THE ONE MIND FALLACY PREACHED BY MORGUE OFFICIAL

But the Christian cultists are hardly alone in their game. All cults play the exact same game.

Take the queer cult of Hyperianism led by the queer cult leader Corey Rebhahn (Morgue Official). His game is to prove that God is queer and on an active mission to explore his queerness by “fracturing” himself into countless queer perspectives. So, Hyperianism says that everyone is queer and that queerness is the proper way to be, and if only everyone was “hyperaware” and understood the “absolute perspective … the Analog-All” then everyone would embrace their own queerness and that of everyone else … because it’s the queerness of God … of reality itself.

Seriously, this is what Rebhahn is going for.

Just as Christians will do anything to validate their faith, Hyperians will do anything to validate their queerness. Basically, their “thinking” is carried out to vindicate their queer identity and to explain to the world why everyone should accept, respect and celebrate them. This is the position to which they are emotionally bonded. They have actual contempt for authentic thinking – because it would of course NOT lead to the conclusion they desire and demand.

Cults are always about a fantasy conclusion that reflects the fantasy of each cultist. Rebhahn – a queer sword swallowing hair dresser with no education and no qualifications – says that his queer cult slaves are “hyperaware World Shapers” who, uniquely, have the “Absolute” perspective and thus know that God is queer and “exploring his diversity (queerness)”. It’s actually COMICAL. And PATHETIC. But all the Hyperian cult slaves lap it up because it is of course exactly what they want to believe. And that’s why they’re so fanatically in that cult. It tells them precisely what they want to hear and want to believe, and fully justifies their queer identity. The fact that it is totally false is neither here nor there. The Truth never gets in the way of the lies of a cult leader and his cult slaves.

Corey Rebhahn made a simply mind-boggling error by trying to use formal, technical philosophy to support his deranged queer ideology. He alighted upon Leibniz’s law and immediately disastrously misinterpreted and misunderstood it. He made this monumental error because he WANTED to believe his misunderstanding. His misunderstanding of Leibniz’s law was PERFECT for his claims about queer reality. He didn’t bother to do any research into what Leibniz’s law is really all about, he didn’t consult any thinkers, he didn’t discuss this with anyone at all. He just announced it one fine day – and believed he was thereby a GENIUS. He really did. But, of course, this guy is a grandiose malignant narcissist, so what do you expect? This is what mentally ill people do. They make mad claims and some even have an audience of other mad people willing to believe them and shout HOSANNA.

Leibniz’s law is also known as the identity of indiscernibles. 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, Section 9. 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.”

So, repeat to yourself that Leibniz’s law means that no two things have exactly the same properties and they can NEVER be an “identity” (one thing). When any person who understands Leibniz’s law is using this law, they are explicitly denying that different things can EVER be indiscernible. You will ALWAYS be able to discern a difference, and, if you couldn’t, you would be dealing with one thing and not two or more things.

The signature claim of the queer propagandist Corey Rebhahn – upon which the whole of Hyperianism now rests – is that different things can enter into IDENTITY and be one thing. In particular, Rebhahn claims that all monads can be and are an IDENTITY (a universal “One Mind”). He literally 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.”

Pay very close attention. Rebhahn says unambiguously that we are all identical and we are a single united mind. Since Leibniz’s law is a principle of analytic ontology, this is an explicit ontological claim – that we are all ONTOLOGICALLY One Mind. And pay even more attention to Rebhahn’s justification for this claim:

“This is because, by Leibniz’s Law, when multiple things are identical, they are actually the same thing.”

Leibniz’s law, as we have just seen in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry, explicitly denies that two different things can ever be the same (have exactly the same properties and be a “unity/identity”). This applies especially to monads, the ground of reality. Leibniz himself 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.”

Now, should you believe Leibniz and Stanford regarding Leibniz’s law … or a sword swallowing hairdresser with no education and no qualifications who knows nothing about philosophy? Hmmmm, tricky one … NOT! By the way, have you ever heard Rebhahn addressing these decisive points refuting him? He knows we have mentioned them many times, but he makes no reference to them. Ever wondered why that is? It’s because he KNOWS they DISPROVE him, and that means he will NEVER reference them, and, as we all know, none of his cult slaves will ever ask him to reference the source material that directly contradicts him and proves him to be 100% wrong and stating absolute fallacies.

