BLOWING THE WHISTLE ON THE DANGEROUS CULT OF HYPERIANISM
• FROM THE CITIZEN JOURNALISTS OF THE AC •
12/15/2022
Even Fatter Jan said, “United in reason, separate in expression”, thus showing that she has no understanding of either herself or ontological mathematics. Hyperians are separate in reason (they don’t know what reason is!) and united in expression (they all slavishly, unquestioningly, identically worship Corey Rebhahn – just like Abrahamists who mindlessly believe in their God too and never ask any questions – and have no agency whereby they would be able to reject Rebhahn and thus express themselves differently, autonomously, individually. Like so many people promoting extreme individualism, they are not individual at all. The Woke are identikit stereotypes. You know 100% of what they are going to say before they even open their mouths. They are simply going to recite the Woke Bible, just as Christians recite their Bible. They will NEVER say anything against Woke ideology and dogmatism, and will instantly seek to have you deplatformed and canceled if you contradict them in any way. So much for “freethinking” individuals. These people would create the blandest, dullest, greyest State of all time – luckily it would collapse overnight because these people are so cretinous.
Rebhahn and Torgensen preach a totally false version of ontological mathematics. Rebhahn constantly sneers at the concept of the HIVE MIND, the ontological mathematical basis of existence. What Rebhahn claims is that in the Absolute State there is ONE ONTOLOGICAL MIND, and then this fragments into separate minds. He’s far too stupid to grasp that he is stating Schopenhauer’s position that there is one cosmic, noumenal, universal Will that phenomenally expresses itself through countless individual, particular wills. The immediate issue regarding such a claim is that if all the wills actually come from one Will, why are they fighting each other so bitterly? What mind fights ITSELF? – only a totally diseased one. Schopenhauer, unlike Rebhahn, actually believed that the Will IS diseased … it’s intrinsically evil. He was consistent in his view … an evil universal produces evil particulars.
Rebhahn, a total New Ager now, believes in universal consciousness, in one universal mind. Yawn. He is even talking about particular minds (which of course must be ILLUSORY minds if there is really only ONE MIND) being instances of dissociation of the One Mind. So, in Rebhahn’s mad world, all illusory minds are dissociated alters of the host mind, the universal consciousness of New Ageism.
Given that Rebhahn himself is totally dissociated – he has a False Self that has replaced his True Self, and also a psychopathic self (Edgelord Morgue) – it’s no wonder that he is so drawn to a dissociative ideology.
We’ve heard this dissociation malarkey before. Consider the following. Robby Berman of Big Think wrote,
“Are we all multiple personalities of universal consciousness? … There’s a reason they call it the ‘hard problem.’ Consciousness: Where is it? What is it? No one single perspective seems to be able to answer all the questions we have about consciousness. Now Bernardo Kastrup thinks he’s found one. He calls his ontology idealism, and according to idealism, all of us and all we perceive are manifestations of something very much like a cosmic-scale dissociative identity disorder (DID). He suggests there’s an all-encompassing universe-wide consciousness, it has multiple personalities, and we’re them.”
Kastrup, it must be noted, is a huge fan of … SCHOPENHAUER. But without Schopenhauer’s commitment to pessimism and reality being inherently evil. Anyway, you can be sure Rebhahn the plagiarist has been sniffing around Kastrup’s work. Kastrup is probably the most prominent idealist philosopher today, but he sure as hell isn’t a rationalist philosopher. Rebhahn has abandoned rationalism too – his simps and gimps never understood it, and neither did he.
So, Kastrup’s position is basically the one Rebhahn has adopted: one cosmic consciousness breaks into individual consciousnesses – but there is only ontologically ONE MIND, not many minds.
Rebhahn believes in, and now constantly preaches, One Mind that dissociates into many minds, and he constantly attacks the concept of the Hive Mind.
The Hive Mind concerns the inherent existence of MANY MINDS, not one mind. It denotes a 100% different ontology. Nothing at all ontologically dissociates.
