| | Richard,
Thank you for those level-headed comments. Full agreement. As I stated in an earlier post, used empty booze bottles mean only one thing as a fact, that there was booze in them once and there no longer is.
All else is speculation.
My own incredulity to the paint by bottle thing is based on the type of work I have seen by Frank O'Connor. The kind of materials he used would make mixing them in booze bottles incredibly complicated. He seemed to be the type who held more value for what he was painting, not spending long hours and thought on how to get color combinations from oil and acrylic paint (they come in tubes and jars) in thin-necked long booze bottles, then dealing with dilution to be able to use the new color.
My incredulity continues in his case because of the nature of his work. (Pomo artists, however, will use anything in any manner, even human feces.)
Andy,
I'm going to try to answer you intelligently. You claim that you are not rationalizing about alcoholism and can assimilate the experiences of others. Yet you insist in making a prognosis - a definitive statement that alcoholism is not a disease. Where do your credentials come from to make statements like that if you do not listen to those who have dealt with it?
I have an article in the works on this. The nature of this disease from an Objectivist viewpoint might surprise you (and others). I suggest you pipe down a little and listen before engaging mouth and you might learn something about which you know blessed little. Somehow, I don't think my suggestion will be followed, though.
Casey,
Thank you very much for the homage. To return the gesture, I have not read any of your own works, but I have people I respect who have told me that they are quite good. So reading some of your work is on my "to do" list. You may consider that an homage, also.
I was not baiting you. (I might bait on on something else, and vice-versa, but I will not go there with that - ever.) If what you said about your father is true (OK - I'll take you at your word), then it NEVER should be used in a "my suffering is greater than your suffering" routine. All suffering with this disease is bad - and nobody knows how much it hurts (both alcoholic and loved ones) except those who bear it.
I need to digress a bit on this and do something I normally do not like to do - argue by example. However this might be illustrative of what I am trying to say. Think about cancer. Fernando has a form of cancer that is not too painful. Carlos has a form that is very painful. Fernando dies from his cancer after a few years. Carlos fights it for decades, suffering great pain, but finally beats it.
Whose suffering was worse?
In my book, they both are horrible.
I don't really need to analyze the pros and cons - death versus life, years of agony and so forth, to know that this experience was devastating to both of them in their own different manners.
I do see a great divide on the alcoholism/addiction issue, however. There are those who think alcoholism is merely a shameful state to be in. There are others who think it is a disease. Actually, the truth is more complicated - it is many diseases (needing different types of treatment) and a great deal of shameful acts are committed during its course in an individual life.
One of the absolute truths that have come down through AA (btw - I do not agree with a great deal of what they do, but I respect that fact that they are doing something) is that not only are alcoholics sick. They make the people who love them spiritually sick, too. (Spirit in the non-mystical sense.) Painful issues develop that need to be dealt with. (Who can take long years of highly charged irrational and destructive behavior without a tremendous amount of resentment building up, just as one issue?) If these issues are not dealt with, other consequences result that are damaging to happiness and flourishing.
I have gone on longer than I wanted in this post on this. Please await my article.
Back to the point. I completely disagree with the premise that calling someone an alcoholic is motivated by malice, since it presumes that the person making the statement thinks that alcoholism is shameful, thus an insult. (One exception - a person who actually thinks alcoholism is shameful would be insulting and degrading another by calling him an alcoholic.)
Those who think it is a disease and have a benevolent sense of life try to help. Sometimes they go way too far. Sometimes they do not do enough. Often they miss the mark completely, even on identifying the problem in itself. (Do I need to state the obvious?)
This is a very complicated issue that cuts o the core of volition, one of Objectivism's banners. It deserves serious thought and discussion - not mere finger pointing.
James,
Have you had time to consider my scenario?
Michael
|
|
