BLOWING THE WHISTLE ON THE DANGEROUS CULT OF HYPERIANISM
• FROM THE CITIZEN JOURNALISTS OF THE AC •
In a sane world, the absolute nonsense MorgueOfficial (Corey Rebhahn) has talked about Leibniz’ law – he literally has no understanding of it at all! – would have exposed him as a total idiot, charlatan and conman. But Rebhahn inhabits an insane world – the cult of Hyperianism – where his cult slaves know even less about Leibniz’ law than he does, and so cannot contradict him. Not that they would want to. They’re cultists. They do what they’re told, and believe what they’re told to believe. They are told to believe that Rebhahn knows what he’s talking about regarding Leibniz’ law, and so they do. Even though they could check FOR THEMSELVES at any time that he doesn’t. But they don’t care. That’s what it means to be in a cult. Membership of the cult ALWAYS overrides the truth and sanity. Reason and logic are always dismissed, even as the cultists solemnly swear that they live by reason and logic. Well, if you actually did you would rationally and logically examine Leibniz’ law and what Rebhahn says about it and rationally and logically conclude that he is 100% in error. But we all know you won’t be doing that. Because you are irrational and illogical cultists.
Let’s get down to it – showing YET AGAIN how Corey Rebhahn, a man with no education and no qualifications, has no grasp at all of Leibniz’ law despite making his false claims about it the foundation of what now passes as “Hyperianism”.
The ridiculous Storm the Delta, a fanatical member of the Hyperian cult, miraculously managed to ask her cult leader a pertinent question – heaven forfend! Here’s how it went:
“Hey, I was wondering, does the enduring self get totally deleted/destroyed after the Omega Point … ps., if yes won’t that mean that what is truly you is dead? Hail New Terra.”
This question is almost getting to the heart of the matter. But first let us comment on something that highly amused us. Note that Storm the Delta says “Hail New Terra” even though she doesn’t know the answer to this question, a FOUNDATIONAL question. So, it’s like saying, “Hey does 1 + 1 = 2 or does 1 + 1 = 3? Hail New Terra.”
In other words, it doesn’t matter for Storm the Delta what answer Rebhahn is going to give because it’s “Hail New Terra” either way – even though Hyperianism is predicated on one answer to that question and refuted by the other – logically, that is … but of course cultists couldn’t care less about logic, as we all know. Storm the Delta will continue to be a cult slave REGARDLESS of what answer or non-answer Rebhahn gives her in the deadstream. And that’s the whole point. These people don’t care what the answer is. Is Storm the Delta going to STOP supporting Rebhahn and stop giving him loads of money if he says that everyone is gone, annihilated, at the Omega Point? She doesn’t give a fuck what the answer is! In fact, it’s amazing that she even moved her fat arse to ask the question – because what’s the point of asking questions when the answer is irrelevant to whether or not you say “Hail New Terra” and show full, unconditional support for Corey Rebhahn?
Why doesn’t Storm the Delta say, “Isn’t what you have said about Leibniz’s law a total contradiction of what Leibniz himself said, and why should I support you if you have got this totally wrong?” A question like that has NEVER occurred in Hyperianism. And never could. Because no one cares what answers Rebhahn gives to anything. They are supporting HIM, and don’t care what shit he talks, because it’s THEIR shit, shit they believe regardless of its truth status. These people are perfectly happy to believe utter lies and disproven garbage.
Rebhahn can literally say to his cult slaves, “Sometimes I will tell you that 1 + 1 = 2 and sometimes that 1 + 1 = 3 and you will all go on supporting me … because you DON’T CARE if 1 + 1 = 2 or 1 + 1 = 3. All you care about is ME!” And that’s the reality of it, of course. Truth has no relevance to Hyperianism, just as it doesn’t to Abrahamism, which it so closely resembles. It’s about being in a community with “like-minded” people. Not one of these people cares what the actual answers are. HAIL NEW ERROR!
A person called Galex Artist, a Morgue supporter, said,
“PSR is nonsensical, it would imply that there is no randomness.”
The PSR renders randomness IMPOSSIBLE. You are non-sensical! Should we trust you … or the PSR. Duh!?
Yet, hilariously, Rebhahn himself claims to swear by the PSR, so when this person attacks the PSR, he is attacking Rebhahn too – despite posting the comment to support Rebhahn! But hey, remember, logic never comes into this. These people are all irrational feeling types.
The person says,
“One doesn’t need to read every book written by Nietzsche to be a philosopher, – Plato didn’t.”