Rebhahn keeps repeating his lies, errors, misunderstandings, misinterpretations, misrepresentations, category errors and fallacies over and over again, using slightly different Word Salad each time, and not a single one of his cult slaves ever blinks. Or doubts. Or thinks. Their faith in their God is never shaken. Exactly as in Abrahamism.

This is BLIND faith. This is unconditional faith. Rebhahn’s cult slaves REFUSE to challenge him. Because it would end the cult if they did. Their choice is to have a cult based on lies rather than have the truth that destroys their cult by exposing their cult god as a fraud and charlatan … a total fool saying ontologically crazy things.

Rebhahn concludes with:

“We are a single universal mind that divided itself into a multiplicity of minds by introducing difference.”

This is the entire basis of Hyperianism. The claim is made that we are a SINGLE MIND (a “Oneness”) and also, at the same time, MANY MINDS (a multiplicity) – we are One and Many – and this is the PRECISE ontological claim that Rebhahn must arrive at to justify his ideology of a queer God committed to universal Wokeness via diversity.

The “logic” goes that if we are all One then “obviously” (supposedly – but there is in fact nothing obvious about it) we should all accept, respect and celebrate each other “in our diversity” since we are all “reflections” of each other, hence Wokeness. But this “logic” is not logic at all. Schopenhauer with his Will to Exist (Will to Survive), and Nietzsche with his Will to Power both posited a One Mind expressed through “multiplicity” and their conclusion was that such a system would entail permanent strife and suffering. Should we reject these two genius philosophers in favor of, ahem, a queer hair dresser who is totally clueless about serious philosophy and gets everything wrong (exactly as you would expect of someone with zero qualifications in philosophy, and indeed zero qualifications full stop … 1 + 1 = 2).

So, the “identity of indiscernibles” is quite daunting language if you are not familiar with philosophy (and very few people are). We really need to get people very familiar with what this means. Only when you really grasp what Leibniz’s law is can you laugh properly at Rebhahn’s total failure to grasp what the law means.

Let’s go through what some philosophical commentators have said about the identity of indiscernibles.

Francis Bowen said,

“… there are not in the universe two perfectly similar – that is, absolutely indiscernible – beings or objects; if there were, God would act without reason in assigning them to different places and times, as must be done if they are numerically distinct, since two things cannot occupy the same place at the same time. … In the whole realm of nature there cannot be found two portions of matter, TWO MINDS, two events, two anythings, that are perfectly equal and similar. No two leaves of the same tree, no two faces or two characters in however vast a multitude of persons, no two roses on one stalk, no two drops of water, ever are perfect counterparts of each other. This is a fact of experience which confirms and justifies the a priori principle. History – experience – never exactly repeats itself. God puts his individual mark upon each and particular thing and incident… were there a void space or a void time, two equal portions contiguous portions of either would be perfectly similar to each other, and there would be nothing whereby the first could be distinguished from the second, and this, by the law of the Identity of Indiscernibles, is impossible. … No two monads are perfectly alike, this being forbidden by the Law of Indiscernibles [Leibniz’s law]…”

So, Leibniz’s law can be reduced to the assertion that no two things can EVER be identical. It will ALWAYS be impossible for one thing to be perfectly indistinguishable from something else. There will ALWAYS be a way to discern a difference. If “two” things were perfectly indiscernible, they WOULDN’T be two things, they would be one thing! They would be an identity.

Leibniz scholar Roger Woolhouse said,

“The principle of the identity of indiscernibles is a guarantee of variety. The way to obtain as much variety as possible is for there to be an ‘an infinite multitude of simple substances’.”

Note that Leibniz’s law – the principle of the identity of indiscernibles – is about variety, and is about denying that two things can ever be identical (they would not be two things if they were identical; they would be one thing, an identity … that’s the whole point of Leibniz’s law!).

Leibniz explicitly denies that different monads can be in any kind of identity. They will always be discernible. Rebhahn says the exact opposite. Rebhahn claims that ALL MONADS are in fact a Unity/Identity – there is only a single universal mind, and that can ONLY be understood in ONTOLOGICAL TERMS because, by definition, many different ontological minds cannot be an ontological One Mind. Being in the same functional states does not of course make them ONTOLOGICALLY identical, and if they are not ontologically identical they CANNOT be a Unity/Identity – 100% contradicting Rebhahn’s foundational Hyperian claim about “Unity/Identity” exploring Diversity/Multiplicity via “difference”.

