Short form of Step 2: Came to believe a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
“Came to believe”, ”a Power greater than our selves”, “sanity”, each of the words and phrases evoke an almost magical and mystical awe. Questions like “How does one come to believe”, “who or what is this power,” and “so, I’m insane?” all leap immediately to mind. But in this first part of the re-imagining of Step 2 I want to begin with what might seem to be the most innocent words in this step: “could restore us.”
Two Conceptions of “could restore us”
There are, in general, two ways to understand “could restore us”. To understand the difference it is useful to take as a starting point the relatively innocuous sentence “X could take me to Dallas.” The first way of understanding this sentence can be termed the agent model. In this interpretation the sentence is understood to say that I could be transported to Dallas by some outside agency “X”. That is, by the agent model, the sentence “X could take me to Dallas” means that there is some person (or other agency) ”X” who could drive me to Dallas.
The second understanding, which we will term the directive model, takes the sentence “X could take me to Dallas” to mean that there is a path, scheme or course of conduct that will take me to Dallas. The obvious example is a map, or travel plan. Thus, our innocuous sentence translates as, “If I take this route (or highway) it’ll take me to Dallas.” Here, there is no outside agency, there is merely a proscribed course of conduct that lead to the desired result.
The Agent Model and it’s Deficiencies
As should be evident from the above, the key feature of the agent model is a subject/object relationship. In the sentence “X could take me to Dallas”, “X” is that a subject or actor or agency acts upon me, the object. I am literally taken to Dallas by something else. Thus, in the Second Step, following this model, when we say “a Power could restore us to…” we are conceiving of ourselves as an object that is acted upon by the outside agency (the “Power”). We are thus in the role of that which is restored and the Power is in the role of the restorer (that is, the agent).
When I assert that this model has deficiencies I do not mean to imply that it may not work for some people. There are many people in recovery that approach the second step from this orientation and are able to achieve sobriety. To them I say congratulations. However, the major deficiency of this model is the cost it extorts.
Accepting this model is to see oneself as merely an object. Our salvation or restoration is something imposed on us from outside, and is completely outside of our own agency. For many in recovery this is seen as a great plus. They describe it as the height of humility. The idea is that being truly humble is to accept that we are powerless, and can not save ourselves. Thus, any success we appear to have is not ours to claim. Instead, all glory goes to the one who restored us, and we, in total humility, accept none.
Unfortunately, and what is rarely admitted is that, if this is so, the converse is also true. That is, sense a Power outside of ourselves is responsible for our restoration, the failure of our restoration must also lie with that power. Remember, we are not an agent in this model, we are merely acted upon. Thus, the failure for us to be acted upon is not our responsibility, but is the responsibility of the agent (Power).
Often, people in recovery will attempt to avoid this corollary truth by claiming that the agent (Power) will only act upon us if we take certain steps. Further, many claim that if we take those steps the agent (Power) will necessarily act upon us and restore us. This, unfortunately contradicts the original formulation that we are powerless and that our restoration lies outside of ourselves (since it is we who decide if and to some extent when the agent acts).
The Directive Model and the Descriptive/Normative Distinction
The key feature of the directive model is that there is no subject/object distinction. That which acts, and that which is acted upon are the same. Said is plain english: We cause our own restoration. Note however, this is not the same as claiming that we restore ourselves through our own “will power”. In fact, this model implies no claim about the exact method of restoration, merely it’s general nature.
To understand this point recall that in the directive model of understanding of our innocuous sentence “X could take me to Dallas” no actual travel route (or mode of transportation) is mandated. Likewise, when considering the second step the directive model of understanding does not specify what the actual route to restoration is. Instead, this understanding merely describes that the restoration is achieve through the application of some method or scheme.
Applying the directive model of understanding to the second step then would leave us with the following: Came to believe a Power greater than ourselves could restore us provides us with a path to sanity. This re-imagining is enough to give us an understanding of the second step that avoids the personal debasement of the agent model without necessarily elevating “will power” to the status of a superpower.
Before settling on this re-imagining of Step 2, however, it is useful to reflect on another aspect of methods, plans, or schemes: the descriptive/normative distinction. All directive methods, plans, and schemes (if accurate) are descriptive. That is, they each describe a way of reaching it’s respective goal. Returning to our innocuous example, any accurate path to Dallas satisfies the “X” in “X could take me to Dallas.” However, we all recognize that some paths to Dallas are superior to others. For example, most concede that driving west from Atlanta is a superior path to Dallas than drive east. Both will get you to Dallas, but one gets you there much sooner, and much drier.