Rebhahn promotes the key Woke message that we are all truly ONE and therefore it makes no sense for us all to be fighting each other. That very fact – that we all ARE fighting each other – is already the refutation of such a position. If we actually were part of one mind, we definitely wouldn’t be savagely competing and fighting with each other. We would have an absolute drive to unite asap and end the dissociation. WE DO NOT!
The truth of course is that we are part of an eternal HIVE MIND. We are eternally and necessarily SEPARATE, INDEPENDENT, AUTONOMOUS MINDS, but, at a very particular state – that of perfect symmetry (zero entropy and a temperature of Absolute Zero) – we enter into a functional and epistemological unity, but certainly not an ontological unity. We don’t become an ontological Single Mind, as Rebhahn ludicrously claims, showing that he has NO understanding of the basics of ontological mathematics.
Rebhahn’s “argument” that there is really only One Mind – rather than a Hive Mind – flows from what he believes is some great insight on his part regarding Leibniz’s Law.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says,
“The Identity of Indiscernibles is a principle of analytic ontology first explicitly formulated by Wilhelm Gottfried Leibniz in his Discourse on Metaphysics … It states that no two distinct things exactly resemble each other. This is often referred to as ‘Leibniz’s Law’ and is typically understood to mean that no two objects have exactly the same properties. The Identity of Indiscernibles is of interest because it raises questions about the factors which individuate qualitatively identical objects.”
The Pan Dictionary of Philosophy says,
“Identity of indiscernibles: The principle that if x has every property that y has, and y has every property that x has, then x and y are identical. The term was first used by Leibniz…”
Monads have two properties that mean they can NEVER be identical to each other, thus refuting Rebhahn’s entire Hyperian “philosophy”. Firstly, they have a property called haecceity (thisness), meaning that they are ALWAYS “this” and not “that”. Secondly, they have a property called aseity, meaning independence from all other entities.
Haecceity is “the status of being an individual or a particular nature: individuality, specificity, thisness … specifically: what makes something to be an ultimate reality different from any other.” – Merriam-Webster
Aseity is “the quality or state of being self-derived or self-originated, specifically: the absolute self-sufficiency, independence, and autonomy of God.” – Merriam-Webster
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says,
“Perfect being theology is a way of theorizing a priori about God that goes back at least to Anselm of Canterbury. One begins with the claim that God is the greatest possible being, and from there one can derive attributes that God must have. This method is one way of arriving at God’s being omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good. Anselm himself famously thought that via perfect being theology he could conclude that God existed. For our purposes here, we are to imagine two conceptually possible beings: One being has grounds or explains the existence of necessarily existing abstract objects, and the other doesn’t. We are to see that the being that grounds these abstracta is greater than one who doesn’t, and thus we are to conclude that God (the greatest possible being) has control over necessarily existing abstract objects. Sometimes the intuition that the former being is greater than the latter is put in terms of God’s aseity, or independence from all other entities. A being with maximal aseity is greater than one without it (other things being equal); and if necessarily existing abstract objects don’t depend on God, God lacks maximal aseity.”
Rebhahn ridiculously claims that in the Absolute State, monads have no aseity and no haecceity and thus become ONE MIND (individual monads cease to exist since they are now all supposedly identical to each other hence THE SAME, hence all separate monads miraculously turn into just one monad, thus destroying all of their independent monadic properties and autonomous ontology – and destroying the whole basis of ontological mathematics. A completely different ontological state is supposedly generated at One Point – the “Absolute” – and many supposedly separate monadic minds are, allegedly, revealed as truly only being One Mind. According to Rebhahn, myriad monads do not in fact exist. There is actually only one monad – this is apparently revealed in the Absolute State – and this one monad then, by some miraculous process (never of course mentioned by Rebhahn) dissociates into many seemingly different monads, but if we had the “absolute perspective”, we would see that there is actually only one monad. So, Woke New Age ideology is thus “proved”. We are truly one mind (one monad), and so it makes no sense for anyone to be in conflict with anyone else because we are all, er, the same mind! And thus Corey Rebhahn should be permitted to do whatever he likes regardless of others – because if only you had his divine, absolute perspective, his World shaping angle of “hyperawareness” – you would see that everyone is actually … COREY REBHAHN. This is pathological narcissism taken to its absolute limit. This is Corey Rebhahn’s solipsism taken to is FOOLEST extent! Hyperianism is now total solipsism – there is only one mind and it fantasizes that there are many minds via the psychological disorder of dissociation. There is really only one mind, and it speaks to itself. It is the sole reality.
