BLOWING THE WHISTLE ON THE DANGEROUS CULT OF HYPERIANISM
• FROM THE CITIZEN JOURNALISTS OF THE AC •
As everyone knows, we have been rubbishing Corey Rebhahn’s “One and Many” ontological claims for months. Corey Rebhahn (Morgue Official) has been reading all of our demolitions of his position and, incredibly, has desperately tried to steal some of our arguments to shore up his own stance and make it less ridiculous. But it has actually become even more preposterous.
Rebhahn, like all conmen, believes he can just Word Salad his way out of his problems, but he made the absolutely fatal error of relying on a highly technical piece of philosophy – Leibniz’s law – to substantiate his position. Once you have made a 100% technical error, there is no way back. You can’t used Word Salad to make the problem vanish. The error is foundational. Of course, though, Rebhahn is running a cult and his cult slaves are invested in him, not in Leibniz’s law, not in the Truth. So, they don’t mind Rebhahn lying through his teeth to them and stating technical fallacy after technical fallacy.
Rebhahn’s cult slaves are in Hyperianism because of everything Rebhahn represents for them. They’re not Hyperians because they are philosophers, mathematicians and scientists seeking the truth of existence. They are Hyperian because they are queer and Corey Rebhahn is queer and Corey Rebhahn is telling a story about why everyone should be nice to queer people.
Rebhahn’s basic game is to claim that God is queer and we are all part of God and so we are all queer too! Rebhahn’s signature statement is that “Unity/Identity” (God) “introduces DIFFERENCE” and thereby “explores diversity, multiplicity, particularization.” And the idea is that the Queer God is maximally exploring his diversity (queerness). This exploration of queerness is asserted to be the ENTIRE POINT OF EXISTENCE. So, terms such as “sameness” “convergence”, “conformity”, “uniformity” are all demonized in Hyperianism because they are not words that endorse queerness, extreme individualism, extreme individualistic self-expression, extreme diversity.
The Queer God wants nothing to do with sameness. His queerness is expressed through exploring difference, the MAXIMUM amount of difference … maximum queerness. And, according to Rebhahn, if you adopt what he calls the “Absolute Perspective” – the “Analog-All” – then you will understand that the No.1 task of humanity is to become maximally diverse and queer and different and not be alarmed at all by that – in fact it’s the cause of total celebration and joy – because from this “Absolute” perspective we are all actually a “Unity/Identity”, and, so the “logic” goes, this Unity/Identity should not find its own queerness repulsive. Its whole task is to explore its queerness, its difference … the opposite of its unity/identity (sameness) … and, supposedly, it rejoices in being as diverse as it can possibly contrive.
Now this whole Hyperian spiel is nonsense on stilts but you can see for yourself that it would be extremely appealing to queer people. They love it! They are being told that their queerness is not something to be ashamed of and something to be afraid of – but is actually metaphysically mandated and is the entire meaning of life. The queerer you are, the closer you are to God – the QUEER GOD.
Now, every queer person is acutely aware that the world is emphatically NOT queer – but Rebhahn characterizes this as denoting that the world is in in a very primitive state (“survival mode”). The Hyperian shtick is that Hyperians are the advance guard of a New Humanity, an Androgynous Humanity, and that they are “hyperaware World Shapers”. The Hyperians, via the “Absolute” perspective, understand what reality really is and all they have to do is “raise human consciousness” so that everyone sees that God is queer and trying to maximize his diversity (queerness). Once everyone realizes the true queer nature of reality – all about exploring difference – then all discrimination will vanish and all queer people will be accepted, respected and celebrated.
Kumbaya!
This is the Woke wet dream. Wokeness itself is all about diversity (queerness) and Hyperianism is simply apex Wokeness, and an attempt to claim that Wake ideology is actually a reflection of the operations of reality.
“God” = “Unity/Identity” is bored by his sameness, or lost in loneliness, or is in some way extremely dissatisfied with his state and the “cure” is to be the opposite of all that. So, if God is “lonely” (a solipsistic unity) then he must convert himself into the maximum multiplicity so that he has the maximum company. Equally, if God is “bored”, he must convert himself into the maximally diverse show – by which he could never be bored. Hyperianism claims that whatever issues God has in his unity/identity, the solution lies in “introducing difference” and “exploring diversity and multiplicity and particularization”. And everyone, if they were conscious enough and had attained “hyperawareness” would see that QUEERNESS is the answer to all of God’s problems (which all revolve around sameness, the opposite of difference). Everything will be wonderful if only people comprehend the true nature of queer reality and not only embrace queer people – as “reflections” of themselves – but also seek to maximize their own queerness. And they can start to do this via the Metaverse, where they can adopt any avatar they like – male, female, binary, non-binary, normal gender, transgender … WHATEVER. So, the Metaverse is actually seen by the Queer Gnostics (Hyperians) as the means to get people used to “exploring their diversity” (queerness).