Leibniz said,

“…it follows that it is not true that two substances can resemble each other completely and differ only in number [solo numero]…”

This means that you cannot get two (or more) identical monads EVER. Corey Rebhahn, the hairdresser, says the opposite!

Leibniz continued,

“…and that what Saint Thomas asserts on this point about angels or intelligences (that here every individual is a lowest species) is true of all substances…”

Rebhahn hated the fact that we wrote so much about angels. One reason we did so is that they serve as models for monads and a vast philosophical literature exists regarding them. Angels are immaterial intelligences and Thomas Aquinas pointed out that they must all be unique species (substances). Exactly the same is true of monads (immaterial minds/intelligences).

Rebhahn knows nothing about angels and the philosophy of angels – which is the counterpart of the philosophy of monads – and that’s why he makes so many astounding, mind-boggling errors. He literally has no idea what he is talking about. He is totally ignorant of all philosophy concerning immaterial minds. Well, he’s a sword swallower, not a philosopher, so what did you expect?

Leibniz specifically said,

“…a substance is not divisible into two [or a multiplicity]…” This 100% refutes Rebhahn’s claim that a single universal mind can “introduce difference” and “explore its diversity/multiplicity”. No such exists and no such thing can happen. It is literally IMPOSSIBLE.

Leibniz specifically said,

“…one substance cannot be constructed from two…” Rebhahn claims that many monadic minds (substances) can form a “single universal mind”. They cannot. Again, it’s IMPOSSIBLE.

Leibniz specifically said,

“the number of substances does not increase and decrease, though they are often transformed.”

Rebhahn claims that all monadic minds become One and then separate into a multiplicity. Once again, this is IMPOSSIBLE.

So, on what possible basis could anyone reject the precise logical and rational arguments of Leibniz, one of the greatest philosophers and mathematicians of all time, and instead believe the Word Salad of a sword swallowing social media influencer who never even made it to school? I mean … WTF! Yet 100% of the MORONS in Hyperianism have absolute faith in their cult God Corey Rebhahn and sneer at Leibniz, arguably the most intelligent human who ever lived.

Of course, the hairdresser Corey Rebhahn is now claiming to have solved the greatest philosophical problem of all time (formulated by Leibniz – why is there something rather than nothing?) and therefore to be the most intelligent human ever. Seriously, folks, this is exactly what pathological narcissism and insane grandiosity looks like.

What Rebhahn says is deranged. Line by line, it is provably false and reflects catastrophic fallacy after fallacy. Yet 100% of Hyperians go on believing in this showman and conman.

No wonder we are still stuck with Abrahamism. The Abrahamists are exactly the same as the Hyperians. Their faith in their God is the only thing that matters to them. They despise facts, evidence, proofs, reason and logic. Not one Hyperian would ever ask Rebhahn to explain why he is 100% at odds with Leibniz, the man who gave us Leibniz’s law, the central argument used by Rebhahn to justify Hyperianism! You couldn’t make up such lunacy. Only someone suffering from serious mental illness and severe delusions could have ended up in this position. And only groomed and brainwashed cult slaves could go along with it! All Hyperians have a false consciousness instilled in them by their cult God Rebhahn.

Hide Ishiguro wrote,

“As Wittgenstein says in the ‘Tractatus’, to say of TWO things that they are identical is nonsense and to say of ONE thing that it is identical with itself is uninformative…”

Wittgenstein is spot on. It is absurd to say that TWO things are identical – the very fact of their twoness means they are NOT identical. You can NEVER say that myriad monads are identical and enter into a Unity/Identity. They never do. It’s logically impossible. It’s a category error to make such a claim. Yet this is Rebhahn’s foundational Hyperian claim! TOTAL NONSENSE.

You can never apply the word IDENTITY to different monads, but Rebhahn does this on every deadstream. As per Wittgenstein, a monad can only ever be identical WITH ITSELF. It can of course be in the same functional state as other monads, but it has no “identity” with them. “Identity” MEANS being ONTOLOGICALLY ONE!