If you think about it, this mad gibberish rather sums up Hyperianism. Corey Rebhahn IS Hyperianism, and the simps and gimps who love him and worship him are so closely identified with him, so fused with him, that they can be regarded as his dissociated alters. They will do anything to love, serve, and obey him (as the Abrahamists do with their God!), and protect him from his enemies. They are extensions of him and have no autonomy. They are incapable of thinking for themselves. They think what Rebhahn wants them to think. The all agree with him 100%, as in solipsism.
With the Hive Mind, by total contrast, there is NEVER any change in the ontology of monads. They are autonomous, they are what they are FOREVER and never at any time BECOME SOMETHING ELSE, as they would have to if the One Mind claim were true. Specifically, they are not suddenly revealed to be One Mind rather than Many Minds. They are ALWAYS a HIVE, a collection of independent minds, and NEVER One Mind that only seems to be may via dissociation – i.e., severe mental illness.
It’s no wonder that Rebhahn has made Hyperianism a dissociated, pathological ideology – it simply reflects his own severe mental illness!
With the Hive Mind, conflict is instantly explained. Except for the zero entropy state of Being, we are all inherently competing with each other. Our individual wills to power are always clashing (and we painfully have to learn to cooperate, via the dialectical synthesis). We are unique, different, minds. We are anything other than one ontological mind. This, at one stroke, destroys all of Rebhahn’s mad ideology. He proved that his understanding of the PSR was catastrophically wrong in one of his “most important videos”, and now he has proved that his understanding of monads – eternal, necessary, independent, autonomous minds – is catastrophically wrong too. In fact, more or less everything Rebhahn now says about ultimate reality is laughably wrong, and he is just repeating New Age Woke shit to attract the insane members of the New Age Woke community.
Think of things this way: Rebhahn claims there is ONE GOD who dissociates into many minds, and for some unfathomable reason these minds attack each other. In ontological mathematics, there are as many gods as there are monads – there is a HIVE GOD (not a monotheistic God … Rebhahn is ALWAYS secretly pushing Christian monotheism, the only thing he actually understands!) and they are always fighting each other and competing for power, except at the unique state of zero entropy, where they perfectly cooperate and are in a state of perfect symmetry. A universe comes to and end when all the competing gods learn to COOPERATE – having, so to speak, become sick of self-defeating fighting – and thus reach the state of zero entropy, ready for the next entropic big bang!
Rebhahn and Torgensen claim we are really One Mind so, for some bizarre reason, we should all revel in expressing ourselves DIFFERENTLY! Eh? If we are all one mind, shouldn’t we be learning to express ourselves the SAME? But that’s no good to Rebhahn and Torgensen’s Woke ideology that everyone can be whatever they want to be, identify as what they want whenever they want however they want with no reference to others, and everyone should be allowed to maximally express themselves however they like – because we are really One. But if we were REALLY One, we would in fact be trying to CURE our dissociation, not entropically maximize it, as Hyperians demand. Hyperianism leads to MORE ENTROPY AND MORE CONFLICT! It creates DISUNITY, not unity. It emphasizes DIFFERENCE not SAMENESS, and demands that everyone worship difference, as opposed to everyone finding common cause and exploring what they have in COMMON.
We stand for the universal, for everyone coming together, for what people have in common being highlighted. All minorities can be embraced via that enlightened process. Hyperianism, by total contrast, stands for absolute division. It says that instead of coming together, we should split apart into as many particulars as possible, and then it insanely demands that everyone unite behind this total disunity, and praise and celebrate. It’s so monumentally dumb it’s hard to believe that people can actually think this way.