All of us, especially CHILDREN (who are already being exposed to drag queens at school in the normal world to desensitize them to queerness and induct them into the Queer Cult) are to be encouraged – via the diversity of avatars available to us in the Metaverse – to subvert our non-diverse identity and “have fun” exploring as many queer avatars and perspectives as possible. This is NEW TERRA! This is Corey Rebhahn’s orgasmic vision where the whole world worships him as the Queer Messiah who saved the world and humanity by getting everyone to explore their queerness and become … just like Corey Rebhahn! He is the apex queer man, and thus the most enlightened human, closest to the Queer God … more of less the Non-Binary child of the Queer God (the Woke Jesus!). When everyone is queer, they will worship the queer man who opened their eyes to the “joys” of queerness, to the wonders of difference and diversity and freedom from “straight” identities.
Seriously, this is the whole Hyperian narrative. You know it. You’ve all heard it yourself. All we have done is make the implicit agenda – turning the world QUEER – explicit. What Rebhahn calls “hyperawareness” is basically the maximally queer point of view. All of the problems of the human race will be solved once straight people see the queer as “reflections” of themselves – once they grasp that we are all a Unity/Identity and the queer are us … so we should never dislike them or do harm to them – because that would be as stupid as disliking or harming ourselves!
The whole thing is about QUEERING THE WORLD. “Queer Gnosis” is Hyperian “hyperawareness”. The basic notion is that the human race will be wonderful once everyone sees that the queer are the master race, and everyone will want to be just like them, to find their own Inner Queer.
Stop laughing. This is the insane story Rebhahn is telling his Hyperian cultists and since they are all dysfunctional queer people struggling in the straight world and being disliked and rejected left, right and center, they of course see Hyperia, New Terra, Fantasia, CFDs as their Queer Dream come true where all their problems with the straight world vanish. They love this vision. Rebhahn is “lovebombing” them by constantly repeating this fantasy to them, and now they are totally in love with him as their Queer Messiah and have totally bought into his fantasy (it’s now a shared fantasy – a “CFD”, if you like!). They will never betray their queer Messiah. They will never turn against him. They will support him against all his enemies. They will give him all their money and unconditionally defend him. We all know how it goes. We have all seen for the last nine months how these insane cult slaves behave. Not one of these queer maniacs gives a fuck that Rebhahn swatted three non-queer people in real life. Serves them right, they say. They have no morality. They have no fellow feeling with straight people. They will defend the queer come what may, without questions. And that’s why an astonishing persecution of queer people is inevitable. And they brought it on themselves by their constant contempt and hatred for straightness and their determination to render straightness a pathological state in need of being cured via “raised consciousness”. Hyperianism is a staggeringly dangerous ideology that, if it ever took off (it won’t), would get its members killed by the mainstream world. It would be seen for exactly what it is – an outright assault on normality, the mainstream, straightness. “Say NO to Normality”, Rebhahn says. He walked behind the coffin of normality.
“Normality is dead and we shall bury it,” says the Queer Messiah Corey Rebhahn. He, and his Hyperian cult slaves, have declared war in the world, and it will of course declare war back! Hyperianism is absolutely doomed in every possible way.
Those of us who live in the real world know that Hyperianism is an insane fantasy led by an insane malignant narcissist and psychopath – Corey Rebhahn. Hyperianism will not end well. That’s 100% certain.
Anyway, the astounding thing about this Hyperian fable for queer fanatics is that it claims to be grounded in the ultimate nature of reality. It relies on a very specific philosophical claim regarding a very specific philosophical instrument – LEIBNIZ’S LAW.
Rebhahn believed that he was a genius when he stumbled upon Leibniz’s law … because the completely fallacious way in which he interpreted Leibniz’s law seemed to be the EXACT way to vindicate the Woke, Queer dream that we are all “One and Many” and so no one should ever attack the queer because … they are us! Rebhahn really did now think he was the Woke Messiah. He thought he had made a stupendous philosophical breakthrough (on a par with his other claim that he personally solved the greatest philosophical problem of all time (!)) and … stop sniggering … made a decisive change to ONTOLOGICAL MATHEMATICS (making him not only the greatest philosopher of all time but also the greatest ontological mathematician of all time – hee hee!). Seriously, everyone, this is exactly the sort of madness produced by the pathology of malignant narcissism. This is grandiosity and self-delusion gone insane. This is a LUNATIC. Corey Rebhahn is a hair dresser and sword swallower with no qualifications telling the cult slaves of his Hyperian cult that he is the most intelligent human of all time and the Woke Messiah … and they are agreeing with him. Rebhahn is receiving PERFECT narcissistic supply from his cult slaves. He has manipulated them into seeing him exactly as he wants to be seen – as a PERFECT being, as GOD! He even says he doesn’t identify as human, and frequently calls himself God!
So, this is why it’s so crucial to annihilate Rebhahn’s totally fallacious and demented claims regarding Leibniz’s law. To destroy Rebhahn’s fallacies concerning Leibniz’s law is to destroy Hyperianism since it is now predicated on Rebhahn’s totally false understanding of Leibniz’s law.
Let’s get going. On his last deadstream, Porgy said,
“The flower of life represents uniqueness [being Many] and identity [being One].” So, this is Rebhahn’s ontological One and Many nonsense. The absurd claim is that we are both One Mind (“unity/identity”) and many individual minds (“unique” minds).
