A plea to the ACLU

I would like the ACLU to represent me in a discrimination case on my behalf,
but I do not know exactly who the defendants are going to be yet. While
there are many larger societal concerns involved in my case, for brevities
sake, I am going to try to reduce the complaints to only my concerns. In a
nutshell, I am trying to get psychiatry to stop dismissing the perceptions
of my psychotic symptoms as meaningless, unviable and unreal. The nature of
the discrimination is quite involved, but I hope you can bear with it until
I am finished presenting my case.


My objective:

My problem is that I cannot get the psychiatric care I need. I am not
looking to recover damages. I am trying to resolve the fundamental
discrimination that is preventing me from receiving treatment for my mental
illness. As I am not a psychiatrist, I do not know the details of an
appropriate treatment for psychosis, or if a treatment is even possible.
However, it is impossible for me to receive treatment while my claims are
dismissed by psychiatrists, based solely upon the fact that my claims
contradict empirical doctrine. The development of an appropriate treatment
of psychotic symptoms is prohibited by present day empirical restrictions
upon diagnosis of, and accounts for, psychotic symptoms.

I am not trying to resolve my psychological problems by making it a legal
matter, but my psychological problems cannot be resolved, or even properly
addressed, until psychosis is much better understood. I have developed a
model that exposes a fundamental bifurcation of the societal injudicious I
am subjected to as a societal loophole, and scientific misapplication, of
empirical doctrine. However the organization of my model is ontological, not
epistemologically empirical. I have employed the ontological model in order
to expose the societal injudicious I am being subjected to. While the
veracity of the model is not of a legal concern, only the legalities of the
discrimination suite are, I am providing a link (below) to a document that I
had written to my doctors. It offers a superficial description of the model,
and it shows the effort I have placed into resolving the disagreement, and
my commitment to resolving it in an amiable of a fashion as is possible:
[Only registered users see links. ]


Accounting for the disagreement:

I cannot convince any psychiatrist to consider my knowledge of my own
atypical perceptions has any validity whatsoever; hence there is a stalemate
insomuch as I have been willing to accept their empirical knowledge and
treatment for over twenty years, while they do not take my self-compiled
knowledge of my own illness and atypical perceptions into account. Their
prejudice is due to myself having psychotic symptoms, and the obtainment of
my knowledge contradicts accepted scientific methods and means of obtaining
knowledge. The way that I have procured my knowledge, and the source of my
knowledge, is invalidated by them solely upon the fact that it contradicts
empirical doctrine. While empirical doctrine is held for science by the
philosophy of science, practicing medical doctors are technicians that do
not abide by empirical doctrine.

If practicing medical doctors followed scientific standards, procedures and
methodology, patients would be dying left-and-right, while doctors were only
considering scientific facts, avoiding conjectures and ignoring their
instincts. Hence, while it is acceptable for psychiatrist to employ
non-scientific standards and practices while treating me, I am held to
empirical and scientific standards when I question their knowledge by
supplying my own. While unfairness is not necessarily indicative of
prejudice and injudicious, in this case it is. What follows in a rather
involved explication of how psychiatry, unknowingly to them, inflicts upon
persons with psychotic symptoms a terrible prejudice and injudicious. By
dismissing a large portion of reality as unreal, psychiatry negates the
being of many innocent persons suffering with psychotic symptoms, simply
because of their inability to conform to empirical doctrine. I am not asking
science to utilize non-empirical knowledge; that would contradict science.
Rather I am asking science to accept and acknowledge that science has
inadvertently taken sole responsibility of determining the validity,
authenticity and reliability of all epistemological sources of knowledge,
and for science to share this responsibility with other organizations
(organizations that are not presently formed).


My own findings:

I have identified my problem as rooted in empirical psychiatric treatment of
psychosis. I have a prepared an ontologically coherent model that addresses
the metaphysics of psychosis; hence its development, and foundation,
conflicts with empirical methods and means, upon which (medical) science is
founded. While the model does not contradict empirical facts, it does draw
into question many scientific accounts of empirical facts. The reasons are
that many scientific accounts incorrectly identify metaphysical systems and
processes as empirical. By metaphysical, I am referring to sub-quantum
systems and processes that are, by the definition of sub-quantum, present
only in the future and unobservable from within this Cosmos by any,
practical or imagined, means whatsoever. In order to consider that
metaphysical system and processes are real, one must first consider atypical
perceptions are valid and meaningful. That consideration is dismissed by
science through the elaborate evolvement of a paradoxical cathartic
eliminations of other religions.