A monad is absolutely ontologically different from all other monads – permanently – and never at any stage forms an ontological “single universal mind”. It never enters into an “identity” with other monads. Leibniz’s law is 100% irrelevant to an array of different monads since the issue of monads possibly being identical does not and cannot arise (which is precisely why we have never said such a thing! … Rebhahn actually claimed we had “missed” what was going on! … the sheer impudence of that cretin).

All monads are intrinsically unique substances (ontologies) and there is no sense at all in which they can be described as an “identity” (which by definition, by Leibniz’s law (!), would entail being ontologically the same … the strictest impossibility!).

Rebhahn is literally stating the biggest fallacies conceivable … actual impossibilities and category errors.

Just study for yourself what the identity of indiscernibles is all about. It means that if “two” things have 100% of their properties in common across all eternity (and that of course applies to their ontology too) then they are NOT two things. They are one thing! And that has ALWAYS been the case. For “two” things to be identical (to actually be one thing), they must have the same ontology and be the same substance. All monads are unique substances and so no two monads can ever be identical.

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.”

Clearly, this can only apply to things with the same ontology, meaning that they are the same thing since a thing with a different ontology from another thing – no matter that they have ALL other properties in common – can have something said about it regarding its different ontology that cannot apply to the other thing. Hence Leibniz’s law can NEVER be applied to monads, which are unique substances, unique ontologies, hence can NEVER be identical!

Rebhahn, as everyone knows, says that ALL MONADS are in fact a “Unity/Identity” – he says it over and over again – and also says that we are all “One and Many” all the time! This is a blatant category error, a 100% fallacy. Yet this is the KEYSTONE of Hyperianism, and gets repeated on EVERY deadstream. It is an incontestably false statement.

The dictionary continues,

“Yet if it is indeed to be true, then it has to be construed as in one particular way limited in scope. For, although it holds of the actual properties of identicals, it does not hold of those peculiar and factitious properties constituted by people’s beliefs about those identicals and about all the reactions that may be guided or misguided by those beliefs. People may not know, for instance, that the Morning Star is the Evening Star and so their beliefs and their reactions to what is in fact one and the same planet can be quite different according to the description under which it is considered.

Ishiguro wrote, “…but of course it is informative to be told that one thing has different names or that different names refer to the same object…”

So, here we have the perfect application of Leibniz’s law. We are told that there are two different things – the Morning Star and Evening Star – and when we list all of the properties of these “two” stars we find them to be identical. There are no discernibles to distinguish them. And so they are the SAME. “They” are an identity. There is only one star under two different manmade names.

Rebhahn has committed the opposite fallacy. Instead of giving the same thing two different names, he has claimed that ontologically different, unique things can ALL be given the same name (Unity/Identity … “Single Universal Mind”). It is a laughably dumb mistake. HYPER-STUPID! So much for the “hyperaware World Shaper”!

John Cottingham said,

“Leibniz’s name is never absent from discussions of the principle of identity of indiscernibles according to which two things with all their properties in common are in reality one and the same thing and this principle’s converse, often appealed to in the philosophy of mind to show that states of mind cannot be identical with brain states because they have different properties…”

The Encyclopedia Britannica says,

“Identity of indiscernibles … mathematics … also known as Leibniz’s law: principle enunciated by G.W. Leibniz that denies the possibility of two objects being numerically distinct while sharing all their properties in common.”

Hey, all you Hyperians, don’t you find it curious that we quote dictionaries, encyclopedias, scholars, books, and Leibniz himself regarding these issues … while Rebhahn scrupulously ignores them? Never wondered why? Don’t you think he would be quoting them if they supported him? He ignores them because he KNOWS they expose him as a total fraud! On many of his videos, he is forever quoting anyone who seems to be agreeing with him … where are his quotes to defend his position on Leibniz’s law? There are ZERO. Because none supports him and every one contradicts him. 1 + 1 = 2.