Porgy said,
“Imagine that each circle represents a single eternal mind. … What makes these circles unique? Their location. You can tell one circle apart from another circle because it has a different location. If these circles did not have a unique location, you wouldn’t be able to tell them apart. If all the circles had the same location, let’s say at the center, the origin, it would LOOK LIKE a single circle because there would be no unique identifier to tell one circle apart from another.”
This is an extraordinary claim. Rebhahn is getting totally confused between noumena and phenomena. Consider each circle to be a thing in itself (which it is, of course). Imagine all the circles (things in themselves) spread out, and imagine all the circles (things in themselves) laid over each other. Well, the fact that you have arranged the circles (things in themselves) in a different way does not in any way change their status as things in themselves (ontologies). But look at what Rebhahn says … he makes a PHENOMENAL claim. He talks about the APPEARANCE of the circles, not their essence, their ontology. He says that many circles stacked on top of each other LOOK LIKE one circle. Big fucking deal. This has nothing to do with their essence. Appearances are very deceiving! Rebhahn says the circles now have “no unique identifier to tell one circle apart from another”. But of course they ALWAYS have a unique identifier – their essence, their ontology, their status as unique thing in itself. The fact that a perspective has been artificially produced to create the phenomenal appearance of just one circle does not of course in any way mean that the analysis of the circles as things in themselves has changed. Yet the idiot Corey Rebhahn believes that EVERYTHING CHANGES because of this specific phenomenal viewpoint.
Listen to this. It’s MIND-BOGGLINGLY DUMB! Porgy said, “When different things all share the same property, they are FUNCTIONALLY identical. And this is known as Leibniz’s law.”
It isn’t!
So, there you go. Rebhahn is applying Leibniz’s law to the phenomenal appearance of circles and not to their ontology, their essence, their status as things in themselves, their noumenality. Yet Leibniz’s law is specifically about analytic ontology. Remember the entry from Stanford University that we quoted yesterday:
“The Identity of Indiscernibles is a principle of analytic ontology first explicitly formulated by Wilhelm Gottfried Leibniz in his Discourse on Metaphysics, Section 9 (Loemker 1969: 308). It states that no two distinct things exactly resemble each other.”
So, different “things in themselves” are by that very fact distinct, hence can NEVER exactly resemble each other. Their unique thing-in-itself-ness is perfectly sufficient to permanently distinguish them from other things-in-themselves. Phenomenal appearance is 100% irrelevant. It has nothing to do with ontology, only with perception. Leibniz’s law cannot be invoked regarding different things that LOOK the same. That’s nothing to do with their ontological difference. Only an insane person would say that because they can’t tell the difference between identical twins – they LOOK identical – then, by LEIBNIZ’S LAW, they are the same person. Yet that is precisely what Rebhahn is claiming.
Imagine a hundred circles in a “flower of life” pattern. We can regard these circles as perfect clones of each other – even more perfect than identical twins! Now exactly as identical twins are ontologically different, so are the 100 cloned circles. It doesn’t matter that they resemble each other perfectly and no one can tell any difference. Big deal. It doesn’t matter that you can stack them all on top of each other and hide 99 of the circles under the top, visible circle. Big deal. You have not changed the ontology of the situation AT ALL. You started with one hundred circles and you still have one hundred circles. Each circle has “external object constancy”. The circles don’t disappear. All of the “hidden” 99 circles have exactly the same ontology as before. How could it change? It’s IMPOSSIBLE for their ontology to change. You don’t alter the ontology of 99 circles by perceptually hiding them under one circle so that it looks like there is only one circle. That’s a phenomenal MISPERCEPTION. There are 100 circles exactly as before, but only one circle is now visible. Well, you deliberately arranged them to create that illusion. Big deal. This has NOTHING to do with Leibniz’s law. All of the circles are ALWAYS completely distinct because they are DIFFERENT CIRCLES.
But look at what Porgy says:
“And Leibniz’s law basically says when multiple things are identical they are actually one thing.”
It doesn’t! Look it up! Literally google it! Do your fucking research.
Do you see the astonishing fallacy? The multiple circles are NOT identical. They are exactly what they always were: one hundred different circles. All that has happened is that they have been placed on top of each other so that 99 of them cannot be seen, whereas they could be seen before, in the spread-out flower of life. The ontology of the 100 circles hasn’t altered in the slightest. The only thing that has changed is their appearance to an external viewer. Before, the external viewer could see one hundred circles. Now, they can see only one. Well, what would YOU conclude? Imagine that someone literally told you that they took the hundred circles and stacked them on top of each other, so that you could only see the topmost circle now. In what way would you ever be tempted to say, “Hold on, I can only see one circle now … so all the other circles have vanished into thin air!” There is one group of people who might say something insane like that – AUTISTICS! Given what Rebhahn says about Leibniz’s law, it’s extremely likely that he is autistic. And that would certainly explain a hell of a lot about his very strange, ritualistic behavior and detachment from reality and extraordinary lack of empathy. According to Sam Vaknin, there is a very close association between autism and malignant narcissism!
Then Rebhahn said,
“Now it’s important to understand that when we say they are one thing, it means they are FUNCTIONALLY one thing.”