Can you believe how bizarre the arguments of these nonsensical people are? Plato – an all-time genius – was one of those giants who established philosophy. 100% of philosophers have read Plato and 100% have read Nietzsche. Had Nietzsche been around when Plato was alive, both would have read each other. Duh! But what truly amazes us is just how these Morgue-supporting cretins argue. The argument here is: “Plato didn’t read every philosophy book ever written and he was a philosopher, and I haven’t read every philosophy book ever written either, so I am a philosopher too (and as good as Plato).” This is the “logic” of cretins. THIS is the Dunning-Kruger effect. If you claim to know Nietzsche’s philosophy, you had better have read every fucking word of it because if you haven’t you don’t know shit about Nietzsche’s philosophy. Many of his positions evolved radically from book to book. And you could not get any philosopher less sympathetic to the views of Corey Rebhahn than Nietzsche – as anyone who had actually read Nietzsche would know! Nietzsche was at one time designated THE N**i philosopher. Nietzsche would be HORRIFIED by the sheer degeneration of the human race denoted by the very existence of Corey Rebhahn and his bungled and botched cult slaves. Every time, you read the profile of one of these people it’s always that of a person from a totally broken, damaged background. And these people have all joined together in a cult for the fucked … and are making no attempt to UNFUCK themselves by escaping a totally toxic scene reinforcing their alienation from the world. Imagine alcoholics’ anonymous where the alcoholics said that they were “hyperaware World Shapers” rather than admitting that they were alcoholics and getting treatment for their addiction. That’s what Hyperianism is. It’s where damaged people say they are the New Humanity (!) rather than extremely damaged and troubled people in desperate need of proper help. The future will not be kind to any of these fantasists.
Interestingly, Nietzsche often styled himself the anti-Plato. Plato knew ALL of the philosophy of his day, and Nietzsche knew all of the philosophy of his day. What philosophy does Galex Artist know? … but apparently he is a brilliant philosopher. And so apparently is Morgue … for NOT reading philosophy books. Who knew?! This is exactly the Dunning-Kruger effect!
This person says,
“One doesn’t need to read ANY books on philosophy to be a philosopher.”
Aha, so to be a brain surgeon, you don’t need to know anything about brains … or surgery! Dunning-Kruger effect. The contempt for philosophy and philosophers is ABSOLUTE with these people. “One doesn’t need to read ANY books on mathematics to be a mathematician.” Would anyone say that?
This person says,
“Indeed, to be a philosopher, one needs only to have a philosophy.”
Dunning-Kruger effect! “Indeed, to be a scientist, one needs only to have a science.” Does anyone say that?
All paths, all sciences, all philosophies, all truths!
The hatred of the qualified is TOTAL.
This person said,
“Being ‘qualified’ to have an interpretation does not require graduation from a university.”
Dunning-Kruger effect. To have a meaningful interpretation 100% requires the person to be INTELLIGENT, which almost always is denoted by QUALIFICATIONS.
This person says,
“Using many words while not saying much of anything while hiding behind a AI going in a logical loop and discrediting another person who doesn’t claim to do anything but present material that the viewers can easily find for themselves isn’t philosophy.”
Zero attempt to engage with the precise philosophical arguments. Appeal to emotion. Deflection. Appeal to incredulity. Philosophy is what is conducted by qualified philosophers. If you’re not, shut the fuck up. You’re not a philosopher.
Fuck all you Dunning-Kruger dunces. You are the Idiocracy.
By the way, Rebhahn isn’t “presenting material”. He claims to be the greatest philosopher EVER and to have solved the greatest philosophical problem of all time. Not that you fucking care what he claims. Your love is unconditional!
This person said,
“Listing veganism as something to discredit another person lowers your stance in the eyes of anyone who has philosophically investigated the subject. Clearly you have a issue with the person who you are attacking but it isn’t really about PSR, it’s about his take on scientific materialism or it’s personal.”
So, here we get to it – massive emotional investment in VEGANISM, hence entirely on Rebhahn’s side. Mate, you’re the one who doesn’t give a fuck about philosophy, the PSR, or scientific materialism. You are a vegan fanatic and your whole identity is invested in it. It’s totally personal, and you are making a personal attack on us BECAUSE of veganism. And this is why we cannot have ANY vegans in our movement.