Here’s more of what Leibniz had to say, in correspondence with a proxy for Isaac Newton:

“In fact, I am so far from the plurality of the same individual, that I am quite convinced of what St Thomas [Aquinas] had already taught regarding intelligences [angels], and which I take to be generally true, namely that it is not possible that there should be two individuals who are exactly similar, or who differ only numerically. [To be numerically identical is to be one single individual. To be numerically distinct is to be two or more single individuals.] … we never conceive of any purely possible substance ‘except through the idea of one’ (or through the ideas comprised in one) … Everything that is actual can be conceived as possible, and if the actual Adam [first human] will in the course of time have such and such a posterity, the same predicate cannot be denied to that Adam when conceived as possible — especially as you admit that God envisages all these predicates in him when he decides to create him. So they do belong to him; and I do not see that what you say about the reality of possibles contradicts it. For something to be called possible, it is sufficient that a notion can be formed of it, even though it is only in the divine understanding, which is, so to speak, the land of possible realities. So in speaking of possibles I require only that true propositions can be formed about them, just as we can, for example, see that a perfect square implies no contradiction, even though there is no perfect square in the world. If we tried to reject pure possibilities absolutely, we would destroy contingency and freedom; for if there were nothing possible other than what God actually creates, then what God creates would be necessary, and if God wanted to create something he would not be able to create anything else, and would have no freedom of choice. All of this makes me hope . . . that at the end of the day your thoughts will turn out to be not so far from mine as they appeared at first. You agree, sir, with the connectedness of God’s decisions; you accept that my principal proposition is certain, in the sense I gave it in my reply. You only doubted whether I make that connectedness independent of God’s free decisions, and that quite rightly worried you. But I have shown that according to me it depends on those decrees, and it is not necessary, even though it is intrinsic. You stressed the difficulty there would be in saying that if I do not make the journey that I am due to make, I would not be me, and I have explained how one can say it, and how not. Finally I gave a decisive argument, which in my view amounts to a proof. This is that in all true affirmative propositions, necessary or contingent, universal or singular, the notion of the predicate is always in some way included in that of the subject — the predicate is present in the subject — or I do not know what truth is. Now, I want nothing more in the way of connectedness here than what is found objectively between the terms of a true proposition, and it is only in this sense that I say that the notion of an individual substance involves all its events and all its denominations, even those that are commonly called extrinsic (that is to say, which belong to it only in virtue of the general interconnectedness of things, and of the fact that it expresses the whole universe in its way) because there must always be some foundation for the connection between the terms of a proposition, and it must be found in their notions. That is my great principle, with which I believe all philosophers should agree, and of which one of the corollaries is the common axiom that nothing happens without a reason [PSR], and that one can always explain why things have gone as they have rather than otherwise, even though that reason often inclines without necessitating, since perfect indifference is a chimerical and incomplete supposition. It can be seen that from the above principle I draw consequences which are surprising; but that is only because people have not got used to pursuing far enough the things we know most clearly. I will add, that the proposition which occasioned all this discussion is very important, and deserves to be firmly established, for it follows from it that each individual substance expresses the whole universe entirely in its way and according to a certain relation, or, so to speak, in accordance with the point of view from which it regards it; and that its subsequent state is a consequence (although free, or contingent) of its preceding state, as if there were only it and God in the world. So every individual substance or complete being is like a world apart, independent of everything else except God. Nothing so powerfully demonstrates not only that our soul is indestructible, but also that it always retains in its nature traces of all its preceding states, with a potential memory which can always be excited since it has consciousness, or knows in itself what each of us calls ‘I’. This makes it susceptible of moral qualities and of punishment and reward — even after this life, because immortality without memory would not be enough. But this independence does not rule out intercourse between substances; for since all created substances are continually produced by the same sovereign being in accordance with the same plans, and express the same universe or the same phenomena, they fit in with one another precisely. And that leads us to say that one acts on the other, because one expresses more distinctly than the other the cause or reason for the changes, rather in the way that we attribute motion to a boat rather than to the whole sea.”

Well, do you see how completely intricate and precise Leibniz’s thoughts are? Hyperians believe that Corey Rebhahn, a man who worked in a Freakshow after being Bible schooled (!), is vastly smarter than Leibniz and has changed the entire basis of philosophy. Ho, ho, ho!

In your FUCKING DREAMS, you maniacs. You are a menace to the world and all intelligent people.

Tomorrow, we shall go line by line through the total idiocy Rebhahn spouted on his Monday night deadstream about Leibniz’s law. It’s almost painful to listen to this cretin butchering the work of intelligent people.