POLICY BUREAU SAPIENTIAL DOCUMENT NO. 6 – AUG. 22, 2020
In Re Sepdet (In the Year of Sirius) III Peret 22, 12520

A BILL

To standardize method and practice in the discipline of folk psychology, human intelligence resource management, clinical dialectic information processing services, and other cognitive-behavioral development programs (collectively known as “mind software”), so as to provide a novel solution to the problem of racism, and for other purposes.  

Be It Prescribed by the Policy Bureau, the New Syllabus of America, That people (the “folk” in question) are the members of one human family, having divergent genotypes and phenotypes which cause their skin to appear darker or paler in color along a certain spectrum. This spectrum of skin color does not, however, include the objective visual color spectrum of black, white, violet, indigo, blue, green, yellow, orange, and red. Rather, the skin color of people is subject to interpretation. The difference between subjective and objective is as follows:

(a) Subject refers to the person or matter about which a statement is made. Subjective refers to the quality of being influenced by personal sentiments and individual perceptions.

(b) Object refers to a person or matter toward which an action is directed. Objective refers to the quality of being a “matter of fact”, that is, clear and unambiguous from any perspective.

Sec. 2. We may observe that people experience the perception that they are objectively black or white in terms of color, culture, or “race”. This perception may be the result of certain environmental and cognitive-behavioral factors. Because one may appear darker or lighter in skin color, a person may erroneously equate the objective condition of black or white color with said person’s subjective conditions and experiences.

Sec 3. The psychological act of equating the subjective experience of a person with any objective color is an aberration, or disorder, in the mind. Why? Because even if all brown-colored and dark-colored people experience the same conditions, none of those conditions can be considered objectively “black” — not their skin color, not their nationality, not the development of any genre of music, and certainly not their “race” (assuming such a term can be defined). The assertion that the color black best represents the conditions of brown and dark-skinned and African and other colored people is a gross misrepresentation of objective facts (of which race is not one). Such misrepresentation based on mere pretense or appearance, and not the substantive facts, is colorable.

Sec. 4. Colorable is a quality that describes something that is misrepresented based on its appearance, without regard for its actual substance. Colored, on the other hand, is a quality that describes something as it actually appears. While colored describes something according to its actual quality (e.g., brown-skinned people having color), colorable describes something that purports to be something which it is, in fact, not (e.g., brown-skinned people being black). Facts must be based on material, that is, quantifiable and qualifiable, evidence. 

Sec. 5. There are two main ways in which colorability is manifest:

(a) The subjectification of one’s own experiences based on the perception that they are black, white or another objective color; this is is a psychological disorder. Apparent “victims of racism” commonly suffer from subjectification.

(b) Likewise, the objectification of another person on the grounds that they “are” or appear black, white or otherwise colorable is such a disorder. Apparent “racists” commonly suffer from objectification.

Sec. 6. A distinction is drawn between people who are colored (that is, being of one human race having many colors, or “humanist”), and people who are colorable (that is, being of one or another race classified on the basis of color, or “racist”).

Sec. 7. By measuring the degree of subjectification and objectification on the basis color in the mind of a person we may thereby assess the degree of “racism” in the mind of said person, that is, the degree to which they are “racist”. (Apparent “victims of racism” also presuppose the existence of races, which is the basis of “racism”).

Sec. 8. Regarding such a person who experiences racism, this diagnosis is given: they experience Colored Person Syndrome Disorder (CPSD). About CPSD, this prognosis is given: it is a disorder one shall work against by means of psychological analysis, that is, inquiry of the mind. How then is the method affected, that is, how is this analysis administered? It is through true speech, that is, the dianoetic or dianetic virtue (See, PBSD-001-6). 

Sec. 9. What, then, is the method of true speech? It is dialectic. Otherwise said, it is an inquiry by one into the perspective of another, also called interlocution, discourse, and communication. The inquisitor is the dialectician who solicits, records, and processes information; the client is the witness, querent and/or the source of information. Such a client must swear or affirm that that will produce nothing but true information.