Do you see how it works? Analytic comments on the PSR are dismissed, and the PSR itself is dismissed, and all that matters is whether you are for or against the No. 1 cause of emotionalists – veganism (not “think about the children” but “think about the animals”!). This is the way the whole of Hyperianism works. It’s all about being WOKE and the anti-Woke are automatically opposed, regardless of what they say, which is always sneered at and dismissed, exactly as we see here with this person!
Galex Artist said,
“Nothing wrong with being a vegan and there IS something wrong with somebody who isn’t.”
And THAT is why cults like Hyperianism are so dangerous. Truth is never the issue. It’s whether you support animals, or exotic minorities, or non-binaries, or whatever, i.e., COMPLETELY EMOTIONAL CAUSES. This is the whole game of the extreme feeling types. They DETEST thinking types and have zero respect for them, and would never under any circumstances accept rational and logical arguments.
Anyway, back to business:
Rebhahn’s “answer” to Storm the Delta went as follows:
“You are eternal. You are never deleted or destroyed.”
You would therefore be in a HIVE MIND, along with all the other eternal minds that are never deleted or destroyed. But the Hive Mind is exactly what Rebhahn opposes, which is why he immediately commits catastrophic fallacies.
He said,
“At the end of time, at that point at the very end of time, you are not destroyed, none of us are destroyed.”
If we are not destroyed, we must be ontologically intact, as we always have been, and that means, of course … A HIVE MIND. 1 + 1 = 2. But Rebhahn disagrees. He said,
” We COLLAPSE into an identity, and collapsing into identity is not being destroyed, or not being negated.”
What on earth does it mean to “collapse into an identity” (i.e., a Oneness) WITHOUT being destroyed? That’s a category error. You either exist – as an individual – or YOU DON’T EXIST. You can’t be “collapsed” into something else: “an identity – a ONE MIND” and still be you, an individual. Whatever was “you” has gone. No ifs and no buts. If your body is cremated and the ashes thrown to the wind, what is left of “your” body? There is no recognizable trace of you, so there is no you.
If I take a hundred identical gold coins and collapse them into an “identity”, I would have to melt them all and then have molten gold (a “universal gold mind”, so to speak). Where are the individual gold coins? They are gone. The “self” of each gold coin has been annihilated. This isn’t difficult, folks. 1 + 1 = 2.
So, what on earth does Rebhahn mean by “identity”?
Rebhahn said,
“It’s that we are so incredibly synchronized together that by Leibniz’s law we become indiscernible and so that we are functionally one, but we are still POTENTIALLY a multiplicity.”
Pay very close attention here, folks, because this is a where a conman is desperately trying to get out of the fallacy he is now fatally trapped in.
Monads can be PERFECTLY synchronized and enter into a FUNCTIONAL unity, but this has NOTHING to do with Leibniz’s law, nothing to with indiscernibility, nothing to do with an ontological Oneness, and nothing to do with “potentially a multiplicity”. Monads being perfectly synchronized and constituting a functional, but not ontological, unity, is precisely true of the ontological Hive Mind at zero entropy. All ontologically distinct monads are in the same basis mathematical state. They are ontologically separate but all in the same functional basis state. The key point being that they are not ONTOLOGICALLY identical. The monads in the zero-entropy Hive Mind are not a potential ontological multiplicity … they are an actual ontological multiplicity. They never at any time became ONE. The monads are functionally “indiscernible” but ontologically discernible (they have their own haecceity and aseity – their unique ontological signature – and thus no one would ever apply Leibniz’s law to this situation).
This is where Rebhahn made his fatal error. He failed to understand that monads remain at all times ontologically discernible. He thought that they had somehow become ontologically indiscernible and thus, by the identity of indiscernibles, were the same (were an identity). But Leibniz’s whole argument is about denying that any two monads are EVER ontologically identical, because if they were then they wouldn’t be two different monads, they would be the same monad. But Rebhahn, not understanding this, thought that if all monads (ontologically different monads!) are in the same functional state, they are ontologically “indiscernible” and hence they are one monad.
It’s such a bad error – totally confusing functional equivalence with ontological identity – it’s off the scale of philosophical illiteracy. It’s LITERALLY the opposite of Leibniz’s argument and is a 100% misapplication of Leibniz’s law. But what do you expect? This fuckwit Rebhahn is a sword swallower. He knows nothing about philosophy!