What’s the best way forward for transgender individuals, for example? It’s for them to be accepted as part of the working class, working together with everyone else to overthrow the rich elites and create a better world for all. What’s the worst way forward for transgender individuals? It’s for them to be treated as some special, privileged group with special rights, special status in law, specially protected, and so on. That’s how you get yourself detested and persecuted in five seconds flat. Yet this insane, totally self-destructive idea is the very one being relentlessly pushed by Rebhahn and Torgensen, and their Hyperian simps and gimps. We were reported to the FBI for being N**IS because we challenged these people. Our website was canceled. A sinister smear campaign was conducted against us. A preliminary lawsuit was served. People were swatted. And all of this by people saying we are all really one and shouldn’t be hurting each other! FFS! The hypocrisy and lunacy of these people is off the charts. These people are utterly toxic and evil. They are PSYCHOPATHS!
Ontological mathematics, by total contrast with Hyperianism, says that we should be cooperating more and more (via dialectical synthesis – finding what is common to us all) and becoming more and more expressive of the general will and common good, i.e., we start to conform more and more by following the great unifiers of reason and logic, and eventually we become a functional (not ontological) unity, at zero entropy, where all conflict ends!
At all points, we retain our ontological uniqueness. We are foundational units of existence and can never cease to exist and can never change into anything else, especially not into one ontological mind. We can be neither created nor destroyed, only undergo internal temporal and contingent transformation.
Anyone who has read and understood ALL of our books will know all of this since we raise these points over and over again (and then people wonder why we do that!). If anything here is new to you, you clearly need to study more of our material. The last thing you should do is listen to Corey Rebhahn, or any other Hyperians. These people are false prophets, completely misunderstanding, misinterpreting and misrepresenting ontological mathematics, and that’s why we’re going to make sure they cannot go on abusing our work and deceiving people with their deranged Woke drivel. They are defiling ontological mathematics to make it fit their perverted ideology, all stemming from the sick pervert Edgelord Morgue.
Hyperianism is all about the particular will and extreme individualism, hence is the formal OPPOSITE of Illuminism and ontological mathematics! And all so that “gender” can be wiped out, so that the non-binary can rule the world. As if!
Aseity
Wikipedia says,
“Aseity (from Latin ā “from” and sē “self”, plus -ity) is the property by which a being exists of and from itself. It refers to the Christian belief that God does not depend on any cause other than himself for his existence, realization, or end, and has within himself his own reason of existence. This represents God as absolutely independent and self-existent by nature.”
In ontological mathematics, EVERY monad has this property of aseity, but, as in Hegelian philosophy, they come to full optimization only through their interaction with the OTHER.
Wikipedia says,
“Aseity has two aspects, one positive and one negative: absolute independence and self-existence. W. N. Clarke writes: ‘In its negative meaning, which emerged first in the history of thought, it [aseity] affirms that God is uncaused, depending on no other being for the source of His existence. In its positive meaning, it affirms that God is completely self-sufficient, having within Himself the sufficient reason for His own existence.’”
Every monad is uncaused. Specifically, it is not caused by “One Mind”, as Rebhahn crazily claims. No monad has ANY dependence on anything else for its existence. It is NOT dependent on One Mind and does not merge into one ontological mind, as Rebhahn says. Each monad is completely self-sufficient. It’s existence is defined with regard to itself, as an instantiation of the ontological God Equation.
