend's experience of release, and of Rowland H.'s approach to him.

Clear once more of alcohol, I found myself terribly depressed. This seemed to be caused by my inability to gain the slightest faith. Edwin T. again visited me and repeated the simple Oxford Groups' formulas. Soon after he left me I became even more depressed. In utter despair I cried out, "If there be a God, will He show Himself." There immediately came to me an illumination of enormous impact and dimension, something which I have since tried to describe in the book "Alcoholics Anonymous" and in "AA Comes of Age", basic texts which I am sending you.

My release from the alcohol obsession was immediate. At once I knew I was a free man. Shortly following my experience, my friend Edwin came to the hospital, bringing me a copy of William James' "Varieties of Religious Experience". This book gave me the realization that most conversion experiences, whatever their variety, do have a common denominator of ego collapse at depth. The individual faces an impossible dilemma. In my case the dilemma had been created by my compulsive drinking and the deep feeling of hopelessness had been vastly deepened by my doctor. It was deepened still more by my alcoholic friend when he acquainted me with your verdict of hopelessness respecting Rowland H.

In the wake of my spiritual experience there came a vision of a society of alcoholics, each identifying with and transmitting his experience to the next - chain style. If each sufferer were to carry the news of the scientific hopelessness of alcoholism to each new prospect, he might be able to lay every newcomer wide open to a transforming spiritual experience. This concept proved to be the foundation of such success as Alcoholics Anonymous has since achieved. This has made conversion experiences - nearly every variety reported by James - available on an almost wholesale basis. Our sustained recoveries over the last quarter century number about 300,000. In America and through the world there are today 8,000 AA groups.

So to you, to Dr. Shoemaker of the Oxford Groups, to William James, and to my own physician, Dr. Silkworth, we of AA owe this tremendous benefaction. As you will now clearly see, this astonishing chain of events actually started long ago in your consulting room, and it was directly founded upon your own humility and deep perception.

Very many thoughtful AAs are students of your writings. Because of your conviction that man is something more than intellect, emotion, and two dollars worth of chemicals, you have especially endeared yourself to us.

How our Society grew, developed its Traditions for unity, and structured its functioning will be seen in the texts and pamphlet material that I am sending you.

You will also be interested to learn that in addition to the "spiritual experience," many AAs report a great variety of psychic phenomena, the cumulative weight of which is very considerable. Other members have - following their recovery in AA - been much helped by your practitioners. A few have been intrigued by the "I Ching" and your remarkable introduction to that work.

Please be certain that your place in the affection, and in the history of the Fellowship, is like no other.
Gratefully yours,
William G. W.
Co-founder Alcoholics Anonymous