Sec. 10. PBSD-001-3 provides for the definition of dialectic as “(a) the process of making known what is unknown; (b) a philosophical method describing the discursive-rational-intuitive process by which oneself individualizes itself…[and manifests its will]”. The application of this method constitutes the practice of discourse or parliament, that is, speech.

Sec. 11. While traditional psychology asserts dreams as the subject matter of empirical and scientific psychoanalysis, we propose that it is not the dreams per se under investigation, but the dialectic on the dreams. Therefore the discipline of folk psychology (DPF) takes a dialectic on any matter as the materially quantifiable and qualifiable subject matter of psychological investigation. As such, psychological analysis under DFP shall concern the practice of dialectic.

Sec. 12. Much is said by Dr. Carl G. Jung, a founder of Analytical Psychology, regarding the Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious. Regarding the “Collective Unconscious”, our Beloved Ancestors had much to say in the way of the Netjeru (See, PBSD-004). These Netjeru constitute the ancestral Collective Unconscious of humanity, the Birthright of the Children of Nature, having unconscious knowledge of the forms and processions of nature, from the Alpha to Omega. Such knowledge may be collected from the individual’s personal and collective unconscious via the dialectic method of analytical psychology. Such constitutes the method for any investigation into and collection of human intelligence (HUMINT).

Sec. 13. These Protocols apply: 

Sub. Sec. 1. PROTOCOL mapping x to y [f:x=>y]. SOLVE f(x)=y.

IF x = n THEN y = a1
DoProcess(audit-notice)
IF x = d THEN y = a2
DoProcess(assess-data)
IF x = i THEN y = a3
DoProcess(assure-info)
IF x = k THEN y = a4
DoProcess(adjudge-knowlg)
<record>deliver ; produce:
findings of fact [f(F)] ; and
conclusions of induction operation [c(L)]
<record>
(PBGD-001A-070720, DOS 20, p. 24)

Sub. Sec. 2. PROTOCOL mapping X=>N, where N = NOTICE: perception, literacy, and reading comprehension; in the 1st Degree (“Clinical Practice”). 

(1) Information Processing Step 1: Filing - To raise a matter of interest or concern to the clinical dialectician/information processing server (IPS), client(s) shall submit information, being a contract to which they are party, a matter of policy in which they have an interest, a grievance, an inquiry, or a petition for investigation (respectively, “the matter(s)”, or, “in re [the matter(s)]”) in electronic, oral, or hard copy to the IPS.
(2) Investigative Procedure. Step 1: Initial Analysis - Directives: Determine whether a matter which has been raised to the IPS requires formal investigation or whether it can be examined and resolved based on the facts already known/presented/substantiated; determine whether the matter would be more properly handled by another competent jurisdiction; establish the role of the IPS (e.g., to find facts, analyze evidence discovered, and present findings to the decision-maker following completion of the investigation; be cognizant of the involved participants, decisions-makers, and appeals decision-makers (decision-makers should not be directly involved in the course of investigation so as to be — and appear to be — objective in taking any subsequent rule making).
(PBGD-001A-070720, DOS 12, p. 16)

Sub. Sec. 3. PROTOCOL mapping X=>D, where D = DATA: discover, collect, weigh, and measure evidence; in the 1st Degree (“Clinical Practice”).