This made us laugh out loud! Those who have been reading our demolition of Rebhahn’s idiocy will know that we explicitly highlighted the difference between FUNCTIONAL Unity and ONTOLOGICAL Unity. OUR position concerns the monads (of the HIVE MIND) being in a functional unity at zero entropy. HIS position is about the monads being in an ontological unity (UNITY/IDENTITY) at the end of time. Yet he is trying to switch to OUR position by using the term “functional unity”. This is how fucking deceitful and dishonest this man is. He’s trying to row back from his deranged claim that we are all an ontological unity/identity and yet he’s so spectacularly stupid that he doesn’t realize that the very act of invoking Leibniz’s law commits him to ontological unity. We explicitly DID NOT reference Leibniz’s law regarding the monadic Hive Mind since the monads are definitionally separate ontologies (substances) and so Leibniz’s law (identity of indiscernibles) cannot possibly apply. Monads are ALWAYS discernible (distinct). This is what we mean by Rebhahn digging his own hole deeper. He’s desperately trying to escape from the “ontological unity” fallacy that he fell into as soon as he cited Leibniz’s law – and yet he’s still explicitly referencing Leibniz’s law. His slimy, laughable game now – an act of total INSANITY – is to try to use his Word Salad to convince his cult slaves that Leibniz’s law concerns functional unity and not ontological unity. But literally anyone can look up Leibniz’s law and see the truth for themselves. If there is no discernible difference between “two” things across all eternity and regarding ALL of their properties, then, by Leibniz’s law, they are one thing, the same thing. They are not, and never were, “two”. That was a mislabeling. One thing was wrongly being referenced under two different names, e.g., Venus (one thing) is often called the “Morning Star” and also the “Evening Star”. This is a perceptual error. It has nothing to do with the ontology of Venus. Likewise, if you stack up all the circles in the flower of life and claim that there is only one circle – and Rebhahn has made this precise claim! – then you are committing the opposite perceptual error of regarding different things as the same thing. Imagine that the Morning Star and Evening Star were actually different stars and someone kept calling them by one name – Venus! Rebhahn is calling different circles the same circle because he has stacked them on top of each other. Sheez! This is a cretin really pushing the boat out on his cretinism!
Rebhahn said,
“If the minds did not have a unique identifier, it would be AS IF they were one mind.”
Note that term “AS IF“. Rebhahn is trying to claim that Leibniz’s law applies to things with no perceptual difference between them. If they look the same then, by Leibniz’s law (according to Rebhahn), they ARE the same! Of course, Leibniz’s law has nothing to do with perception. It is about ontological reality! If two monads are ontologically different then they are ALWAYS ontologically different and are never in any sense the SAME (a unity/identity). But can you see how utterly shameless Rebhahn is. Rather than admit that he got it 100% wrong regarding Leibniz’s law, he is trying to invent a new version of Leibniz’s law where it LOOKS AS IF HE IS RIGHT. This is how desperate he is, and how fundamentally dishonest.
By the way, every mind does of course have a unique identifier – its ontology, its substance, its essence, its thing-itself-ness, its haecceity and aseity. Rebhahn claimed that the one hundred stacked circles of the flower of life all had the same location and so no difference could be located between them, so they were all the “same”. This is totally insane. Every circle may well have the exact same x-y coordinates, but each circle has its own position in the stack (its z coordinate, if you will). To pick out a specific circle, you simply state its z coordinate, e.g. you choose the circle in the stack at position 33. That serves perfectly as its unique identifier. Now, is Rebhahn so fucking dumb that he doesn’t grasp these simple considerations, or is he deliberately LYING to his cult slaves so that he doesn’t have to confess that he’s 100% wrong and made a cult-destroying error when he invoked Leibniz’s law to serve as the foundation of the One and Many claim that Rebhahn uses to define Hyperianism.
Now listen to what Rebhahn says next. It gets funnier!
Rebhahn stated,
“Now, are they ACTUALLY One Mind? NO.”
This is his attempt to bail out of his previous claim that there was a single ontological universal mind. He was insistent that we really all became one mind … via Leibniz’s law!!! Because if we don’t ACTUALLY become One Mind then that means that we are a HIVE MIND (you can use whatever term you like other than “HIVE” but you know what is signified … there are ALWAYS Many Minds and NEVER One Mind). But Rebhahn HATES the term Hive Mind and explicitly CONDEMNED US for using that term. Let’s remind you of what he said:
“You know I’ve been thinking, I have contributed elements to OM the authors don’t discuss. I’m wondering if this freaked them out because they’d have to credit me and so they are trying to destroy my credibility and get me away from OM. I believe elements they don’t discuss because it shows an intrinsic unity between all of us and it’s hard to preach hate when that is foundational to existence I think some elements I’ve developed they just haven’t worked out yet. You’ll notice their ‘unity’ is always in terms of hives or swarms, which reflects mindless sameness.”
Rebhahn contributed fuck all to OM. He committed a staggering fallacy by invoking Leibniz’s law. That was the basis of his remark that there is an “intrinsic unity”. He says we don’t “discuss it”. Er, that’s because there is no such things as an “intrinsic unity” (i.e. ontological unity). There is a functional unity of DIFFERENT THINGS, i.e. there is a HIVE MIND of monads!