I am not implying a manmade conspiracy, but rather due to the lack of a
doctrineless model of the ontology, societies evolve and adapt around
doctrine. If there is no formal religious doctrine, other doctrine shall
self-adapt as religious doctrine. So the empirical doctrine held by the
philosophy of science, differs from what I refer to as empirical religious
doctrine held by the quasi-religion of scientism. The evolvement of
religious and societal doctrines is an affect of fractal-chaotic
self-organization. Without getting too technical, science evolved the
quasi-religion of scientism in order to replace other competing religions,
and while ontology cannot become a religion, scientism and ontology are
competing systems of thought. Via the natural and psychosocial laws of
economics, evolution, adaptation and self-organization ontology shall
eventually consume scientism from out of nowhere.

Accounting for empirical non-irreducibility of psychotic symptoms is they
are phenomenological, not neurological. While defects in neurology are
evident in many psychotic episodes and schizophrenia, psychotic symptoms,
and consciousness, are present in phenomenology, and not in neurology. The
flaw in scientific reasoning concerning psychosis is that empirical doctrine
enforces the scientific presumption that neurology and phenomenology both
are entirely empirically accountable, and the seat of consciousness is
present in a neurological correlate. The reason for using the word
"presumption" and not "assumption" is, there is absolutely no empirical
evidence to support the existence of a neurological correlate of
consciousness. There are inferences that could be drawn in order to reach
the empirical conclusion that there exists a neurological correlate of
consciousness. However, conclusions of "where something is," if the
"something" is not empirically observable, based solely upon inference, are
ontologically synthetic not scientifically analytic.

Ontological inferences concerning something that is unseen, but known to be,
is an ontology of being, based solely in doctrine; hence the neurological
correlate of consciousnesses is a presumption based upon solely upon
empirical religious doctrine, and not a scientific hypothesis or theory.
Likewise, the presumptions that all non-empirical attainment of knowledge is
fallacious, unsound and its veracity is random is hypocritical and the very
archetype of prejudice. For psychiatry to refute the veracity of absolutely
all other sources of knowledge (e.g., psychotic insight, divine knowledge)
based upon empirical doctrine alone, and no matter how rigors its
attainment, by implying reality is entirely empirical is hypocritical. Not
only is this a hypocrisy, it is discriminatory and so damaging to the
self-identity and self-respect of myself as to not only invalidate my being,
reality and knowledge, but to invalidate my suffering and dismiss my
psychotic symptoms as a somatoform disorder (e.g., psychosomatic) ("soma"
means only the body of an organism).

My psychiatrists are dismissing my atypical accounts of my experiences as
delusional. Existential discrimination makes treatment of my mental illness
impossible. Existential discrimination invalidates the veracity and import
of my perceptions, and the subsequent knowledge I have of my perceptions,
simply on basis that they contradict empirical religious doctrine. The label
"delusion" is a means to paradoxically refute my counter-empirical
metaphysical claims, without regard to the veracity of my claims. That
paradoxical refutation is based upon the fact that I had contradicted
empirical religious doctrine; hence the triple stigma that my claims lack
veracity, my perceptions are meaningless, and my methodically gained
knowledge of my perceptions are worthless as their source has been deemed an
unreality by empirical doctrine. I am being discriminated against on the
basis that empirical knowledge implies existentialism.

I understand, on the surface it seems as if "existential discrimination" is
far too abstract of an issue to have any justification to a court of law,
but to a person with psychotic symptoms it is a very concrete issue. If
something odd happens to a person with psychotic symptoms, a psychiatrist
immediately starts trying to convince the person that either it did not
happen, or its interpretation was wishful thinking. If a person suffering
from, let us say depression, were to relate the same odd account of the same
experience to the same psychiatrist, he or she would accept it, and simply
dismiss its oddness as due to circumstance. I am not saying the perceptions
of psychotic individuals are always accurate, but it is impossible to
communicate with a psychiatrist if they treat a patient with psychotic
symptoms as a mere specter of apparitions.

The paradox preventing resolution of my problem is, empirical doctrine
states "empirical reduction is the only source of veracious knowledge," but
that doctrinal self-account serves the same circular religious foundation
as, "this is that, implies 'this' creates that(s)." I have circumvented
religiously held empirical doctrine, but I still face daunting task of
convincing the empirically faithful that I have. I am asking for the help of
the ACLU. In order for serious consideration of the model of the ontology
that I have conceived, I must have science give up its religious
stranglehold it has on knowledge acquirement. I have no idea what happens
after that, other than some tough decisions are going to be made.

