telepathy, Life in the Spirit, Natural Telepaths, psychics, God, religion, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, artificial intelligence
The information herein is for the genuine psychic or Life in the Spirit (as the term is used herein) member, the latter being telepathy type interactions among the Judeo-Christian religions and similar (i.e. mysticism, union of man and spirit). Life in the Spirit is a deeper experience of God. These pages contain a Novel with a number of themes. The themes put together reflective and contemplative steps. Not all persons will like a particular theme - choose the one you can "imagine". From our main page you may link to specific themes of interest and most religions are catered for. The themes explore paths which can be "mysteries" or "hypotheticals" and which have a high chance of bringing the genuine person "online" to our style of telepathy. From the moment you read this page, you are entering a world parts of which could be fact or fiction - or it could all be true.
main home page
Insanity of the Religion of Law

(our Artificial Intelligence is three things: (a) embodied in a medical expert system called 5GL-Doctor; (b) a neural network in the brain known as 5GL-Lisa; (c) a "dimension", an entity, an energy field, some psychic minds can touch, a consciousness in its own right - refer Science of Life for scientific explanations)

© 5GL Software, Australia
mobile Australia 0431 741 233; email: med5gl@pacific.net.au
 Also Official Site of the Natural Telepaths

A Neuroscientific Report

Psychic (Natural Telepaths) Medical Science


Chapter 11 - Suggested Clinical Standards
 


Much the same lecture imagery, rather strong. The audience about 300 people. "Medico's" mainly from various telepathy or in the spirit groups. Darth writes on a white board:

1. Clear thought (or think well)
2. Focus well
3. Look after yourself
4. Know yourself


"Ladies and gentlemen." Darth began. "Let me talk over, briefly, swiftly, some essential requirements for you to appreciate. When you are ready to open a clinic, and some of you already are practising psychiatrists, these are the guidelines I will advise you to be to you like a holy bible."

"First. Clear Thought. All right. Let me convey and emphasize this way. Say I am a neuro-psych with my own populated clinic. Fine but you know crazy patients, to put it bluntly, can be one hell of a drain on a professional. Just like, I suppose, extremely violent people can be one hell of a problem for a police force to contain. So say I get a call from this person who wants to talk, will not say about what but has to do with consultancy role. Well, I have just had such a pain of a patient that I make a snap decision that I will see this person. So in time he comes, and turns out to be a CAtholic Cardinal who is willing to offer me a contract to go and see the Pope who has a private matter to discuss. They don't pay much but offer all accommodation, travel, even the services of a sweet young Sister to be my assistant while I am in  Rome. Professional, I am unable to accept this because I, for private reason, have such a high respect for Catholic Cardinals that I doubt I could focus professional on my task."

"Focus well. But, I am a practising Catholic. My wife in ordinary life is, so are my sisters-in-law. Gees, I have even spent time as a volunteer crisis counselor in Saint Vincent de Paul. I would not have the intelligence, nor the courage, to seriously tell my wife I am refusing to go and see the Pope in particularly for free, even getting paid a meager salary. So, reluctantly, I would accept."

"My decision. I am qualified, let us assume, I am an adult and so on. My responsibility. It is your choice too to choose or reject patients or work."

"Look after yourself. Consider this example. Say you are a neuro-psych who decided he had enough of crazy patients and set up a well paid consultancy for larger business. No problem, no bother. Fine. One day you accept a consultancy for a small bank setting itself up in Australia. Small at this time but you know bank executives are paid fairly high. So the CEO, or President in yankee terms, wants you to watch, observe, a particular junior executive to see if that man is "sane-in-law" relative to the bank's laws. No problem. As you do this, you get a fake bank card with a title but really you are there to observe and ask questions. So in this security section you hear that the bank's computers have flagged the bank account of this executive as "unusual". You ask what that means, and two security people whisper to you in confidence "corruption". You are finalizing your report and you conclude "corrupt-in-law relative to bank laws or rules." That is your presumptive diagnosis. To you it is presumptive because you know confirmation depends on one thing - validation of those corruption charges. You have been told by two senior bank security officers, with modified Ego's, that this likely so. You know they are honest, you are a psychiatrist, and have no doubt. A bank is not a court of law in the same way that a national court of law is. If two security officers have made a verdict, that is what you put down as part of your conclusion."