But look even more closely at what this moron says. He claims that if you DON’T refer to an “intrinsic unity” then this leaves the door open to preaching HATE! So, Rebhahn believes that only Ontological Unity can avoid a system of hate, and he believes that a Hive Mind WOULD support a system of hate – so he basically says that we assert a Hive Mind because we want to preach hate and we ignore an “intrinsic unity” because then we could not logically hate on him! So, do you see how it is CRITICAL to Rebhahn’s Woke ideology that we are all really an ONTOLOGICAL One Mind and definitely not a HIVE MIND! And that’s why he creamed himself when he thought that Leibniz’s law delivered exactly this scenario – an intrinsic unity and NOT a permanent Hive Mind. And he thought he could legitimately call himself an ont math researcher because of this … in fact, he believed that he had revolutionized the whole subject. Of course, he was 100% WRONG. Duh!
And let’s not forget his other demented statement:
“It’s also insane to me the argument that somehow OM implies genocide, a gender binary…”
Don’t ask us to explain why (it’s inexplicable … total lunacy!), but somehow Rebhahn believes that the Hive Mind goes with GENOCIDE (which somehow goes with a gender binary!) while the ontological One Mind goes with a gender spectrum and no genocide. Rebhahn LITERALLY states that anyone who supports two genders – men and women – is GENOCIDAL towards non-binaries!!!! Seriously. Over and over again, he accused ex-Hyperians who supported us of being embarked on genocide. That’s how insanely invested Rebhahn is in this One Mind nonsense. He believes that it’s the only way to avoid the GENOCIDE of people like him! This person is literally a madman. He is so profoundly emotionally invested in the One Mind spiel that he can’t get out. And, of course, it’s because Rebhahn – the ridiculous, hysterical queer queen completely off the range – refers to “genocide” that he calls all of his enemies NAZIS. In his insane mind, Rebhahn believes that he’s reaching perfectly reasoned positions, when in reality he is clinically delusional and ought to be confined in a mental asylum for his own safety and that of others.
Rebhahn said on his last deadstream,
“Now, are they ACTUALLY One Mind? NO. They are functionally One Mind with the potentiality for multiplicity and that’s what’s very important because they have the potentiality to differentiate.”
So, are you keeping up? Rebhahn’s Word Salad is coming thick and fast! He is now EXPLICITLY denying there is an ontological One Mind – even though that was the entire basis of his “intrinsic unity” claim and his deranged attack on the “Nazi, genocidal, binary” Hive Mind!!! – and he is in fact now supporting a functional unity of minds – which is course our Hive Mind position (at zero entropy)! Can you believe the staggering hypocrisy and deceit of this individual? He is trying to come over to our position – the correct one – while defending the rhetoric of his totally false previous position.
Now he is stating that there is a FUNCTIONAL (NOT ONTOLOGICAL!) One Mind. But what is a “functional” One Mind? It MEANS that that you have many different minds in the same functional state. And that’s a fucking HIVE MIND!!! The sole reason why anyone would refer to a functional One Mind would be to distinguish it from an ontological One Mind – yet the ontological One Mind was Rebhahn’s prior position and was the entire reason why he invoked Leibniz’s law, which has no possible connection to a Hive Mind where discernibility between monads is built in!
Rebhahn is now 100% contradicting himself and desperately trying to align with our position, but he can’t because he hanged himself as soon as he mentioned Leibniz’s law, which is all about ontological identity and not about different things being in the same functional state.
As we have just seen, Rebhahn said,
“They are functionally One Mind with the potentiality for multiplicity and that’s what’s very important because they have the potentiality to differentiate.”
Why is this absurd? BECAUSE if minds are intrinsically different and part of a HIVE MIND then they are ALWAYS an actual multiplicity! They are not a “potential” multiplicity. They inherently ARE a multiplicity. Rebhahn says,
“…and that’s what’s very important because they have the potentiality to differentiate.”
But they are ALREADY differentiated!!! It’s crazy to say of actually differentiated things that they have the “potential” to be differentiated. They were never anything other than differentiated. There is no such thing as monads being “potentially” differentiated. It’s an impossible concept. It’s a fallacy and a category error. Monads by definition are differentiated. Remember what Leibniz said:
“Each monad, indeed, must be different from every other monad. For there are never in nature two beings which are exactly alike, and in which it is not possible to find a difference either internal or based on an intrinsic property.”
PRECISELY!
Do you grasp what is going on? Rebhahn is TRYING to use our language regarding functional rather than ontological unity and then he is actually just reverting back to his old language of POTENTIAL differentiation and multiplicity even though the entire point of using the term FUNCTIONAL – NOT ONTOLOGICAL – unity is to express that you are referring to DIFFERENT THINGS being in the same functional state (like ten Rubik’s Cubes all being in the same functionally solved state! – they are different Rubik’s cubes but have the same state … it’s not complicated, folks!)
Is this guy really thick, or just playing Word Salad games to confuse and baffle his cult slaves?
