Pluto Thieves

Once Upon a Time

Once upon a time, I was a psychology Major at Murray State University, which has now been relegated to “long ago”. I had a professor by the name of Alisha Ritter who was the resident PHD over introduction to research. Lecturing wise, Dr. Ritter was very polished. When it came to the epistemology of the basics, though, we had some disagreements. Though Dr. Ritter was right from an academic standpoint, she was wrong in a philosophical sense. Since I was on a path that would eventually include what was, in psychology parlance, considered a pseudo-science, the collision was perhaps inevitable. Everybody “knew” that astrology was a sham, and boy, if you did not, you were gonna be in for a tough time. Nevermind that Jung basically used astrology. Nobody talked about him. Freud was quoted in passing. It was really all about Skinner, Skinner, Skinner.

My Research

My research for this intro class concerned Piaget and something called a “conservation task” which in six seconds or less, involves a child being able to understand that liquid placed in a glass of differing sizes does not lead to the vessel of larger size containing more liquid. I made a quiz that tested on two questions a very complicated version of this that dealt with jelly beans in jars. The piece behind the theory Piaget propounded was that all adults could understand the “conservation task” and that there really was not much in the model beyond this stage. My quiz which had a lot of noise showed that this was not so, and there was a lot of other research to indicate the same. As you can see, I indicated these results in about 30 seconds like the above, but later learned that our presentation had a time component built-in to the grading which made people go on and on with graphs and theories that were quite honestly boring and unnecessary. I therefore had to fill time for something requiring no more than 30 seconds to realize and understand.

Dr. Ritter’s Research

Dr. Ritter’s Research is here. As can be seen, there is a lot of information on optics and testing. Visual perception, test validity, and so on. Here is an example abstract:

Although every effort is made to make performance tests comparable, implementing the same test or test battery on a different computer in a different program language can produce only approximately identical tests because of differences in hardware and software. Therefore, comparability of the tests is an empirical as opposed to theoretical issue. The present paper examined a battery of six performance tests implemented on two computers, a NEC laptop programmed in N82-BASIC, and a COMPAQ laptop programmed in TurboC. The asymptotic performance levels differed somewhat, as did the rate of approach to asymptote in some cases. More important, after correction for reliability attenuation, the cross-correlations between the two different implementations of the same test approached unity, which supports the conclusion that what was measured after the tests had stabilized was identical for the two different hardware and software configurations. Furthermore, comparison of intercorrelations among tests on the different computers showed no significant differences, which suggests that the factorial structure is the same.

Wow! That sounds fancy! In laymen’s terms, it means if you make a test in two different computer languages, the measured performance on the tests by the subjects is only somewhat the same but that whatever it is the thing measured is the same if you use a very fancy statistical technique for “reliability attenuation”. This reliability attenuation of course assumes that something can be reliable when you measure it (Whatever that is). So what we have learned is we measured something, whatever it is, which, when we use a fancy version of statistics, we are told that this something is the same thing and that whatever this nebulous thing is, changing computer languages and software and hardware makes people perform differently. (Isn’t this just variability?) Remember, Dr. Ritter is a PHD and gets paid lots of money for this research and to teach intro to research. Therefore, as someone who is not a University PHD in psychology and does not get paid large sums of cash and only got a C in her research methods class on his presentation, what I am about to say about a pseudo science which everyone knows is false is probably rubbish at best, and silly and supernatural at worst. Here goes: In astrology, when you have constellations in two different languages or cultures, the results are only approximately the same. However, if you throw out the differences and go with the Hebrew Mazzaroth as the “master template” the results are Unity. Here is the step beyond the above: what was measured by method of constellations were, on some level, units of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Here is what’s more, performance on the tests conducted by Dr. Ritter above, are what we might, to borrow terminology from Ken Wilber, metrics of expected performance of apperception of the holons defined as performant by the constraints of the computer systems and human comprehension. The only thing measurable here potentially is “Signal” which we might also term “compliance”. Confused? Let me make it easy.

The Glyph of Pluto

Everyone knows this is the Glyph of Pluto right? Lord of the Underworld. Has a boat and a guy who boats. Responsible for keys and agriculture. Further research on the glyph indicates that he has two prongs because of his “bident” which is a sacrificial implement. One problem, that’s all Greek, and why does he have a little circle which looks like a head? Neptune, which is defined as a trident has no little circle as a head. Furthermore, it looks like he has his arms up around a head and a little cross for a body. This sounds like something else. What does it sound like? Well, I am glad you asked. It sounds like Moses.