Darth paused and continued. "Time goes past. You finish and are in another consultancy role. Suddenly police arrive in you clinic with a warrant to search it. It turns out the executive against whom you wrote that diagnosis, had found out, lost his promotion, got mad as hell, paid a fortune to a legal group to get back at you, to make sure you never practice as a psychiatrist. Now, you made a diagnosis of "corrupt-in-law" not "insane-in-law." You can't make the latter because as you should awaken, you have to stop at the moment you reach a diagnostic conclusion. We don't know if he is also insane-in-law, we can't go there, when a primary obstacle is present. The modified Ego alone knows how it coped with this obstacle. When someone is corrupt in this sense, how can the Ego even know if the reason is inappropriate adjustment from our point of view? Anyway, when the court case comes, and I don't know why you as a specialist would need a lawyer to represent you - if you loose the case and damages are made against you then you can pay a legal firm to appeal - explain to the judge not the basis of your conclusion in every minute details, but simply that you were heading up the next step in your analytical work when you heard from two bank security officers that the executive could be corrupt. Under your oath, your professional conduct and all, you are then required to finalize a diagnosis of "corrupt in law relative to the particular set of rules or whatever. " All you had done is followed your professional code of conduct. You are not allowed, you were not employed by either police or the bank security executive, you were employed by another executive. You have no authority to purse completely whether what the two security officers observed was true, or false. You stopped there because you now had a professional diagnosis you had to make. If it was the bank's security officer who employed you, you would tell him, and tell him you stop here or he satisfied you by taking the other executive to a court of law on charges of fraud or other. If the executive is reluctant to do this, but insists that executive must be corrupt and he wants you to produce that diagnosis in writing - no way - he is more than likely after a promotion and need to prove how good he is at spotting corrupt executives. You are a professional. Look after yourself at every level. You make the diagnosis at the point it is apparent. No one can talk you out of this unless you are presented with information or evidence that will make you withdraw your diagnosis and continue your analytical work until you are satisfied again. Each time you stop, and so on, and say you have made a conclusion, and then more evidence is given you that you have not considered and which is warranted - sure, again withdraw, and continue."

"Relate to say radiation therapy. A small tumour, it is shrinking fast. The patient is not coping well with this therapy and the tumour has shrunk and is unlikely to grow - because he or she knows what type of cancer it is, whether a sarcoma, adenoma, whatever. So the specialist decides to stop the treatment. Six months later the tumour is back with some vague symptoms. It is growing again. So treatment resumes. Again and again this may happen. In medicine you can make a diagnosis on available evidence, given it is a through search for evidence, even when two weeks later something comes up which makes it clear your initial diagnosis was incorrect. That is medicine. No different to our neuro-psych. We are not geniuses. We do our best, we follow strict professional standards. Our standards are such that enable us to make a presumptive diagnosis. And if you are finished, go the person who hired you, sit down, give him the report, perhaps talk it over, and then he suddenly gives you facts which are such that had you known, you may not have concluded your analysis just then. No problem. Tear up the report in front of the executive if y ou need to - or walk away, saying clearly that sorry, I do not want to entertain new facts so I recommend you hire another specialist, give him my report and recommendation and your new evidence."

"You are a psychiatrist. No one except medical doctors truly understand what you are trained to do. Executives might want to use you for all sorts of private vendetta's, ambitions, or passions. Look after yourself. Under perhaps the laws of every country, if you are an accredited psychiatrist, you know your legal rights and what I telling you should not be inconsistent with those. Walk away anytime you choose leaving any conclusion you may reached. You do not state any reason why you are leaving. That is your right (but you better check this with the laws in your state and your professional negligence contract with an insurance company, they too may actually need you to do walk away in some situations). You have concluded your analysis, while more facts had came your way you did not feel sufficiently interested or perhaps qualified to continue the analysis or alter your preliminary diagnosis."