(1) Information Processing Step 2: 
(A) Reading Comprehension - Help client(s) to read and understand the terms of complicated, formal, or arcane language in the matter(s) in order for them to make informed decisions and good judgments in their own right. If the client acquires the knowledge and understanding needed to resolve the matter(s) in their own right, close the case. 
(B) Charging Documents - If further work/action is required, paper charges and pass the case to 2nd Degree.
(2) Investigative Procedure Step 2: Planning & Leading. 
(A) Directives: determine the scope, complexity, and timeline of the investigation; develop a strategy for the investigative process; bear in mind that all subjects of investigation shall be considered innocent until proven otherwise, and that all subjects of investigation have the right to defend themselves again allegations or charges which may be brought against them; bear in mind that the investigate procedure may reveal trends or shortcomings in practice which can be addressed to prevent future occurrences of a similar nature, and that such investigations develop with time as new facts and/or issues arise.
(B) An investigative plan shall take account of: the precipitating event (or charge) and all persons involved, including name, contact information, and relation to charges (including but not limited to the investigation subject); the chronology of dates, times, places, meetings, calls, conversation, and other material documentation; general laws, policies, procedures, and/or code of ethics which may bear upon the charges and their investigation, including where such information may be located (as well as other broad issues covered by the investigation); potential sources of evidence and material information (including but not limited to material witnesses); the decision-makers in the matter (i.e., those to whom IPS shall report findings); the order of persons to be interviewed and the subjects to be covered with each; communication planning with those having a need to know in re the matter under investigation;
(C) Directive: produce and maintain a (confidential and secured) case file of the investigation, including ALL documentation and evidence arising from the investigation, including the original charge/allegation/complaint; including an investigation timetable which shall include the “tick-tock” (or timetable) of the case (which shall include the review of discovery, schedule of interviews, notes and transcripts of interviews, memos-to-file, and preparation of final report).
(PBGD-001A-070720 DOS 13 p. 17)

Sub. Sec. 4. PROTOCOL mapping X=>I, where I = INFORMATION: draw inferences from data; make findings of fact, in the 2nd Degree (“Session of Parliament”).

(1) Information Processing Step 3: 
(A) Discovery - Collect and gather evidence in the matter(s) through discovery of further information by and though Audit Assessment and Assurance Service, investigation (within proper jurisdiction), research, or other lawful and appropriate means.
(B) Findings - Try, test, and examine client(s)’s working knowledge in the matter(s) and make findings of fact. If findings resolve client’s understanding in the matter(s), close the case. If further work/final action is required to resolve the matter, raise the case to the 3rd Degree.
(2) Investigative Procedure Step 3: Discovery - Directive: conduct fact-finding through requests for information and conducting interviews (also known as fact-finding conferences, deposition upon written interrogatories or questions, or deposition upon oral examination). Stages of an interview include planning, arranging, opening, conducting, and closing. Bear in mind applicable document retention policies.
(3) Investigative Procedure Step 4: Analysis & Preponderance - (A) Preparation of a final report of investigation shall rest upon a thorough analysis of the facts and preponderance of the evidence discovered in the course of the (instant) investigation, so as to cause the matter to be resolved between the parties, or to provide the decision-maker(s) with sufficient basis on which to decide the outcome of the case. “Preponderance” means the quality of facts in evidence being accorded greater weight based upon critical analysis of objective and material information; otherwise said, “Preponderance” means to accord weight to genuine, credible and relevant material evidence, so as to determine whether it is “more likely than not” that some matter occurred.
(PBGD-001A-070720 DOS 14 p. 19)

Sub. Sec. 5. PROTOCOL mapping X=>K, where K = KNOWLEDGE: draw conclusion, log information under true=1,0; in the 3rd Degree (“Adjudgment Tribunal”).

(1) Information Processing Step 4: Oral Hearing: Hold oral hearing examination in the matter; call witnesses, documents to formally deposit evidence into record; weigh evidence; try case.
(2) Information Processing Step 5: Judgment: Upon a preponderance of the evidence, the information processor shall render Declaration of Judgment in re the matter.
(3) Information Processing Step 6: Verdict Sui Jure: Client renders personal conviction or vindication in light of Judgment, the opinion of the verdict being either unanimous or dissenting.
(4) Investigative Procedure Step 4: Analysis & Preponderance - (B) Directives: Reconcile and resolve to the greatest possible extent all contradiction between facts in evidence, considering which version of the facts is more consistent with the overall evidence than another; assess the quality of the evidence, bearing in mind it’s objectivity v. subjectivity, firsthand knowledge vs. hearsay, and speculation vs. credibility; consider the source of evidence and the motives (explicit and implicit) of witnesses in testifying in the matter; in the course of resolving issues of credibility, consider whether the overall evidence is inconclusive with respect to the matter under investigation.
(PBGD-001A-070720 DOS 15 p. 20)

Sub. Sec. 6. PROTOCOL mapping N(A)=>Y, where A=AUDIT: hearing, listening, voir dire and counseling, in the 2nd Degree (Session of Parliament).