Why Moses?

Moses held up his arms during the time that Israel was in a battle.

Moses said to Joshua, “Choose some of our men and go out to fight the Amalekites. Tomorrow I will stand on top of the hill with the staff of God in my hands.” So Joshua fought the Amalekites as Moses had ordered, and Moses, Aaron and Hur went to the top of the hill. As long as Moses held up his hands, the Israelites were winning, but whenever he lowered his hands, the Amalekites were winning. When Moses’ hands grew tired, they took a stone and put it under him and he sat on it. Aaron and Hur held his hands up–one on one side, one on the other–so that his hands remained steady till sunset. So Joshua overcame the Amalekite army with the sword. Then the LORD said to Moses, “Write this on a scroll as something to be remembered and make sure that Joshua hears it, because I will completely blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.” Moses built an altar and called it The LORD is my Banner. He said, “For hands were lifted up to the throne of the LORD. The LORD will be at war against the Amalekites from generation to generation.”

All of these pieces of mythology sound like the glyph of Pluto. Power, battle, Moses’s face had been transformed before. Prior to all this Moses lived in Egypt the land of Alchemy or science of transformations. So it seems like someone might have MEANT to make the glyph of Pluto be a “bident” but instead they wound up accidentally pulling in a different archetype and wrapping it up in pagan influences.

“But wait,” I hear you cry out. “Moses was after all the giant stuff, so like, isn’t Pluto totally the first thing since it is probably some weirdo Greek giant worship?”

“It doesn’t matter,” I cooly reply and sip on my Capri sun. “The giants were not supposed to be here in the first place, as they had disobeyed YHVH as fallen angels.”

Therefore, the keeper of the archetype of Pluto, is, in any regard, Moses. Any other version was “stolen” and stolen power always gets someone in trouble since ultimately the thievery is against the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

What Makes Moses Different

As badass as Moses is, (can you even call Moses a badass?) he has to have help to wield the power he is holding. He gets tired. He needs to sit down, and a couple of guys need to come in and help him hold up his arms. Despite the fact Moses is holding immense power, he still needs help. If Israel had just said, “Well, Moses talks to God face to face, so I think he’s got this,” the conclusion is “Bad things would have happened that day”.

Back To My Psychology Professor

If you relate to the different astrology systems as different computer programming and hardware, then you can see that the results of what I am here outlining are exactly the same as the computer analog except the difference is that whereas the scientific explanation cannot go beyond and say what it is in fact measuring–the above certainly can. Since the only thing that can be measured in terms of performance is the expectation of what constitutes performance then the only thing that can be measured is what “good performance is”. This is signal defined by consensus. Since comprehension is first a God-given ability, then the conclusion is that whatever is measured will be some mirror of this gift although the definition might be far from what is since the methodology being used in science is “blind” to any source. This makes people do weird things such as make many charts and graphs with long presentations to explain something that should be fairly simple when fully grasped. Something like, “Hey, did you know if I make the same test and use two different computer languages and different computers I get different results from people in a surprising kind of way?” becomes all that you see in the abstract. The reply to why this is so is simple with the methods I indicate above: Those results are explainable in terms of the signaling apparatus that you are using. Computers are different brands and are made differently, and all these factors contribute to how a consciousness parses a given reality at a given moment. Different languages also introduce subtle differences in programs, just as they do where words and definitions are concerned.

How I Solved My Psychology Woes

I decided, not long after all my experiences in psychology, that I would instead go into Internet Technology as I needed something that could be said to categorically either function or not. Ironically, it was a more objective field than psychology and the subjectivism about what made a good psychologist in an academic sense was driving me crazy, also somewhat ironically. In a network, the signal is understood in that the network either provides required information, or lacks it. Though there was still room for opinions about what consisted of things like “Security” the basics were there. I was a much happier person doing this, although it was more like learning a trade. I just was not cut out for making long papers with many graphs describing things better understood through the lens of zen. It was not my dharma. The dharma of the blind/woman with a stick making long presentations though, was, without a doubt, far more laden with grants, riches, and honors. Of course, doing all that would have been equivalent to giving Pluto all the credit.