If I did not have the model, I would have been unable to circumvent
empirical doctrine as I have, but that is not scientific evidence. That is
inferential and circumstantial evidence, and it is circular in the same way
as baseless empirical doctrine. I need the scientific community to first
admit alternate sources of knowledge exists. Once that happens, then
whatever happens, at least I am not fighting religious war, I am debating
the viability of the model on a even playing field. I need the ACLU's
assistance to clear the path of prejudice, and I can handle the rest of it
from there. Even if the model were totally invalid (which I conjecture is
impossible, but still a proof of my conjecture must be developed), all of
the hidden prejudices and injustices it has exposed are now self-evident,
and very much real. So even my clams that the model is valid are incorrect,
my clams of discrimination are still justified.


My personal history and concerns of the case:

I have Asperger's syndrome (AS), and the treating psychiatrist employed
(neo)-Freudian psychotherapy, which is contraindicated in cases of AS (and
autism), but that was unknown to me at the time I was receiving treatment.
That contraindication is due to a necessary step in Freudian psychotherapy
called transference. A transference affects a psychotic episode in cases of
AS and autism. Presently, I suffer mostly from somatoform disassociation
that resulted from the transference, and AS.

As a the result of the psychoanalysis that I was receiving from 1985-2003, I
had a psychotic episode in 2001. I have subsequently discovered that there
is no medical treatment for psychotic symptoms; hence recovering damages
from the treating psychiatrist (at the time) would be meaningless. Psychotic
symptoms of the type, and to the extent, I have render monetary compensation
meaningless due to the suffering and isolation I must now endure. I need to
have others gain empathy for my situation, and stop fearing me simply
because I am contradicting empirical doctrine in the way that I am. I need
this empathy in order to reenter society. No one gets close to someone with
messianic delusions, because it is socially unacceptable, and is considered
a sign of severe mental illness. While the socially unacceptable part is
unavoidable for me, the "severe mental illness"-tag is avoidable.

I cannot perform empirical miracles, only seemingly metaphysical ones, so I
am feared and dismissed as a raving lunatic. I admit I have messianic
delusions, but have resisted my doctors that tell me I am not a messiah, and
the only reason they can give me is (paraphrase) "anyone believing they are
a messiah is wrong, because anyone that would believe it is psychotic and
could not possibly be a messiah." By not listening to their fear filled
cries and warnings, I completed the psychopathology of the sanity delusion
(i.e., the delusion of not being psychotic) on my own by modeling the
ontology. These same "fear filled cries" were yelled by my ancestors as they
fled from the heart of Africa long ago. "White flight" began long before the
construction of modern cities. Nowadays many of the lightest-skinned
Africans (i.e., Caucasians) run from their African heritage, by embracing
the sanitized, sterilized and childproofed Afro-American culture as it is
presented by the Western media.

I am not criticizing Afro-American culture, but it seems wrong for Madison
Avenue to bottle concentrated injustice, and sell it to back the world at a
markup. I have the same amount of African heritage as any Afro-American, and
all human beings do. While I am of European and Native American heritage,
all of my ancestors, ancestors, are of African heritage. I have psychotic
symptoms, just as all of my distant ancestors had psychotic symptoms.
Sanity/insanity is an anthropologically recent psychosocial bifurcation.
When Australian Aborigines pray to their gods, they hear replies. Australian
Aboriginal society is untainted by the sanity delusion, so they are unafraid
when they perceive auditory hallucinations that they presume are gods.
Anthropological "white flight" is an analogue of the evolution of sanity.
The more scared people get of their own psychosis, the further from their
psychotic heritage they run, and the closer to a psychotic episode they get.
The further and faster people run from psychosis, in order to escape the
voices of their aboriginal gods, the tighter they must embrace empiricist
doctrine to hush them. While the ACLU might have the power to hush my voice
forever, they cannot forever hush the voices of these aboriginal gods.

Delusional says nothing of the veracity of a delusion, only that the belief
is atypical and psychopathological. The sanity delusion is the abstergent,
and empirical religious doctrine is the catheter that purges messianic
delusions of persons with psychotic symptoms back out into the nothingness
from which it came. Metaphysical utterances form persons with psychotic
symptoms are best followed without regard to empirical factualness, but
questioned as to validity and meaningfulness to the lives of individuals it
would impact.

The disassociation of psychotic symptoms provides a platform for an
objective outside observer. Finding an objective outside observer is a very
important for social science. One of the many positive effects of empirical
doctrine is, in order to commit heresy and pull followers away from
empirical doctrine, it first requires that the faults in reasoning of
empirical doctrine are exposed in detail. While the model I have conceived
does not conform to empirical doctrine, the epistemological foundation of
ontology is as logical and well reasoned as empiricism, and the model
accounts for empiricists religious doctrine as self-conflicting,
theological, and confused with the ontology.

