Blurring the Boundaries: Explorations to the Fringes of Nonfiction

Naomi Kimbell

105 Naomi Kimbell Whistling in the Dark Introduction Insubstantial phenomena are well-documented and culturally universal occurrences (Bisher 1972, Cayce 1967, Langley 1972, Moody 1987, Yarbro 1986). But the sciences have yet to acknowledge the verifiable, though often nonreplicable, experiences of individuals and groups who have witnessed seemingly inexplicable, insubstantial events.1 This denial of insubstantial realities has fostered an unhealthy arrogance in the scientific research community (personal opinion, Kimbell 2007), particularly among those in the fields of psychiatry and psychology. Thus it is my goal that this treatise will provide a counterargument to the diagnosis “psychotic” that has been misapplied to individuals who experience insubstantial phenomena. Furthermore, I will prove that insubstantial phenomena can be verified through a process of scientific inquiry based upon the Socratic method, which will remove said experiences, once and for all, from the catchall category of “psychosis,” thus freeing thousands from the stigma of having been labeled “psychotic” by well-meaning, though careless and insensitive, health-care professionals. Method What is proof? Proof is indisputable. It is irrefutable. It is absolute and it is in the pudding, as well as eggs, sugar, and milk, breadcrumbs if it is a bread pudding, and for that matter also suet (rendered animal fat) and fruit (Rombauer and Becker 1975). 1. Jesus in the tortilla, Mexico, 1984. 106 naomi kimbell Like Schrödinger’s Cat (1935/1980), the pudding is both proved and unproven before it is eaten.2 It exists in both states until we sample it. Similarly, “psychosis” exists both as a thought disorder and as an unmeasured, insubstantial phenomenon until the symptoms afflicting the subject are vetted. The subsequent information derived from this thorough process of inquiry gives the researcher the ability to distinguish between the two possible conclusions, thus correctly diagnosing the subject’s symptoms and acting accordingly. If the vetting reveals that the subject is indeed psychotic, public mental health professionals or a private-pay psychiatrist should be notified immediately. If, however, the vetting reveals an alternate truth, established best practices should be used in order to treat and eliminate the symptoms/affliction.3 Biases Before proceeding further, I will identify the biases that may or may not affect the conclusions of this paper. Bias unidentified can produce findings that, frankly, misrepresent the truth, “prove” a specious point, or in fact, invent systems of belief that influence generations of “rational,” mainstream thought.4 Thus, in order to avoid that common pitfall, the 2. A good overview of Schrödinger’s Cat can be found in Prince of Darkness, a film by John Carpenter about the incarnation of Satan’s son on earth. 3. Depending on the manifestation of the insubstantial phenomena, best practices will include a wide variety of possible responses. There is the “do no harm” response, which is a proactive way of saying do nothing, especially if the phenomenon is merely annoying and poses no threat; exorcism may be indicated if the phenomenon manifests as “internal,” but only if one can find a reliable practitioner; and one may employ a theoretical physicist, a faith healer, or both if the phenomenon seems bizarre, evil, and intent upon doing more damage than a simple possession or other discrete event. 4. Psychoanalysis, string theory, relativity, trickle-down economics, nafta, modernity, post-modernity, heterodoxy, orthodoxy, anarchy, libertarianism, secular humanism, religion (all), anachronism, post-anachronism, structural anachronism, and, of course, post-structural anachronism, wave theory, particle theory, nature vs. nurture, and Karl Rove. whistling in the dark 107 list of identified biases regarding this treatise follows: 1. I have a psychiatric diagnosis of bipolar disorder, which I accept, and am currently recovering from a “break.” 2. Some of the phenomena I experience as a result of my illness fall into the category of “psychotic features,” but other experiences, though insubstantial and similar in form to hallucinations, I believe to be “real.” 3. I also believe that “reality” is the creation of the observer. Each of us experiences the “real” differently and I have not found anyone who can satisfactorily define it for me. 4. Because of this, I have had difficult relationships with both psychiatrists and psychologists in that we often disagree about objective reality. They claim there is one; I ask them to prove it. 5. And, though I try not to discuss it for a variety of reasons, mainly because...