May 12, 1993
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20008
Suzanne M. Pitts, MD
Dept. of Psychiatry
GW Univ. Medical Center
2150 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
Dear Dr. Pitts:
It is hoped that the attached materials may help clarify my information processing style, specifically, how I form and maintain cognitive impressions.
I attach three writings, each prepared at different times, each depending on a different level of objectivity, but each relating in some way to the same issues. The writings, in order of objectivity, comprise:
1. an excerpt from a writing I submitted to you on May 3, 1991 that included associations to the issue of interrogation by an authority.
2. a letter dated September 17, 1992 detailing the events on the day of my termination
3. statements in my Reply to my former employer's Response to the Department of Human Rights Complaint alleging an unlawful termination.
The first writing deals with the issue of interrogation on what might be termed a mythical level; the associations are linked with other, related associations in the paper that as a whole probably relate back to subjective identity fragments that have their origin in my early development Thus, important features of this writing are the existence of certain identity elements or identity fragments and the fact that these elements or fragments can be synthesized and assigned a relative place in a totalistic collection of identity elements or fragments. Also important, but extrinsic to this particular writing, is the fact that these identity fragments or elements link up with my objective experience (as indicated by reference to writings "2" and "3".)
The second writing sets forth peculiarities in my termination. The writing might be termed objective in that it relies on facts that an objective reader might term "peculiar." However, the writing, to some degree, also relies on what might be termed ideas of reference. The writing appears to be on the border between subjective ideas of reference and objective reality. I deemed the writing sufficiently objective to submit it to the D.C. Department of Human Rights; the writing, at the very least would raise a question in the mind of a reasonable person regarding the actions of Akin Gump managers and supervisory personnel, despite the fact that the writing actually establishes nothing.
The third writing is excerpts from my Reply filed with the Department of Human Rights on January 5, 1993. This writing rises to the highest level of objectivity, although it too requires that the reader draw certain inferences regarding the motivation of Dennis Race. By the time I came to write this last writing I had obtained evidence (namely, the firm's Response, which I received on December 23, 1992) that substantiated my earlier view, or suspicion, that certain of the actions by my supervisor and Dennis Race were "peculiar." (This process of substantiation of suspicions, which I assume has existed throughout my life, is an important aspect of the maintenance of my impressions.)
I suspect that each of these writings may have arisen from different aspects of my personality and cognition--from the most primitive to the most sophisticated: that an important aspect of the origin and maintenance of my "impressions" is that I perceive and process perceptions as would an individual whose personality and cognition has "preserved the earlier stages of its development side by side with the end products, retains the most primitive cognitive style along with the most developmentally sophisticated cognitive style."