No small feat to have single-handedly develop a philosophy into a "science,"
and many conjectures still need to be replaced with formal proofs, but in
this case the validity of the model, and the veracity of the ontology, is of
no direct concern of the ACLU. Even if the model is flawed, the epistemic
veracity of the model is not of a legal concern. If that legal
self-reference were to occur then the legal system would fall into the same
quasi-religious-trap that science has. While effectively I am putting
science on trial for discrimination, any conclusions inferred from the
verdict of my case regarding an implied co-indictment of previous clients of
the ACLU, are by professional legal standards and practices of absolutely no
concern to the ACLU; otherwise the ACLU would be liable for conflicts of
interest by refusing to take my case on that basis. By its by own charter,
the ACLU's only concern is the extent of the injustice and discrimination
that I have been subjected to, and not the nature of the injustice and
discrimination itself. Otherwise the ACLU is guilty of same injustice and
discrimination towards me, and for the same reasons as the organizations
that are to be the defendants in my lawsuit. We both understand that the
ACLU would be hard pressed if it were to be sued for discrimination, and you
already know that truth and justice is the only charter of the ACLU -- so I
am just preaching to the choir.

While the messianic question is not a concern in this case either, fear can
prevent a person from believing I am a messiah. If it were not for the
sanity delusion and self-trepidation (i.e., the deepest subconscious fear --
having a psychotic episode) a person could reason a self-evident conclusion:
Anyone finding the root cause of prejudice and injudicious via non-empirical
means tantamount to a messiah. But paradoxically a person cannot believe
that I have done it, until he or she understands that sanity and
self-trepidation are the root causes of prejudice and injudicious. Being a
messiah requires psychopathology. Psychopathological behavior is an the
obsession to contradict accepted doctrine, but that, not just
coincidentally, is heresy. While science and psychiatry dismisses heretics
in a very convoluted way -- by means of terror, prejudice and
discrimination -- it is no different from how other religions ensure the
sanctity of religious doctrine. The only way possible for a person to be a
messiah nowadays, is to commit heresy against religious empirical doctrine,
while not contradicting scientific empirical doctrine. I have had to
overcome the fear of the terror of this battle that is incompressible to a
sanity-bound mind. Sanity allows a person to simply dismiss what I have gone
through, and have accomplished, as unreal and imagined.

Please consider for a moment the attractors of many of ACLU's cases: The
environment, Africa, gender and psychosis. These are natural and
psychosocial evolutionary bifurcation points. Continuing to build
meaningless societal doctrines onto them, in order to continue repressing
the fear of these extraordinarily significant and important occurrences, is
to trivialize them to the point of dismissal. While environmental law
reduces into an extremely complicated ontological domain issues, that
prejudice is bifurcated into heritage, mail/female and sanity/insanity is
due to Africa, gender and psychosis. All three -- Africa, gender and
psychosis -- are teleological stepping stones of self-organization. If the
organization of this self-organization were half-discovered, it would have
made impossible my messianic plight. Hence societal prejudices were an
unfortunate but necessary side-effect of psychosocial self-organization that
has allowed me to single-handedly model the ontology, while at the same time
science continued to distract everyone with its, inherent but unavoidable,
fear-repressing, discriminatory and hypocritical religion of scientism.

The ACLU would take the case of a insane black woman wronged by a
patriarchal social system, long before it would an insane white man who was
wronged by the same patriarchal social system, but was trying reinforce it
by providing an ontologically stable matriarchal foundation for it.
Anti-messianic prejudices are rooted in patriarchal Freudian fears and
inadequacies, and matriarchal prejudices that the higher in a patriarch the
more meaningful a life is. This is untrue. The truly meaningful and free
lives are lived at the matriarchal foundation of a patriarch. The
matriarchal foundation of the patriarch is the source of life; the patriarch
is artifice infrastructure self-referentially supporting its own foundation.
Those at the top of patriarch must learn to consider themselves enslaved to
ensuring others have meaningful and free lives, and do not self-serve the
selfish ends of having power and control adding meaning and freedom to their
inherently dysfunctional and inadequate lives. The meaning of life is
caring, not controlling.

As a white man with autistic symptoms, I understand that I am biologically
ancillary, and serve mostly to maintain artifice infrastructures. I am just
a worker bee in the beehive of reality, no different than any of the other
bees, except right now I am the only bee that knows the reason for the
periodic thefts of honey (honey was an allusion to caring). In order to
understand why I have modeled reality, hand a Rubik's cube to a profoundly
autistic person, leave for hour, and when you come back the cube shall
either be in an ordered state or in its original state. There are no deep
psychological reasons for why I did it. I had no choice in the matter. A
problem was put in front of me and I solved it. Over-intellectualization,
more Prozac and women behaving like men and men like women is the not answer
anymore to the respective questions raised by Africa, psychosis and gender.
It is for best to confront fears, and not intellectualize, medicate and
neutralize them away.