Rebhahn said,
“If they were actually One Mind and nothing else, there would be no capacity for differentiation.”
Well, that’s plain false. Just study Schopenhauer, for example. He posits a noumenal One Mind which phenomenally differentiates via the individuation supplied by space and time.
What is certainly true is that if you had an ontological One Mind – one MONAD – it could not produce any other monads! But you don’t. You have a Hive Mind of intrinsically different monads.
Rebhahn, Mr Word Salad, has, it seems, grasped here that you CANNOT have a One Mind (monad). But if there is no One Mind (monad), there are therefore MANY MINDS – a Hive Mind! A Hive Mind doesn’t have a “capacity for differentiation” … it is intrinsically differentiated!!
What the imbecile Rebhahn would say if he had any intelligence is that monads are in a functional unity at zero entropy (in the eternal and necessary state of BEING) but they have the capacity to, and do, generate a secondary domain of BECOMING … the entropic domain of space, time and matter. But Rebhahn doesn’t understand ANY of these concepts. He never refers to Being and Becoming, zero entropy versus non-zero entropy. He doesn’t understand what the Source (Absolute) is). He fucks up everything.
Rebhahn said,
“This is why you are eternal, an eternal mind.”
Er, if you are an eternal mind then that of course means you are eternally differentiated from all other eternal minds! And that means you are in a Many Minds system – a Hive Mind. You are not a ONE MIND.
Rebhahn said,
“Even when you are in an identity, we are eternal.”
You’re NOT IN AN IDENTITY!!! If you were, that would be an ONTOLOGICAL ONE MIND – by Leibniz’s law!! This is SO FUNNY!
It’s like watching an ape trying to mimic a human and getting it all wrong.
Rebhahn said,
“So this is what is important. At the very beginning of reality, before the Big Bang, there is nothing that differentiates us, meaning that we are functionally One, and identical, but we are still eternal individual minds, but we are still in the state of IDENTITY.”
So many errors!! Our core monadic mode is that of eternal and necessary zero entropy. Our monadic core is in that state RIGHT NOW and can never NOT be in that state … it’s eternally in that state! In that state – the state we are all in!! – we are always ontologically distinct. We are in the same functional state (that defined by ZERO ENTROPY). We are NEVER in the same ontological state! That’s literally impossible … via Leibniz’s law!!!
So, we are ALWAYS differentiated, no matter what. What Rebhahn is failing to grasp is that all monads permanently exist in their BEING mode of zero entropy (they are in exactly the same functional state!) but can generate a secondary mode of Becoming and in that secondary mode (the temporal and contingent mode), they enter FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT (entropic) states!
We are absolutely NEVER in an identical ontological state and that means we are NEVER in any Unity/Identity – the whole basis of Hyperianism! That’s the whole point of using the qualifier “functional”. We can be different things in the same state … for example, you could have ten Rubik’s cubes in the same solved state and no intelligent person would ever say that by Leibniz’s law, these Rubik’s cubes are all the same – a Unity/Identity! They’re not. They are all completely different things. They are emphatically NOT an “IDENTITY“.
It’s obvious that Rebhahn does not actually know what the word “identity” means in Leibniz’s law. It means that if there is no possible way – metaphysically – to find any difference between “two” things then they are not two things, they are one thing. “They” are identical. This is an IDENTITY. It’s about analytic ontology.
Rebhahn would say that two solved Rubik’s cubes are by Leibniz’s law identical and an identity. They are NOT. They are two totally different objects in the same functional state! Remember, Leibniz’s law is about the identity of indiscernibles … if you can’t locate any possible difference between “two” things then they cannot be two things and must in fact be one thing (an identity). You can easily detect the difference between two solved Rubik’s cubes. Just pick them up and one will be in your right hand and the other in your left. You have differentiated them. So they are not an “identity”. An identity is ONE ONLY!
Rebhahn simply failed to grasp what “identity” meant in Leibniz’s law and believed that it could be applied to different things in the same state to say that they were therefore one thing … a Unity/Identity. EPIC FAIL. 100% false. For “two” things to be an identity, they must have 100% of all possible properties in common, especially their ontology, and if they did they would not be two, they would be one. Rebhahn was totally unable to understand this. He didn’t realize that Leibniz was using this law to show that no two monads could EVER be identical. Rebhahn hilariously concluded that ALL monads are in fact identical and constitute a “Unity/Identity” i.e., an ontological Oneness. Then, when he read our demolition of his position, he tried to see if he could backtrack on “ontological unity” and try for “functional unity”. But for things to be in a functional unity they cannot be an identity – because they are clearly ontologically different things in the same state, not the same thing in one ontological state. Rebhahn literally didn’t understand what Leibniz’s law says and imagined it was saying something totally different from what it actually says. He thought it meant that DIFFERENT things could be identical even though they can’t be … because they’re different! Doh!
This is precisely what happens when a non-philosopher with no grasp of philosophy stumbles across technical philosophy. He is bound to fuck it up, and Rebhahn did so spectacularly!