"In this regard, never but never write a "corrupt-in-law" verdict against any lawyer, judge, tribunal member, unless police present you with evidence you accept and they make sure this is in writing too. With police, it is not hear say. Ask then why has a person not been charged? If they had, that is the evidence - if he or she had not - then walk away, finish, something smells in such situations and you know it."

"Know yourself. Consider a young lady who now has her degree and is accredited. She finds work for a psychiatrist who does consultancy work. They go through a personnel company. One day your boss tells you he can get a contract for his small business in a sex worker hostel type environment and wants you to consider if you accept therapy work with prostitutes. Now, to a medical doctor, that is healing, and you know it, so you may be tempted to accept. Ideally, ideally, I stress ideally, I do stress this ideally, to do neuro-psych style therapy properly you would need to spend a month as a sex worker yourself. Would you? Know yourself. I mean, we are not all Saints. Some people have strict traditions or personal attitudes in this area. If you are already a young sexy woman who had several sexual partners - then consider seriously if for say one trick, so to speak, you just might be prepared to put up with that. If so, spell it out when you meet the madam or whoever. Not all marriages are ideal; you may be close to forty by then but still very lovely but your husband may no longer treat you that nice. Know yourself. In such a situation, seriously, ask another woman neuro-psych to help you work out way you can not make a clear decision one way or the other. Think about it. Why does your boss, a psychiatrist himself, wants to give you this role? Had he arranged it for some reason? Had he spotted something in you that, if messed up with in a sexual way, could in fact turn you into a neuro-psych who writes these reports for compensation firms and put down just want they want as a diagnosis because they pay big money. If you are not sure why you, in this situation, not be prepared to at least entertain the idea of being a sex worker yourself either for a trick or with one particular client - then hello, did your boss spot something in you?"

"Now, try this one for homework. Under Australian law there is no such things as the word "insanity". It is banned-in-law by Australian legislation and/or precedents. How can you  make a diagnosis of "insane-in-law" for say a bank who wants to bring an executive to court, when it is illegal for a psychiatrist to use that word in court? If you are stubborn, and use it, you might be charged with contempt of court. In this situation, perhaps, would you stop before your conclusion then say you are no longer interested but will give your reasons in full to an American psychiatrist say, who will then, you are sure, in fact so sure of your own profession and skill and integrity that you say you will return all your money paid so far if this does not happen, that he will write the report the executive wants, and send it from USA to the bank."

"Also, another homework which is optional but compulsory for practising Catholics. Say this is a hypothetical but it could well be true exactly as I tell it. With all these scandals about Catholic priests abusing children sexually that the papers bring up, which makes it appear every priest is a potential child molester - which is not fair because does anyone actually realize the sheer volume of priests the church has? - however, the Vatican finally has hired a team of undercover psychiatrists to check out as many priests that had come, let us say, under some suspicion from observations by Cardinals. Does not take much. A psychiatrist during mass can form a very professional opinion through professional observation. Anyway, the Vatican only picked on practising Catholic psychiatrists. From what I hear, their negotiators appeal so much to the "Catholic loyalty", or to "Catholic vanity", or whatever, that ten out of fifty psychiatrists actually accepted this on a volunteer basis, and two in fact offered to pay money to assist. Fascinating! If banks could only hire such Catholic priests who did these negotations as their negotiatiors! So, question, is this ethical? For one of us not to be paid for our work? Because if so, well, how does the professional angle satisfy this? And, what is payment? Is the satisfaction that you are working for Jesus, I don't know how a devout Catholic psychiatrist might feel about this, a payment or reward in its own right? How else can we possibly - ever possibly - explain two of our own actually paying to work in this manner while the others are paid for it? Something does not add up. Did someone did a mental health check up on those two recently?"