Rebhahn literally took countless ontologically distinct monads – meaning that Leibniz’s law could NEVER be applied to them! – and said that in one particular, very peculiar state, they are the same monad … there is only one monad. Now, apart from being an instant catastrophic violation of the law of conservation of energy – many monads have vanished into thin air, leaving just one monad! – Rebhahn doesn’t even accept that the vanished monads have actually vanished into the “One Mind” that he talks about. No, he says that the now-vanished monads somehow remain as “potentialities” (whatever that means – and Rebhahn is never going to explain, that’s for sure!). But, of course, potential differences between monads would, by Leibniz’s law (!), be sufficient to prohibit any attempt to say they could ever “melt” or collapse into one monad. So, to retain monadic “potentiality” is, even in the terms of Rebhahn’s dumb argument, to already have falsified his own comically inept case. Sheez! But Rebhahn doesn’t care. His Woke IDEOLOGY demands that we are all ONE MIND and also DIFFERENT MINDS and he just uses ridiculous word salad and verbiage regarding “potentiality” and “difference” to pretend to his cult slaves that this all “works.”
Rebhahn is an evil man. He’s very stupid, but not so stupid that he doesn’t know we have DESTROYED his Leibniz’s law drivel (the very thing that he believes makes him a legitimate ont math researcher – in your fucking dreams, mate … you are as ignorant about Leibniz’s law as you are about the PSR!), yet he goes on spouting his proven fallacies. We can tell that he is trying to adjust his language to make it closer to ours – by using “synchronization” and “functional” – while still stating the same core errors. He is now DELIBERATELY lying. He knows 100% that he made a catastrophic error and yet he is continuing to maintain his error because it is now impossible for this person to admit a foundational error. It would destroy his cult. So, rather than do the moral thing, and acknowledge his fundamental error, he does the immoral thing and knowingly deceives his slaves by maintaining his proven lie. This is a sick, disgusting man. He is prepared to do anything for money and narcissistic supply. He is an unashamed conman, tirelessly manipulating and exploiting the suckers who worship him. What a malevolent, nefarious individual he is. And the same is true of his sick mods, of course, who willingly go along with this. What scum these people are. They LOVE lying to people.
Rebhahn said,
“So basically we are a Many Minds that has the potentiality or capacity to collapse into identity and then to express as a multiplicity through difference.”
So, this is the full-on word salad. Let’s disentangle the waffle. Ontologically separate minds – and all monads are ontologically separate minds – have ZERO capacity or potentiality to “collapse into identity”. It’s a strict ontological impossibility. What Rebhahn expects is for stupid Woke people to LOVE and somehow be convinced by the words “potentiality” and “difference”. He is saying that many monads can in fact become one monad, but this one “special monad” (so, it’s not actually a monad because it has nothing in common with all the other monads!) has an astounding property: that of being able to generate other monads via some unique monadic property (completely undefined, natch) dubbed DIFFERENCE. WTF! Go on Rebhahn, explain what this “difference” is in terms of ont math. Explain how a special monad generates other monads. What’s the ont math of that, you dumb fuck?! You claim to be an “independent” ont math researcher, don’t you, so do some ont math, you fucking lying scumbag! You have actually invented insane nonsense where monads, the fundamental units of ont math, have variable definitions, and there is a “special” monad completely different from all other monads, and thus the mathematics of this situation has become definitionally and operationally impossible.
Why don’t you tell the truth for once in your miserable, failed life that you are telling your suckers absolute nonsense?! You are inflicting RTS on your worshipers. You are lying to them just as Christian preachers lied to you. You have BECOME a lying Christian preacher! How disgusting you are. Your disgust for yourself must be almost infinite now. Identifying as an ontological mathematician doesn’t make you one, you dumb fuck. This isn’t identity politics now, buddy. You actually have to BE an ontological mathematician and know what you’re doing.
Ontological mathematics is of course about ontology. So what IS “potentiality”, you know ontologically? In actual ont math, the monads are all in functional unity at zero entropy, but they are, and always will be, ontologically separate. There is no such thing as being potentially different ontologically. You are actually ontologically different, or you do not exist (you have no ontology). 1 + 1 = 2.
Think about it. What would “potentiality” be ontologically? How would it manifest itself? Where would it be located? What would it reside in? How would it be activated? Don’t ask Rebhahn. He has no possible answer. If all monads have, miraculously, collapsed into ONE, they have in fact, lost any capacity to be different! They are now all the same thing. Difference has been annihilated! Never forget the gold coins all melted into one!
Rebhahn said,
“So YOU are never destroyed. I am never destroyed. We are never destroyed.”
It’s hilarious what Rebhahn does, i.e., just confidently asserts gibberish and knows that no one will notice or care.