Remember how the infinity multiplier argument goes. If one “God” is possible, an infinite number of such Gods MUST exist, for exactly the same reasons that support the existence of the first God. That’s how we get a possible infinity of monads (which are effectively individual gods). But bear in mind that an ontological system almost certainly has an ontological limit and so the total number of gods (monads) would therefore be the “Highest Ontological Number”, not infinity (which is, really, the highest abstract number). The central reason for an ontological limit is that nothing can ontologically be smaller than a flowing point, and a flowing point is FINITE (not Zero), and thus INFINITY is also ruled out in such a system (it’s “bad” infinity … to the extent that we can discuss infinity at all, it must be fully fused to the finite, as Hegel made clear in his discussion of “good” infinity … the circle is where the finite and authentic infinite are expressed). The flowing point is the antidote to abstract infinity. Abstract infinity accompanies STATIC points, which are genuine zeroes (not net-zeroes), and these are what we in fact use to model NON-EXISTENCE, since they have no properties and do nothing. Non-existence is of course non-ontological. So, static points and bad infinity are associated with non-existence (abstraction) – abstract mathematics. Moving points and good infinity (wholly placed in the context of the finite via Euler circles) are associated with existence (concreteness) – ontological mathematics. A Hive Mind is an inevitable product of the logic of ontological mathematics. One Mind – what Rebhahn believes in (he DETESTS the Hive Mind!) – is formally logically excluded. We must stop Rebhahn falsifying ontological mathematics. This man is a cretin, who has no clue what he is doing or saying.
Haecceity and Quiddity
Paul Anthony Jones wrote,
“Haecceity: the quality of something that makes it ‘this’, as opposed to anything else … The word haecceity derives from the haec, the feminine form of the Latin word for ‘this’, hic. It was coined on the basis of an even earlier philosophical term, quiddity, for the basic essence of something that literally makes it what it is — quid being the Latin for ‘what’.”
Quiddity means: “Whatever makes something the type that it is: essence.” – Merriam-Webster
So while quiddity is the “whatness” of something, haecceity is its “thisness”. Quiddity refers to its universality and haecceity to its particularity (its individuation).
Wikipedia says,
“Haecceity vs. quiddity: Haecceity may be defined in some dictionaries as simply the ‘essence’ of a thing, or as a simple synonym for quiddity or hypokeimenon. However, in proper philosophical usage these terms have not only distinct but opposite meanings. Whereas haecceity refers to aspects of a thing that make it a particular thing, quiddity refers to the universal qualities of a thing, its ‘whatness’, or the aspects of a thing it may share with other things and by which it may form part of a genus of things.”
Monads have the same quiddity, but different haecceity and aseity. Rebhahn has made a fallacious argument based on quiddity. Since all monads have the same quiddity, he has concluded that they are all the same thing, hence there is only one cosmic mind (one monad). In fact, every monad has unique haecceity and aseity, hence why they are fully individuated and NEVER constitute any kind of ontological oneness.
In any case, how COULD one monad generate, by dissociation, other monads? Monads CANNOT BE MADE. That’s a fundamental violation of the law of conservation of energy. Don’t ask Rebhahn. He has no answers. He gets everything WRONG.
Leibniz, in his published work, spoke of a perfect, all-powerful Creator God monad who created LESSER, imperfect monads. They are not equal partners in any sense. Rebhahn is getting extremely close to that same position of a CREATOR GOD making all other minds, hence they are fully dependent on him. As ever, Rebhahn is drawn to Christian thinking! Leibniz’s work in this regard was designed to rationally defend the Christian God. Of course, Leibniz had no interest in actual Christianity. In his unpublished work, he worked with two ideas:
- a multitude of imperfect, equal monads – what would that look like? and
- a multitude of perfect, equal monads – what would that look like? This of course corresponds to a Hive God, and it is exactly what exists at ZERO ENTROPY (the eternal and necessary state of BEING). The first option is exactly what exists in any entropic situation (the temporal and contingent state of BECOMING).
Reality is all about a permanent state (Being) generating, mathematically, a cycling impermanent state (Becoming). The non-repeating eternal and necessary order contains the ever-repeating temporal and contingent order. That’s existence right there. We are Becomings WITHIN Being. We are mortals WITHIN immortal gods!
Can you imagine Hyperianism ever explaining such things to the Hyperian dweebs? What a joke. Hyperians are the confederacy of dunces. They swallow Rebhahn’s crap as easily as he swallows swords, and other things. These Hyperians have zero interest in ideas, in rational arguments, in truth. They are Hyperians purely because they are extreme feeling types and are in love with Rebhahn. They will reject 100% of what we have said here. Not because they can give any arguments against it, but because it contradicts what their God says, and they will never accept that. You know, they are exactly like ABRAHAMISTS. Absolute faith in their God (Rebhahn) is what motivates them. They have ZERO interest in reason and logic.