Recall what Rebhahn said:
“…there is nothing that differentiates us, meaning that we are functionally One, and identical…”
That’s like saying there is nothing to differentiate two solved Rubik’s cubes and so they are functionally One … and IDENTICAL. Well they are functionally One in the sense that they are two different objects in the same solved state. What they are not is, by Leibniz’s law, IDENTICAL. If “they” were, they would be ONE Rubik’s cube.
There is no Unity/Identity of Rubik’s cubes. But, as pointed out, Rebhahn simply failed to understand that while we might colloquially (non-philosophically) say they the two Rubik’s cubes are “identical” (by which we mean of course that they show the same solved state), they are certainly not metaphysically identical – which is what Leibniz’s law is about. Remember what we said yesterday:
[The Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy says, “Leibniz’s law: The principle that if one thing is identical with another then anything that is true of the one must be true of another.”] Now, if you can say that one solved Rubik’s cube is HERE and the other is THERE then by that fact alone you have stated something that is true of one but not of the other, and so they are NOT identical. But Rebhahn was using “identical” in the colloquial not philosophical sense and that’s why he completely fucked up! It’s the exact error a non-philosopher would make.
Rebhahn said,
“…but we are still eternal individual minds, but we are still in the state of IDENTITY…”
Do you see that this is impossible … by Leibniz’s law! If we are eternal INDIVIDUAL minds then that MEANS that we cannot be in a state of IDENTITY! Things can be said about any individual that cannot apply to any other individual (such as what they experience subjectively, for example … no mind can EVER experience another mind’s subjectivity.)
But Rebhahn’s ENTIRE spiel is about us being a Unity/Identity – a Oneness – so that he can make his Woke speech that we all reflect each other and should never harm each other because we would only be harming ourselves!
If we are eternal individual minds then we are ipso fact a HIVE MIND and we are definitely NOT a Unity/Identity. So, when Rebhahn admits that we are eternal individual minds then he has destroyed his whole position!! He then tries to resurrect it by making completely false claims regarding Leibniz’s law where he completely fails to understand what “identity” means in that precise principle of analytic ontology. He applies what HE regards as “identity” to a philosophical situation where the definition of “identity” is precise and not colloquial.
Daniel Sollbergercorresponding said,
“The term ‘identity’ has a much longer tradition in Western philosophy than in psychology. However, the philosophical discourse addresses very different meanings of the term, which should be distinguished to avoid misunderstandings, but also to sharpen the key meanings of the term in psychological contexts. … In philosophy ‘identity’ is a predicate, which functions as an identifier, i.e. a marker that distinguishes and differentiates one object from another object. Thus, identity in this sense focuses on the uniqueness of the concerned object. … The problem of identity became a problem of substance throughout the history of philosophy in the efforts to define the principle of individuation. Leibniz in his Discourse on Metaphysics, summarized this principle in a mathematical law: it states that no two distinct things exactly resemble each other; otherwise they would be ‘indiscernibles’ and therefore one thing. In other words: two things are indistinguishable and in fact one single thing, if everything that truly can be said of the one may be said of the other as well. So, they become replaceable salva veritate (truth preserving) in any other possible context and under any other conditions.”
Rebhahn, who simply glanced at Leibniz’s law and did not fathom how precise it was (it’s about supposedly different things ACTUALLY being one thing), thought it could be applied to DIFFERENT THINGS in the same state and thought they could be then be described as an IDENTITY (a Oneness). OOPS! So wrong. Yet the whole of Hyperianism is now literally based on this foundational error! Heeeeeee.
Rebhahn said,
“So we are functionally One even though we are not in a state where, uh… uh … we still have the potentiality for differentiation.”
If we are functionally One and not ontologically One then we are NOT any kind of “identity”. We are a HIVE MIND not a ONE MIND, yet Rebhahn’s whole claim is that we are a ONE MIND and not a HIVE MIND! A Hive Mind, as we have seen, is no use to his Woke ideology … and yet a Hive Mind is exactly what we are! Oops!
So, Rebhahn’s Word Salad game is to try to use the ludicrous phrase “potentiality for differentiation” to bail him out. It can’t, of course. if you are an IDENTITY you have no capacity for differentiation. Even Rebhahn agreed with that, before he contradicted himself a few seconds later. Doh!
Rebhahn said,
“Even when we are in identity, we are eternal.”
We are NEVER in identity. It is specifically forbidden by … LEIBNIZ’S LAW!!!!
Isn’t this so funny?!
The very thing that Rebhahn insanely relies on is the very thing that refutes him!
Rebhahn said,
“We are functionally One and identical but we are still eternal individual minds.”
We are not identical! If we were identical, we would, by Leibniz’s law (!) be an Ontological Unity. The very fact of saying that we are a Functional Unity excludes that possibility. Doh! Only different things can be in functional unity and if they are different things in functional unity they cannot be an “identity” … they cannot be identical, which entails an Ontological Unity!
Rebhahn said,
“We are in the state of identity.”
We never are. It’s literally impossible!
Rebhahn said,
“If you lay all the circles on top of each other, it looks like there’s just one circle. For them, there’s just one circle because there’s nothing to differentiate them.”
There is ALWAYS something to differentiate the circles … their DIFFERENT ONTOLOGY!
Rebhahn said,
“But, by introducing difference, that is giving each circle a unique location.”