When we say give some directive, some plan, scheme, or method, as a way of achieving our goal, and we mean not only that it is accurate but that it is a better way than others we describe it as a normative directive. Thus in further understanding of our innocuous example of going to Dallas with a normative directive understanding it states that “X” is a proper or skillful (using a Taoist term) to get me to Dallas.
That Step 2 implies, in fact requires, a normative understanding is self-evident. The entire purpose of the twelve steps is to help a person get sober, and to show them not just any way, but the best (or at least one of the best) ways to do so. As such our re-imagining ought to include some indication of this normative aspect. Therefore we can finally state our re-imagined Step 2 (thus far):
Came to believe a Power greater than ourselves could restore us provides us with a skillful path to sanity.
Upcoming in Re-Imagining: Step 2 (Part 2) – “Came to believe”
As always, comments and debate are welcome, invited, encouraged and anticipated.
I’ve recently adopted Gnosticism. Part of this (at least as I practice) is acknowledging that everyone finds truth in different ways. I also explore those different ways, as I feel I can find truth and knowledge in a myriad of places. I really find a lot of peace in Bhuddism. Excited to make return trips to find more truth and peace
Posted by femmefrugality | July 3, 2011, 12:49 amThank you for your comment…
I know little of Gnosticism… am I correct in understang you are referring to the Gnoostic Gospels?
Thanks for coming to my site…
Posted by The Habituated Buddhist | July 3, 2011, 11:29 amYes, the gnostic gospels are the “official” texts, but the unorganized branch of it that I’ve adopted also promotes reading other texts that exist and finding the truth in them, as well. Finding truth and a way back to gnosis (divine knowledge) is a path that every individual takes in a different manner. I particularly enjoyed the reorganization of the semantics…”could restore us to” to “provides us with a path to.” We are at our own wheels, if you will, but there is something going on outside of ourselves. Something greater, but not necessarily an epitomy of perfection in the typical sense of the word.
Posted by femmefrugality | July 13, 2011, 11:29 pmNice post, brother! Well informed, insightful, and most of all, INSPIRING! I have to say there have been many things on your site that have helped me open up to new ideas in this journey, but this really hit home for me for some reason. I appreciate your “skepticism.” I mean that in a good way, in that your courage to take a fresh look at the steps is wonderful. Going through the steps myself in a different light on my blog, I enjoy going through them simultaneously with you! Hope all is well, and have a happy 4th!
Posted by The Easier Softer Way | July 4, 2011, 12:19 amThank you so much for your comment…
In my working of the “program” I found that “getting beneath” the language of each step actually caused me to work it… I see this as an extention.
Yeah, I love that you are doing a step project as well… I look forward to the next installment!
Posted by The Habituated Buddhist | July 4, 2011, 8:06 amMay I offer this?
Our lives are not pre-programmed. They are not in the hands of a diety. There are no preset rules of action that determines the course of your life or mine. Nothing is pre-determined. Starting out in life is like traveling down a path. In the beginning of your journey, you may have no choice of which road to travel. But along the way more than once we come to a crossroads where we have a choice to make a change in direction and continue on a different path.
There is really no right or wrong action, only skillful acts and unskillful ones, said Buddha.
We always have a choice of undertaking skillful or unskillful actions. In all our actions, it is the underlying reason, the intention or motivation within that determines whether they are positive or negative. Unskillful acts cause harm. Hence, it is important to be mindful of what we really intend so that we don’t deceive others, and we don’t deceive ourselves. If our true intention is to live a sensible, wholesome life, when we have a choice to make a change in direction and continue on a different path, we make the skillfull choice with good intention focused on causing not harm.
Restoration is about using new positive experiences to counterbalance old negative ones. From a spiritual perspective, we are restoring ourselves when we register good experiences on the path that come good intention and skillful practice.
patience — the antidote to anger
humility — the antidote to pride
generosity — the antidote to greed
sympathetic joy — the antidote to envy
clear seeing — the antidote to anxiety
Peace and love,
TiTi
Posted by timethief | July 6, 2011, 1:36 amThank you so much for your comment. Funny, I’ve been thinking that I’ve been failing to be sufficiently explicit about the spiritual basis of my thought, and then you post such an elegant post expressing the Way far better than I ever could. Thank you!