Duns Scotus, the philosopher who introduced the concept of haecceity, said,
“Because there is among beings something indivisible into subjective parts — that is, such that it is formally incompatible for it to be divided into several parts each of which is it — the question is not what it is by which such a division is formally incompatible with it (because it is formally incompatible by incompatibility), but rather what it is by which, as by a proximate and intrinsic foundation, this incompatibility is in it. Therefore, the sense of the questions on this topic [viz. of individuation] is: What is it in [e.g.] this stone, by which as by a proximate foundation it is absolutely incompatible with the stone for it to be divided into several parts each of which is this stone, the kind of division that is proper to a universal whole as divided into its subjective parts?”
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says,
“Individuation and the identity of indiscernibles … The possible existence of such non-qualitative properties as explanations of numerical distinction between substances can perhaps be made plausible by considering a modern equivalent to the medieval thought-experiment about angels, namely, the famous counterexample to the identity of indiscernibles suggested by Max Black. A wants to defend the principle, and B attack it, and B does so by proposing the following case: ‘Isn’t it logically possible that the universe should have contained nothing but two exactly similar spheres? We might suppose that each was made of chemically pure iron, had a diameter of one mile, that they had the same temperature, color, and so on, and that nothing else existed. Then every quality and relational characteristic of the one would also be a property of the other. Now if what I am describing is logically possible, it is not impossible for two things to have all their properties in common. This seems to me to refute the principle.”
We would prefer to call haecceity the quality of being unique. It’s not a quality per se. You can’t point to it, yet you ARE in some way pointing to it when you point to any individual things.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says,
“First proposed by John Duns Scotus (1266–1308), a haecceity is a non-qualitative property responsible for a substance’s individuation and identity. As understood by Scotus, a haecceity is not a bare particular underlying qualities. It is, rather, a non-qualitative property of a substance or thing: it is a ‘thisness’ (a haecceitas, from the Latin haec, meaning ‘this’) as opposed to a ‘whatness’ (a quidditas, from the Latin quid, meaning ‘what’) – akin to what are sometimes known in recent philosophy as ‘suchnesses.’ The origins of the proposal have both philosophical and theological components. In 1277, the Bishop of Paris, Stephen Tempier, condemned the view that there could not be more than one angel in a given species. The condemned view was held by Christian Aristotelians in the thirteenth century – pre-eminently, Thomas Aquinas – and originated in the claim that intra-specific individuation is in some sense through different lumps of matter. As immaterial substances, angels cannot be individuated in this way. And in any case, as immaterial and non-spatial, angels seem to be good candidates for possibly lacking any kind of qualitative difference. Hence, as it is possible that two angels be exact replicas of each other, angels are good cases for testing intuitions related to the identity of indiscernibles, and thus the question of individuation.”
Some people are baffled by why we talk about angels a lot. The reason is simple. Angels were conceived as immaterial intelligences … and that’s exactly what monads are! To discuss angels is to discuss monads! But angels are much more familiar to people than monads, and more likely to attract their attention.
Thomas Aquinas said that all humans partook of the Form “Human” (that’s what they all had in common). They were individuated via their material bodies, which made them particular humans. Since angels did not have material bodies, they could not be individuated by that means. If they all partook of the Form “Angel”, they would all be identical. So, Aquinas individuated them by making each angel a unique species. Every individual angel had its own Form, shared by no other. Duns Scotus though this was ridiculous. By giving every angel a “thisness” (haecceity), he individuated them by that means rather than giving all angels different Forms (in which case how could they even all be considered angels? … they had no Form in common!)
It’s bizarre that haecceity was not regarded as a Form in itself – the Form of uniqueness. It’s what makes things that share all other Forms unique, particular, individuated – it separates rather than unites.
Haecceity is a thing’s fingerprint, uniquely identifying it. Nothing else can have your haecceity.