You are TOTALLY destroyed. Just as if we took the hundred individual coins and melted them all down. Where are the coins now? They’ve all gone. And if we recast them, they would be completely different (contain completely different atoms) from the previous hundred! We would NEVER recover the original coins, so why would we ever recover the original monads?!
Rebhahn said,
“It’s just that at the end of time, we are so synchronized that we BECOME an identity because we are so incredibly synchronized that there is no difference between us. But that doesn’t mean that any of us are destroyed.”
Dumb fuck. That’s exactly what it would mean!
In ont math, no monad is destroyed by being brought into functional unity with other monads, but that of course is NOT Rebhahn’s argument.
In ont math, the monads of the HIVE MIND are synchronized. They are not ONE MIND. But Rebhahn’s whole thing is not about synchronization of different monads, it’s about all monads becoming IDENTICAL and constituting only one, new, special monad. And this is asserted ontologically.
So, is it the case that Rebhahn simply doesn’t understand basic terms such as “synchronization”? To synchronize monads of course requires them to be separate because if they’re not separate then what are you synchronizing? Or is he just spouting word salad and pretending he knows what he’s talking about?
Rebhahn is actually eliminating synchronization of the monads … because he is eliminating the monads! They have all become one, somehow, hence nothing is being synchronized with anything else. You can’t synchronize a watch with itself!
Rebhahn said,
“And a great way that I like to illustrate this is with the flower of life. If you take a look at the flower of life and see that it is a bunch of circles expanded you can imagine those circles, imagine all those circles becoming closer and closer and closer until they are lying on top of each other. Well, if all the circles of the flower of life are lying on top of each other, it’s going to look like one circle and it will be functionally one circle but really they’re not. There’s a potentiality for multiplicity. That one circle is a multiplicity of circles that can expand into the flower of life again. So picture reality being like that. The flower of life that expands into a multiplicity and then contracts into an identity then expands and collapse into an identity. Noe of those circles ever gets deleted. They just become so alike that it’s THOUGH they are one and functionally by Leibniz law they are.”
Let’s examine this abject nonsense very carefully, i.e., do what these Hyperian cult slaves would NEVER do!
Firstly, Leibniz’s law is about ontological identity not functional identity, so Rebhahn isn’t even using the right qualifier! As we said, he doesn’t understand that two ontologically different things can be in the same functional state. He believes that if two ontologically different things attain the same functional state then they thereby become the same ontological thing – a simply staggering misunderstanding of Leibniz’s law, a mistake no intelligent person could make.
To illustrate, let’s take 100 identical gold coins and arrange them in a flower of life pattern over a Cartesian grid. So, every coin has its own coordinates on the grid. Each is discernible. We can choose this coin rather than that coin. They are functionally different by virtue of their different coordinate positions. Now let’s place the hundred coins exactly on top of each other in a stack. Now, all one hundred coins have the same x, y coordinates. They are functionally identical in terms of their x, y, coordinates. But of course each coin now has a different z (vertical) coordinate and we can STILL discern which monad is which. Nothing has changed. The ontology is fully conserved. But Rebhahn says that if we place one hundred monads on top of each other they become the SAME monad, so the 100 monads are now 1 monad!!! WTF!
But, as with the gold coins, so with the monads. They HAVEN’T become one! That’s just total nonsense. It’s an ontological impossibility and 100% violation of the law of conservation of energy – yet this absolute fallacy is now the foundation stone of Hyperianism. You have to laugh!
Rebhahn claims that many monads literally vanish into one monad – so that he can deliver his “we’re all one mind” shtick – but of course he then needs to get all the monads back so that he can deploy his “we’re all different … we’re unity exploring diversity” spiel. Hilariously, his dumb maneuver is to claim that even though all the monads have ACTUALLY vanished into ONE MONAD (by some miraculous synchronization procedure that causes things to dissolve into a Oneness – who knew?!), they somehow – miraculously (again) reappear. WTF! (What, do they “reverse the polarity”, or press the desynchronization switch that doesn’t exist?!!)
No ontological details are furnished … because Rebhahn can’t furnish them. The hundred dissolved monads “exist” as “potentialities” within the one monad. Eh? How can a monad EXIST as a potentiality? It’s either an actual monad, or there is no monad at all! If we take one hundred distinct gold coins and melt them down, does anyone say that those distinct gold coins exist as potentialities within the molten gold and can be perfectly retrieved? That is INSANE. The coins have CEASED TO EXIST. If the coins are recast, they will be atomically different coins, not the same. You CANNOT recover what you have dissolved in this manner.
