At this point I'm a beginner sobering-up alcoholic and addict. The purpose of this blog is to provide a (possibly) public forum for my personal observations about alcohol and other substances, alcoholism, Alcoholics Anonymous, sobriety, and various points of interest related to Twelve Step Programs.
In particular, I want to post any thoughts I have here that are verboten or "politically incorrect" at some (though not all) of the AA meetings I attend on a regular basis.
Tonight in my favorite Sunday meeting -- which is open to all, with discussion, no Big Book yadayada -- I introduced myself to one of the audience who commented on the evening's speaker. This gentleman like myself grew up in the mid-Atlantic states, in an upper-middle class household, albeit (unlike mine) one in which the father was murdered by the mother. Anyway, I liked what the gentleman said, plus he had 25 years of sobriety which I suppose I should respect and look up to.
So having introduced myself and chatted with him about the Chesapeake Bay, he proceeded to give me some advice. He said, first of all, give yourself a date for your sobriety even if you don't remember exactly what it was. OK, fair enough, I thought. I really should nail down the exact date, as a reference point.
Then he proceeded to tell me that it's all about working with the faith of the heart. True, I agree. To be sober, stay sober and get a better life in the future, I need to work on that. (Most of us need to, alcholics or not). So the gentleman was preaching to the converted at this point.
Then he said "It's not about intellect. Intellect is a defect of character..." and continued rambling on for another minute or so. Again, what he said, I liked for the most part. But then I said to him I took exception to the "intellect is a defect of character" part.
Upon reflection I concluded that, while the guy is sincere enough, he's still a wee bit full of himself after twenty-five years. Granted, there is a lot of wisdom there, but the lecture was redolent of the "foul stench of enlightenment", as it is called in Zen. It's like the smell of a rotting corpse -- it's sweet and not entirely unpleasant, but the more one smells it the more uncomfortable one becomes.
Now since my being a much younger man than he, and with less time sober, far be it from me to lecture this guy on where his attitude might have gone wrong, or how his enlightenment reeks like a two-week old striper in a hot bilge. Frankly, this stuff about bashing intellect is one of the things that sends newly sober alcoholics running for the hills, away from A.A. and possibly back to another drink. Alcoholics, that is, with highly developed intellects.
Viewing intellect as a defect of character makes about as much sense as viewing a penis as defect of character. True, some feminists for example might view penises that way, but that doesn't make it correct. In any case, the intellect is much more common than a penis. Roughly 50% of humans have penises, but everyone has at least one head. One has a head and one ought to use it, right? That's common sense. Alcoholics may over-use their intellect in the service of lies, denial and manipulation, but that doesn't make intellect per se a defect of character.
Whenever I hear "spiritual" people bashing the intellect or making light of people whom they disdainfully refer to as "intellectuals", I hear a cult mentality speaking. I espy a subtle fundamentalism of the heart.
The heart may be what makes us feeling and compassionate human beings, but it can also make us stupid. Haven't we all done some stupid things for love? And haven't most of us done some of those silly things while sober? So with that I could rest my case. The heart is essential but it is not inherently superior to the head. A heart without a head lies in a corpse.
Access to the heart's true feelings is broken or damaged by alcoholism, as by any other (non substance-abuse related) trauma in a person's life. The injury in the case of alcoholism is largely self-inflicted, of course. But what or who is it that needs to access and relate to those feelings constructively? It's the intellect.
A person with a big heart but no intellect is a dog, basically. I love dogs and God bless them for being all heart and no intellect, that is why they are man's best friend. We all need a break from our intelligence sometimes, a companion to bring us the newspaper of Gospel, the pipe of dreams and the slippers of soft-pedalling sensitivity. That's what dogs and heart-centered awareness are for.
On the other hand, intellect without heart is the defining characteristic of a sociopathic personality. Authentic human beings need both head as well as heart. Ergo, intellect is not a character defect, quod est determinatus.
It's no accident that cults are invariably founded by sociopaths. They understand the heart from a purely intellectual perspective which gives them the freedom from moral self-scrutiny as well as the natural talent necessary for manipulating people. And likewise, it is not accidental that cult leaders use all kinds of techniques to cause their followers to doubt the integrity of their own intellects and "keep their hearts open", i.e., to keep them in a state of emotional suggestibility which is also rather stupid and animalistic, not much different from a well-trained dog. If cult followers were taught and encouraged to use their heads as well as to listen to their hearts, the cult would cease to be a cult, and those cult followers would cease to be followers (Shravakas) and become independent, skillful Bodhisattvas, in deed if not necessarily in creed.
Discouraging critical thought (e.g., the use of intellect) is a cult technique. It is not part of the original A. A. ethos. Bill W. and Bob G. and a lot of the old-timers where well-educated men with fine intellects. How could they have convinced a number of prominent non-alcoholic scientists and clergyman to espouse their cause without being eloquent and intellectually coherent? How could they have attracted so many alcoholics and helped them stay sober, if not by an enlightened approach that was both clear-minded (intellectually or scientifically) as well as spiritually integrated (that is regarding the head and heart)?
There's nothing wrong with having a well-honed intellect. A.A. promotes that sort of intellect in people, regardless of their level of education. Emotional intelligence and intellectual sensitivity are not at odds as I see it. This is not my personal view of intellect, it is the only definitive and original view of what "intellect" really is. The word "intellect" means something akin to "reading between the lines". You need both a critical thinking head as well as as a sensitive, poetic heart to do that well, whether your reading material be a book, another person or God's ways.
The original sense of "intellect" in medieval scholastic philosophy was precisely that human faculty that allows one to know the mysterious ways of the Divine to some degree. The heart's faith allows one to perceive those ways, but it's the intellect that knows them. What could possibly be wrong with both in an equal and balanced measure?