Persons with AS have exceptional inferential and visualization abilities.
However, the savant abilities of persons with AS makes them prone to
psychotic episodes. The inferential and visualization abilities of a person
with AS gives them an extraordinary ability to intellectually infer the
synchronic self-organization of natural and psychosocial systems. AS is not
a mental disorder. AS is a psychological evolutionary step in human
consciousness that has recurrently lead to this final step of
anthropological "white flight" -- the buck stop here and now with me!

The self-organization of natural and psychosocial systems is necessarily
teleological, not deterministic. When I begin to describe these perception
of my experiences to a psychiatrist, he or she dismisses it as either
archetypal (e.g., messianic) or referential delusions. While teleological
organization and synchronization has only a first cause and final effect
constraining it, there is a noticeable self-organization occurring; hence
there is a real account and purpose for what I am perceiving of my
experiences. I am being discriminated against because of my abilities, not
my inabilities; hence another reason for my worries that ACLU is not going
to take my case.


My professional background:

I am a brilliant software engineer and problem solver, which gives credence
to what I say and demands acceptance of my ideas.


In conclusion:

I am going to be honest as to the importance of ACLU's involvement in my
case. My situation parallels that of another heretic of Jewish heritage. He
was also wronged in order to protect the sanctity of related religious
doctrine. I am not implying the parallels in order to scare you, and I
realize you are likely thinking "what a nutbag!" while laughing at me, but
as one fellow pursuer of justice and liberty to another, in the long-term,
the ACLU might have an opportunity to wipe clean a slate -- a slate that is
presently considered uncleansable by almost everyone. While the heretic Jew
I am alluding to was a moral, kind, brave and meek person that detested all
evil, even evil committed in name of goodness, I have no qualms whatsoever
in destroying as much artifice infrastructure as need be, in order to
complete the mission critical task at hand. Now, what should alarm you is, I
am a dropout psychotic convicted felon that is chromosomal and pigmentation
challenged, with more balls than brains and more brains than you. So if I
must sue the ACLU into oblivion, take pause, and start chewing anew upon the
tail of Ouroboros, I shall.

Even hallucionations might contain some valuable information.

You need to move society in a populist direction, one that gleens the
most from every citizen, even those who have various shortcomings,
impairements, etc.


Bret Cahill

"Bret Cahill" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1137675250.664159.231490@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

I do not hallucinate, I only have delusions of reference.

re: psychiatric phenomena are pun-ishing

The public practices of "shrinkism" are state-licensed (psychiatrists &
psychologists).

There are established paradigms or models of professionally
acceptable/followed protocols/treatments/regiments/procedures.

So these
complexitiesa are to extents
regimented & legislated.

Where/what does an intelligent body who disagrees with the U.S.
established processes do?

10. Delta goes to Europe, South America, Asia, and
there are frequent miler package plans.

9. Post situation on internet for strangers' strange replies:
Flames/insults are normative, so be prepared for glibness, derision,
and idiots who try to interject "jokes."

8. Please explain in less philosophical/less intellectual/less
complexity what the issues/conflicts/unConstitutional infringements
are: It's a-okay to write-down to me.

7. Read-up on legal shite: For instance, Marbury sort of allows or
"implies" whatever the Justices deem it does, while
Alito/Bork/Roberts/Scalia/Thomas/O'Connor/Ginsburg/Breyer/Stevens/Kennedy/Biden/Shumer/Leahy/Hatch
etal would not publicly say such, I facilely just have.

6.---1. A good put-on.

0. If serious, see above.

"Bret Cahill" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in news:1137675250.664159.231490
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:


Ah, the social engineer once again beguiled by the organic fallacy.

You can only "move society" in any direction by moving the people who
constitute it. And of course not all of them will wish to be moved in the
direction you have arbitrarily selected.

It is at that point that the social engineer dispatches the gestapo.

<> Even hallucionations might contain some valuable information.

<> You need to move society in a populist direction, one that gleens
the
<> most from every citizen, even those who have various shortcomings,
<> impairements, etc.

< I do not hallucinate, I only have delusions of reference.

OK, maybe it's possible delusions of reference could have some value.


Bret Cahill

Just be happy you aren't a looneytarian.

Those guys are REALLY nuts.


Bret Cahill