Rebhahn claims that the special one monad for some unexplained reason (boredom?!) feels compelled to “explore diversity” and it does so by, somehow, introducing “difference” (WTF! – how, from where, what is it, this “difference”; what is the mathematics of this?), and hey presto! And to think that this utter garbage is supposed to constitute some sort of super-advanced research in ont math! Jesus fucking Christ.
Let’s go through it again. What is this “difference” given that we are talking about ONE MIND? What, within the One Mind, is different? There’s plenty of intrinsic difference in a Hive Mind. But a One Mind? Where is the scope for ontological plurality? That’s a … category error.
What is “difference” ontologically? What, ontologically, is this “potentiality” of all the different monads within the one monad? Where in the One Monad is the means to recreate – EXACTLY – all the different monads that supposedly melted into it, or whatever it is that Rebhahn is claiming?
All of this is scrupulously ignored by Rebhahn – because he is talking Woke crap that violates mathematics, science and philosophy in every way. Monads do not melt or synchronize, or whatever else, into each other and do not become One Monad and there is no such thing as multi-monadic “potentiality” within the alleged One Monad, and there is no mechanism to introduce internal monadic “difference” within the supposed One Monad. So all of this is just total nonsense and is 100% fallacious.
Rebhahn said, “We are all eternal minds.” But how can we be if we switch from actual monadic existence to mere “potential” monadic existence (within some claimed One Monad)? We have ceased to exist as actual monads and attained some completely different ontological status as merely “potential monad”, i.e., we have gone through a temporal and contingent ontological phase transition (of an impossible kind), hence we are anything other than eternal. More like we have been annihilated and then been miraculously resurrected, as in … CHRISTIANITY! Which is of course what Hyperianism actually is now.
Why does Rebhahn use the idea of “potentially different”? You ARE different! The Hive Mind guarantees your inherent difference.
You have to understand the Woke lie that Rebhahn is now 100% committed to and CANNOT get out of – because he can never admit to being in TOTAL ERROR … that would be the end of his bullshit con channel!
To all Hyperians, this man, Rebhahn, your cult God, is literally lying to you, conning you, telling you fraudulent nonsense – because he never understood the Illuminist content he plagiarized and was intent on making it Woke, and, in doing so, he totally falsified it.
Rebhahn said,
“The sun shining and the planets revolving are the unconscious processes of the UNIVERSAL MIND.”
So, this One Monad – the “Universal Mind”, so-called – now seems to be referred to as some permanent feature of existence. WTF! This just gets weirder and weirder.
Rebhahn said,
“When you have the realization that you/we ARE the absolute, you realize that you are all-powerful, that we are all powerful together, that this is our reality and everything is us.”
So, we seem to have terms such as the “absolute”, “universal mind”, and so on, being deployed in the sense that they exist at the same time as the many monadic minds. It’s impossible to make any sense of this system. It’s totally incoherent and the whole thing is now just deployed rhetorically, i.e., the game is to use words like difference, diversity, multiplicity, potentiality, the absolute, individual minds, the universal mind, and so on, to make lots of Woke, New Age statements that please Rebhahn’s cult slaves. There is absolutely no mathematical underpinning to any of this. That is all long gone, even though the whole absurdity is still claimed to reflect “logic and reason and mathematics”. In your dreams!
Rebhahn said,
“There are different tiers to consciousness and having that absolute perspective rather than the eternal mental perspective is the perspective of us as an eternal unity and it creates this understanding … it develops this analog-all rather than just having an analog-I.”
So, here, the idea seems to be that we are dealing with “perspectives” rather than actual things. The alleged Universal Mind doesn’t actually exist right now, but we can adopt that perspective, apparently. And so, we have somehow become Woke (“hyperaware”) if we adopt this “absolute” perspective. Except the whole thing is total garbage … because Rebhahn got Leibniz’s law 100% wrong. This “perspective” is as meaningful as imagining the perspective of the unconditionally loving Christian God – another invented perspective of a non-existent entity to serve the cause of blind faith in charlatans!
Rebhahn said,
“There are a lot of con artists out there.”
Yeah, mate, YOU above all.
To all Hyperians, unless you can rationally and logically refute our arguments – and good luck with that! (the idea that any of you could follow and grasp any of our technical philosophical arguments is for the birds) – then you are blind believers in a false prophet and his false God. You are … CHRISTIANS.
Well? …