Posted by The Habituated Buddhist | July 6, 2011, 9:37 pmI currently working on improving my writing and focusing of clarity and brevity. I’m pleased that you liked my comment on taking a new path and employing skillful means to stay on that path. It only took 4 editing sessions to cut it down to what I hoped would be a succint statement.
Best wishes,
TiTi
Posted by timethief | July 7, 2011, 6:50 pmWhat KIND of skillful path?
Posted by Julie | July 13, 2011, 8:09 am“What KIND of skillful path?”
Well, there’s the rub. As a Buddhist I believe that the path of the Dharma and the Eightfold path is the proper way. For me, alcoholism and addiction are nothing more (or less) than the second Noble Truth (that sufferring arises from attachment) run amoke.
That said, in this series I am attempting to “re-imagine” the 12 steps without necessarilly promoting a specific spiritual tradition or to specify one and only one path. A strength of the 12 steps is that they attempt to proscribe a general path without requiring a specific belief system. While I believe that attempt ultimately fails, I feel the goal is a good one, and at least for this series I attempt to honor it.
Thank you so much for the opportunity to respond.
Posted by The Habituated Buddhist | July 13, 2011, 10:37 amThanks for your response, HB. Could you break it down a bit and perhaps get a bit more specific from your viewpoint or belief system? I’m just not getting it this time around. Really lost.
Posted by Julie | July 13, 2011, 1:24 pm@habituatedbuddhist
Please delete my first comment to Julie and replace it with this one My app was not working and now it is so I can see and clean up the errors.
@Julie,
I am visually challenged and apologize in advance for errors that make me appear to be semi-literate.
Buddhists believe that our attachment (craving desire within) to witness or to be a part of specific outcomes, as well, as our aversion to other outcomes is the cause of unhappiness.
When there is a sequence to our thoughts, they have as their object either something pleasant or something unpleasant. If the object of our thought sequence (example: a drink) is pleasant we begin reacting to the thoughts with liking that grows into craving, a clinging, an attachment. If it is unpleasant, we begin reacting with dislike, which develops into a rejection, a hatred, an aversion.
Buddhists are committed to doing no deliberate harm to themselves or others. We are committed to mind training (retraining or thought sequences). When we examine alcoholism we can see it is a disease that springs from an attachment to escape or to wrong thinking. What we are attempting to escape from is either an aversion (example: being alone), or an attachment to wrong thinking (example: we are worthless).
Skillful means are aimed at doing no harm. We all have choices when we experience the negative emotions our attachments and aversion give rise to. Consider what I posted above. It’s a brief list of skillful means for re-training one’s thought sequences and dealing with negative emotions in a healthy way
patience — the antidote to anger
humility — the antidote to pride
generosity — the antidote to greed
sympathetic joy — the antidote to envy
clear seeing — the antidote to anxiety
Unenlightened life is suffering. Suffering is a result of attachment to wrong thinking that results in greed, hatred, and ignorance, which return as suffering (karma), while compassion toward others who suffer reduces the effects of karma. Cessation of this suffering through meditation and mind training is the primary goal of Buddhism– to reach Nirvana (a state of wherein the craving desire within is extinguished), to end cycles of rebirth through enlightenment.
If you are Christian you may l have trouble accepting what I have stated because many Christians believe Buddha is a god to Buddhists. This is not so. The concept of a supreme Creator God is rejected or at least considered irrelevant to Theravada Buddhism. Buddha, “the Awakened One,” is revered above all — not as “God” but as supreme sage, model of a fully enlightened person.
Posted by timethief | July 16, 2011, 3:39 pmThank you TT. I have been trying to think of how to respond to the question. I could not have done better. Thank you.
Posted by The Habituated Buddhist | July 18, 2011, 9:14 amSo how does all this relate the the realizations stated in Step 2? And in Buddhism, what emphasis is placed on planning and taking action, if any? Thanks much.
Posted by Julie | July 17, 2011, 10:58 amI’m about to post the net part in this series. Hopefully it will address some of your questions. If not, I invite any follow up you may have. Thanks.
Posted by The Habituated Buddhist | July 18, 2011, 9:16 am