Returning to work, or at least trying to

Today I was scheduled to return to work after three weeks of medical leave. Since neither my G.P. nor my gastroenterologist had returned my phone calls, I assumed that there was no pressing need for me to remain on leave. I woke up at 4:45 in the morning, got ready, left the house at 5:30, caught my bus, and arrived on campus at 6:50, ten minutes before I was scheduled to start work. Early for once. I was the first to arrive. Over the next two hours, coworkers and my supervisor welcomed me back. It wasn't until nine that administration called and informed my supervisor that I needed medical clearance to start work again.

I didn't get mad or frustrated. I called my doctor and the soonest can can see me is tomorrow at 7:30. Provided he gives clearance, I'll go to work after. At least I got another day off in the deal.

I stayed on campus for a while and read chapters two through four in the Big Book. It had been too long since I had read them. There's some great stuff in there. My sponsor says that sometimes she could swear that the book changes between readings. I know what she means. With the passage of time and new experiences, I understood some portions in different ways than I had the last time I had read them.

One thing that jumped out at me in Chapter 4, "We Agnostics", is the discussion about faith in science. One thing its authors did not appear to be aware of, and which would further strengthen their case, is that nothing can be proven in science. We design theories that fit the available data, generate hypotheses and test these hypotheses. A positive result strengthens the case for the theory, never proves it. In mathematics, geometry and logic, statements can be proven only insofar as we accept the underlying axioms. Axioms are unprovable and untestable; they are articles of faith. Axioms are accepted because they seem to make sense and they are useful for discussing phenomena. We cannot even prove or disprove the that a number is equal to itself! Even this seemingly self-evident assumption has been the source of much debate among mathematicians. There are theoretical spaces based on different axioms, including ones in which a number is not equal to itself, that give rise to different mathematical laws. These might be useful in some applications. The point is that without axioms, or articles of faith, we cannot meaningfully discuss anything.

To me, the steps are like a scientific experiment. The existence of my H.P. is an axiom that I accept as an article of faith. The alternatives, an axiom in which there is no H.P. or no axiom at all, leave me without hope of recovering from my powerlessness over my alcohol, which I have tried on my own to no avail. The remainder of Step Two, that this H.P. will restore me to sanity, is a theory based on my axiom. The 9th Step Promises are a set of hypotheses and operational variables that spell out how sanity will be measured for the purpose of the experiment. By performing Steps Three through Nine, I do the experiment. The Promises coming true in my life strengthen the theory in Step Two. Now this isn't entirely scientific, because the variables are too vague and I can only perform this experiment on myself - an egregious ethical violation in a true scientific experiment. Not to mention that the placebo effect can't be ruled out. How does one compare against a placebo 12-Step group? But as far as I'm concerned, whether it's a placebo or my H.P. doesn't matter (both are matters of faith and their effects indistinguishable). My quality of life improves, in terms of how I feel, when I do the steps. It gets worse when I don't. I prefer to believe it's my H.P. at work.

Oh yes, my gastroenterologist did finally call this afternoon. I don't have Crohn's disease. With this new information, it's likely my GP will give me clearance to return to work. I will just have to hang in there until we find a treatment and/or diagnosis that works. That's all for now.