(1) Information Processing Step 3 - (A) Discovery: Collect and gather evidence in the matter(s) through discovery of further information by and though Audit Assessment and Assurance Service, investigation (within proper jurisdiction), research, or other lawful and appropriate means.
(2) Investigative Procedure Step 5: Reporting - This stage may be undertaken by an IPS-Dialectician with a Rapporteur subspecialty. Such IPS shall prepare a final report that outlines: all steps taken in the course of investigation (incl. schedule of discovery of documents and testimony); all facts found (incl. citation to material evidence as cited to case file or reproduced in appendices); objective analysis of the facts in evidence; any specialized or expert opinion or information solicited by or proffered to the investigation; citation to any similar case work known to the IPS, if any; a general analysis of the control factors relevant to the matter under investigation and/or to the course of the investigation itself.
(PBGD-001A-070720 DOS 16 p. 21)

Sub. Sec. 7. PROTOCOL mapping D(A)=>Y, where A=ASSESS: logical analysis and fact-finding, investigation; in the 2nd Degree (“Session of Parliament”).

(1) Information Processing Step 3 - (B) Findings: Try, test, and examine client(s)’s working knowledge in the matter(s) and make findings of fact. If findings resolve client’s understanding in the matter(s), close the case. If further work/final action is required to resolve the matter, raise the case to the 3rd Degree.
(PBGD-001A-070720 DOS 17 p. 22)

Sub. Sec. 8. PROTOCOL mapping I(A)=>Y, where A=ASSURE: trial, preponderance, and deliberation; in the 3rd Degree (“Adjudgment Tribunal”).

(1) Information Processing Step 4: Oral Hearing: Hold oral hearing examination in the matter; call witnesses, documents to formally deposit evidence into record; weigh evidence; try case.
(2) Information Processing Step 5: Judgment: Upon a preponderance of the evidence, the information processor shall render Declaration of Judgment in re the matter.
(3) Information Processing Step 6: Verdict Sui Jure: Client renders personal conviction or vindication in light of Judgment, the opinion of the verdict being either unanimous or dissenting.
(4) Investigative Procedure Step 6: Follow-Up - Upon submission of the final report to the SPA, decisionmaker, or client, IPS shall be absolved by the client of all involvement in or responsibility to the matter of the completed investigation, and the client and all participants shall indemnify the IPS against any and all actions arising from the investigation; however, the IPS may be called as a witness to a subsequent action taken in the matter previously under investigation, and may testify upon the course of their investigation. Furthermore, those involved in the matter shall bear in mind the potential for retaliation caused by the particular facts of the investigation and strive (within a reasonable degree of their power) to reduce the possibility of retaliation and/or other collateral damages.
(PBGD-001A-070720 DOS 18 p. 23)

Sub. Sec. 9. PROTOCOL mapping K(A)=>Y, where A=ADJUDGE: drawing conclusions and making recommendations; in the 3rd Degree (“Adjudgment Tribunal”).

(1) Information Processing Step 7: Sentencing: Issue final Writ of Judgment memorializing the resolution.
(2) Investigative Procedure Step 7: Resolution of Investigation - Close the record; close the investigation; and close the case. The conclusion of an IPS investigation does not preclude the parties from working toward another resolution or pursuing legal action in a venue of appropriate jurisdiction.
(PBGD-001A-070720 DOS 19 p. 24)