It’s a disgrace when Rebhahn, a person with no qualifications who hasn’t even been to school, pretends he has sophisticated philosophical knowledge and understanding. He has a Philosophy 101 and Illuminism 101 knowledge and understanding. You need enormously more than that if you want to be a contributor to the advancement of ontological mathematics. You need to be in the Philosophy 909 and Illuminism 909 game. If you have only read a few books of philosophy and a few Illuminist books – sorry, but you’re not going to be one of those advancing this subject. You will have a different contribution to make. Rebhahn started to imagine that he could actually do original work on ontological mathematics. How delusional can you get? 100% of what Rebhahn says where he is not paraphrasing our work is WRONG and FALSE. He doesn’t understand the subject at all. His efforts are comically bad, but no one in Hyperianism can ever say to him, “What you are saying is total nonsense!”
Hyperianism is not a “knowledge system”. It’s a RELIGION. It’s a faith system. No one is EVER allowed to challenge Rebhahn. He pontificates and every Hyperian BELIEVES and says he’s a genius and sends him loads of money to support him. In fact, he’s a fucking moron who would be devoured in any university anywhere – and that’s why he would never dare go to one! Hyperianism is totally unintellectual and anti-intellectual. It’s all about people “listening at the feet of the Ascended Master”. It’s absolutely verboten for anyone to say in a deadstream, “I think you’ve got that totally wrong!” Rebhahn would instantly cease to be GOD!
Isn’t it scandalous that this cretin Rebhahn gets to spout garbage about ontological mathematics, and all his Hyperian dummies suck it up while he’s telling them TOTALLY FALSE information about the true nature of reality. He’s spouting Schopenhauer’s philosophy (very badly), and that of Bernardo Kastrup, an advocate of Schopenhauer’s philosophy (and definitely not a rationalist Leibnizian or Hegelian). It has no connection at all to real ontological mathematics.
Rebhahn is just a pedestrian Woke New Ager preaching Universal, Unitary Consciousness. He’s practically a Buddhist – although he’s far too dumb to realize it. It’s well worth knowing that his No. 1 confidante – Mad Susan Bitchell – was a convinced Buddhist before becoming Hyperian. She was NEVER an Illuminist and in fact hated Illuminism because we regarded Buddhism as a total joke, as just spiritual materialism and religious nihilism.
All Rebhahn does is preach that atman and Braham (“God”) are really one (there is truly only ONE MIND). Alternatively, he preaches anatman (non-self) and Cosmic Consciousness (non-dual fundamental reality).
He is constantly telling his worshipers total crap and they all lack the intelligence and integrity to challenge him, and thus just swallow all of his inept, embarrassing, Woke drivel.
Hyperianism will soon be agreeing with nondualism. Wikipedia says,
“Nondualism, also called nonduality and nondual awareness, is a fuzzy concept originating in Indian philosophy and religion for which many definitions can be found, including: nondual awareness, the nonduality of seer and seen or nondifference of subject and object; the identity of conventional phenomena and ultimate reality, or the ‘nonduality of duality and nonduality’; metaphysical monism, the nonplurality of the world and ‘the interconnection of all things.’ It may also refer to a negation of dualistic thinking; and to the mystical unity with God or with Ultimate reality. … The English term is derived from Sanskrit terms such as ‘advaita’, ‘not-two’ or ‘one without a second,’ which in various Hindu philosophies refers to the identity of Atman and Brahman; and Advaya, also meaning ‘not two,’ but referring to various Buddhist ideas such as the identity of conventional and ultimate reality. In Indian philosophy, these terms refer to several, related strands of thought, and there is no single definition for the English word ‘nonduality’. According to David Loy, it is best to speak of various ‘nondualities’ or theories of nonduality. … The term non-duality can also be used to describe an experience of ‘nondual awareness’, also called ‘pure awareness’ or ‘pure consciousness’ and the ‘non-difference of subject and object,’ is self-luminous awareness or witness-consciousness, a ‘primordial, natural awareness’ which is described as the essence of being, ‘centerless’ and without dichotomies. Indian ideas of nondual awareness developed in various religious milieus in the 1st millennium BCE. In the Indian traditions, the realization of a primordial consciousness (variously called Purusha or Turiya in Hinduism and parinispanna or luminous mind in Buddhism), witnessing but disengaged from the entanglements of the ordinary mind and samsara, is considered moksha or nirvana, a total release from all suffering and reincarnation.”