You can’t “introduce difference”. The difference ALWAYS existed. That’s what it means to be eternally individual minds. Difference is intrinsic to the system. But the different things at zero entropy can be functionally, but not ontologically, the same. Sameness is intrinsic to the system too because zero entropy is the eternal and necessary state of Being, the state of Universals (not particulars).
All circles always have a unique location. Even if you stack them on top of each other EXACTLY, they still have a different location in the stack. Doh!
Is Rebhahn really this dumb? This is retardation level!
Rebhahn said,
“You can then introduce difference and have a multiplicity of circles.”
You ALWAYS have a multiplicity of monadic minds. It can never be otherwise.
Reality is the operations of a Hive Mind, which exists in a Ground State (Being) of zero entropy.
Rebhahn said,
“So do you see the difference between having a hundred circles all laying over each other and all the circles laid out?”
Do you, you fuckwit? You have a hundred circles no matter how you arrange them and they always have a unique identifier and they never become an “identity”.
Rebhahn said,
“A project with just one actual circle does NOT have the capacity to be differentiated.”
And yet when you refer to an “identity” then there is ONLY ONE CIRCLE. You know … by Leibniz’s law! Ho, ho, ho.
Rebhahn said,
“So, you see, this is how reality works.”
It operates the opposite way! It operates as a permanent Hive Mind where ontological identity is 100% absent. Everything is unique!
Rebhahn said,
“Reality has this functionality of being an IDENTITY or a MULTIPLICITY…”
It doesn’t. It is absolutely NEVER an identity. It is always a multiplicity but this multiplicity can be a functional unity at one exact state – zero entropy.
Rebhahn said,
“…and we are all unique, eternal minds but have the capacity to enter into IDENTITY.”
This is a total fallacy. The very fact of being unique, eternal minds means – BY LEIBNIZ’S LAW – that you can never enter into an IDENTITY, i.e. ontological unity.
Rebhahn said,
“But even when we enter into IDENTITY, we are still eternally individual but we are functionally operating as one.”
Rebhahn literally does not know what “identity” means in terms of Leibniz’s law! Isn’t that fucking amazing? He is citing a law that his whole system is based on … and he never once understood what the law meant. Comedy gold.
Rebhahn said,
“We are functionally One Mind at that point.”
At the eternal and necessary state of zero entropy (Being), we are ALWAYS functionally One Mind. We are NEVER an identity in any state. It’s impossible.
Rebhahn said,
“We are eternally individual and unique.”
Which is why we can never be an identity, as per … you guessed it … Leibniz’s law!
Rebhahn said,
“At the end of time, we can become more and more synchronized and we do a memory wipe.”
We definitely don’t do an ontology wipe!
Here’s the thing. Our base mode is zero entropy and we never have any memories in that state. Memory refers to the domain of Becoming. In the domain of Being, memory is a meaningless concept because nothing ever changes. There is nothing to remember! When the current universe ends, we reach the state of zero entropy and that MEANS that we have no memories. And that means we are ready for a completely fresh start in the new universe.
Rebhahn said,
“At that point we enter into identity, but we are still eternal and individual ones.”
That’s literally a direct contradiction within the same sentence! You cannot be both an identity (Oneness) and a non-identity (Many individuals). But, hey, what does Rebhahn care! His cult slaves will love him just the same. They don’t give a fuck what Rebhahn says. They couldn’t care less what he says about Leibniz’s law. They have zero interest in it … zero interest in, you know, the TRUTH.
Rebhahn said,
“We just all reflect the same properties at that point and thus by Leibniz’s law are functionally One…”
Leibniz’s law has got zero to do with functional unity. It’s purely about ontological unity. Rebhahn literally has zero grasp of what Leibniz’s law is and what it entails.
Rebhahn said,
“…but have the capacity for multiplicity and diversity within that system.”
We are ALWAYS a multiplicity. There’s no such thing as the “capacity for multiplicity and diversity within that system”. The system is a Hive Mind, hence multiple, but rests on a base (Being) of a functional unity at zero entropy.
We shall finish off the rest of Rebhahn’s drivel tomorrow. No doubt he will have more garbage to add in tonight’s deadstream!
More lies, more fallacies, more conning suckers, more ridiculous misunderstandings of philosophy, mathematics and science. It never ends. Rebhahn is totally shameless. He couldn’t care less that he’s telling people total garbage. He will go on lying about Leibniz’s law forever. To repeat what we said yesterday, have you noticed that he never once quotes ANYONE to support his insane misinterpretation of Leibniz’s law? He especially doesn’t quote Leibniz! Surprise surprise.
Leibniz said,
“…it is not possible that there should be two individuals who are exactly the same…”
There is, in other words, no IDENTITY. It’s IMPOSSIBLE.
Tags: Corey Rebhahn, Morgue Official, Morgen Night, Hyperianism, Morgue from Freakshow, Hyperian, Hyperianism Quotes, AMC Freakshow, Inner Star Actualization, Cult of Hyperianism, Hyperian Founder, Morgue Official Real Name, What is Hyperianism, Hyperianism Beliefs, Morgue Official Wikipedia