Here's another approach to theory building (or another aspect of it) that I think will need to be also dealt with, and that is the answer to this multi-part question:
1) Was my experience of the Vienna mission significantly different from that of other members of the mission (at or about the time I was there)? If so, 2) how was it different and 3) why was it different?
To answer this question, I'm going to take a different approach, because I'm going to assume that somewhere down the line someone somewhere who was at the mission the same time as me will make a judgement about whether or not I understood correctly what was happening, in particular as pertains to how I was treated versus how the others were treated. So I'm going to take their potential opinions / understandings into account here.
Now, at least as far as I can see, these are the possibilities if my experience was significantly different from other members (that is the answer to the first part of the question is "yes"):
Part 1: Yes
1. Mission leadership says yes: The mission did in fact treat me differently (the leadership's intent and what they actually did in relation to me).
2. I say yes: 2. The way I perceived the mission to be treating me was different (meaning I mistakenly perceived that the mission was treating me differently than the others).
3. The others say yes: The way the others perceived the mission to be treating me was different (meaning they mistakenly perceived that the mission was treating me the same as the others).
Part 1: No
1. Mission leadership says no: The mission did not it fact treat me differently (the leadership's intent and what they actually did in relation to me).
2. I say no: 2. The way I perceived the mission to be treating me was different (meaning I mistakenly perceived that the mission was not treating me differently than the others).
3. The others say no: The way the others perceived the mission to be treating me was different (meaning they mistakenly perceived that the mission was not treating me the same as the others).
***
But, remaining on part 1 of the question, we still have not addressed everything even just for this "simple" yes/no question. For example:
1. Is it possible for any combination of these to all be partially correct? (Meaning that these are not mutually exclusive propositions.)
2. Is the mission's intention the best way to gauge whether in fact I was treated differently by them? (Meaning that they might not have the final word about whether I was treated differently or not.)
3. Is it possible that multiple realities could co-exist regarding whether or not I was treated differently? (Meaning the existence of different viable interpretations from different perspectives.)
4. Is it possible that there are different levels of interpretation? (Examples might include: a single action the mission took towards me; the composite of all actions it took toward me over the span of the 2 years - and just prior - that I was with them; only the actions directly instigated by leadership, such as moving me around; etc.)
***
So, you see, we're already in hot water and we haven't even gotten past the simple yes/no question! How difficult can a yes/no question be?! Very, it turns out. One man's yes is another man's no, and who's to say who's right anyway? It's not like I'm going to call in the International Criminal Court to adjudicate a case against the mission and it's too late to file an application to the U.N. Dispute Tribunal, right?
I could attempt to define acceptable criteria for determining which "yes" or "no" is more right than another, but even that isn't without problems. For example, in doing this I would need to be careful to not set arbitrary guidelines because that would undoubtedly lead to an arbitrary understanding of the truth. Of course, if I took the position that everything is relative, then this whole effort is pointless anyway, so I should just give it up and go home. (Well, I already am home, but you know what I mean.)
***
There is another issue though that might possibly help find a way out of this quagmire, and that is the fact that this is, after all, an autobiography, and the whole reason that I even care about yesses and nos is that I want to understand my life better. From that perspective, then, I can at least come to the conclusion that no matter what happens here, it should be productive towards that end. There, that solves everything, right? Well, no, but hopefully it's a start.
So starting from wanting to better understand my life, I can add contribute these things that I care about, that are important to me.
1. I would really like to know what the mission intended, more than anything else. So all the other things (who thought what when about what event and why) are not as important as the administration's intentions towards me.
That is not to say that I don't care at all about those other things, but just that they're not as important. Part of that is because different people knew different things about what was going on and had a different reference point for understanding the mission in general, and all those other variables, which would virtually mean I'd have to take in all 59 view points, which I definitely cannot and will not attempt. Nevertheless, I think that in general the others' experiences and viewpoints are not meaningless in the context of trying to figure out my life.
2. I would like to know if my dad's work had any impact on how the mission treated me, and the answer to this question is most likely to be found in the leadership, as I doubt it would have been common knowledge.
3. I would also like to understand the organization better because it's somewhat of an enigma to me, and I guess it always was, at least from the day I set foot in Vienna. This means taking some of the other things into account. For example, I think it would be interesting to try to understand a bit why people might have understood the missions intents towards me, in as much as they might have differed, of course. Also, I don't really think I can understand my time in Vienna if I don't take the others (non-leadership) into account to a certain extent.
***
So now I've determined that the most important thing for me would be to understand what the mission administration intended. However, that being said, I would like to be prepared for protests against my interpretation(s) from those who were there at the time I was. This is significant especially for credibility purposes - that is how this might affect whether you believe me or agree with me or not. Of course, I hope you'll agree with me and believe me, so I don't want to completely ignore the viewpoints of others who were there in Vienna the same time I was.
***
The other thing about these propositions is they assume that the makers of the assertions are telling the truth. In this way the propositions actually reflect the true thoughts of the makers (the leadership, me, and the others there), especially at the time these things were happening.
It's also possible that time is an issue, that people might have just forgotten about these things or there memory has become somewhat warped, which could also be said for myself. But I think that those closest to me wouldn't have forgotten because I think my experience was unique enough for long enough that it would have stuck with them. For those who had little dealings with me, they would be the ones more likely to have just forgotten about me.
***
From this point in time I'm not all caught up in the emotional upheaval of everything, but it's going to be difficult to try to recreate what happened with enough detail to be able to ascertain with any certainty what the mission leadership intended, so I may have to just use all the information I have to help me, whereas otherwise I might be more discriminatory. In such a situation, understanding things that aren't of primary importance may take on more importance than they would have otherwise. It's a situation where you just have to take what you can get and try to make the best of it.
***
And I haven't even touched on parts 2 and 3 of the initial question. The answers to these questions would mainly be important in as much as they can help find the answer to part 1 of the question. If you're reading this and you're a scientist of some kind, you would probably take a different tack here, but I'm just trying to make sense of my life.