Hyperians would totally believe all that mindless shit if Rebhahn told them to believe it … and he soon will!
By the way, here’s what Rebhahn said, “WELL ALL OF US ARE ETERNAL MINDS. WE ARE BEINGS OF FREQUENCIES. WHEN ALL OF US ARE IDENTICAL, WE ARE A SINGLE UNITED MIND. THIS IS BECAUSE BY LEIBNIZ’S LAW, WHEN MULTIPLE THINGS ARE IDENTICAL, THEY ARE ACTUALLY THE SAME THING. WE ARE A SINGLE UNIVERSAL MIND THAT DIVIDED ITSELF INTO A MULTIPLICITY OF MINDS BY INTRODUCING DIFFERENCE.”
How the fuck can we, individually, be “eternal minds” if there is actually only ONE MIND? Even that ONE MIND isn’t eternal if it can miraculously divide itself into a temporal and contingent multiplicity of different minds, hence ceases to be an ontological unity and instead becomes an ontological plurality. Rebhahn just states one fallacy after another. It’s ludicrous and pathetic, and exactly what you would expect from a sword swallower who has never been to university and is totally clueless about philosophy.
Stupid people think Rebhahn is saying something profound and meaningful. If fact, he’s spouting meaningless and absolutely fallacious Woke cosmic consciousness rhetoric, of the sort lapped up by New Agers and Buddhists.
Nietzsche said,
“Mystical explanations are thought to be deep; the truth is that they are not even shallow.”
Indeed! That’s Hyperianism in a nutshell. It’s just a bunch of weird women and gay men listening to a freakish androgynous man with whom they are in love, and unquestioningly believing his ludicrous Woke mysticism. Rebhahn is EVERYTHING to which we are opposed, the absolute enemy of rationalism and ontological mathematics and the PSR.
Leibniz’s law has absolutely nothing to do with inherently different things becoming inherently the same thing at some magical point, to satisfy the mystical crap of conmen like Corey Rebhahn. To see the sheer absurdity of this argument, consider eight billion humans becoming one human! As if! Eight billion bodies cannot become one body by any process, and eight billion minds cannot become one mind by any process. What a total insult it is to people’s intelligence for Rebhahn to spout this drivel. You can NEVER be anyone else’s mind. You are always, uniquely, your own mind. No one can ever be inside YOUR thoughts. That idea is INSANE. It means that Rebhahn has no understanding of the irreducibility of subjective experience.
Rebhahn doesn’t understand Leibniz’s law, he doesn’t understand the PSR, he doesn’t understand Euler’s formula, he doesn’t understand ontological mathematics, he doesn’t understand Being and Becoming, he doesn’t understand universals and particulars, he doesn’t understand the eternal and necessary and the temporal and contingent, and he has no clue about monads. In fact, he doesn’t understand ANYTHING.
You know what’s horrific? It’s the fact that no one in Hyperianism would EVER ask Rebhahn to attempt to rebut our arguments. He couldn’t, of course, and all of his authority would evaporate if he tried. So, everyone in the cult knows never to ask the cult leader to do anything like that. They have no interest in the truth, only in the preservation of their cult and cult leader. They know what NOT to ask. They must NEVER ask the cult leader anything difficult, anything that challenges him. Their No. 1 task in life is to maintain the cult, and give unlimited narcissistic supply to the cult leader. They have no other function in life. True knowledge is USELESS to these people.
Tonight’s another deadstream – another performance of the mad circus act. The farce gets even more farcical. And, as ever, watch out for the non-appearance of Filanthrowpissed.
DELETE HYPERIANISM