Truth Or Lies? – The Lying Game of Morgue Official

So, here’s the fundamental question that haunts humanity – would you rather believe a Lie that you like and call it Truth, or believe the Truth, which horrifies you? In fact, would not many people call a Truth they don’t like a Lie?

Hyper-emotional people always prefer Untruth over Truth because comforting Untruth makes them feel good and uncomforting Truth doesn’t, so their very nature predisposes them to lies and makes them fall in love with liars. Just look at Hyperianism!

Thinkers, by contrast, really do want the Truth – because thinkers judge their “success” not by the how they feel in response to ideas, but by how precise and unshakable the idea is. Thinkers always gravitate to mathematics, logic and rationalist philosophy. Hyper-emotionalists do not.

Thinking types are driven by CERTAINTY. They want to arrive at CERTAINTY, meaning perfect thinking. Hyper-emotionalists actually like uncertainty and doubt – because their own feelings are fickle and changeable. When they do try to embrace certainty, it’s always in the context of the “certainty” of emotion – perfect emotion! So, they talk about UNCONDITIONAL LOVE (meaning Perfect Love), and “Love and light”. They call themselves “lightworkers”, and it’s a wonder they don’t call themselves “loveworkers”. Or they imagine a blissful state of “nirvana” or “moksha” or “enlightenment” where they are perfectly at one with reality and everything is perfect peace and tranquility (a perfect emotional state, in other words). They never characterize these “perfect states” as perfect cognitive states of absolute knowledge and understanding and certainty (as thinking types do). No, these are always non-cognitive states where the person has achieved release from suffering, desire, the ego, or whatever. They are an escape to a better emotional state! They are never a transition to an intellectual state. No meditator ever says he’s seeking to put his mind in the perfect INTELLECTUAL state. That’s never the goal. The game is always to reach the emotional maximum, not the intellectual maximum. Funny, that.

Sensing types also hate intellectualism. They want to reach the perfect state of perception. They want to have perfect, godlike senses which, they imagine, will allow them to have absolute certainty about how reality works … by literally seeing it work! In the absence of perfect senses, these sensing types are comfortable with uncertainty and doubt, hence science. Science never talks about a “certainty principle”. No, it talks about a falsification principle and a verification principle, which are inherently connected with doubt and uncertainty. You clearly doubt that something is certain if you believe it might be falsified, and you clearly doubt that something is certain if you believe it is in need of sensory verification.

You can see that because of their personality types, their psychological types, humans have very different approaches to “Truth” and have totally different and contradictory standards of what they will accept as Truth and what they will dismiss as Untruth. And that’s why humans can’t agree and can’t march in the same direction towards a common goal.

Look at a silly cult such as Hyperianism, led by a weird non-binary man who is totally confused about gender, both his own and that of everyone else. Twenty years ago, he would have been told he was mentally ill. Today, he can be a wealthy social media influencer promoting non-binary people as the master race! Because all standards are collapsing. Truth is vanishing (in the sense of the human capacity to apprehend it).

Hyperianism can be defined by one word: DIVERSITY. The whole racket is about defending that word, and 100% of Hyperians unconditionally support that word. As the Hyperian nutjob PUKES demonstrates, she will accept as true ONLY that which supports diversity. And anything that does not support diversity is ipso facto false and must be opposed. That’s literally how she “feels” about reality and those feelings determine how she “thinks” about reality, i.e., every thought she has MUST support the conclusion she emotionally desires, namely that we must live in a maximally diverse reality. And the whole of Hyperianism works this way. Corey Rebhahn is a hyper-emotionalist and total extravert (constantly seeking attention from people – wholly determined by the outside world and with no inner world … he cannot imagine a life without as much attention from others as possible) and his whole game is to validate his own diversity, so the whole of Hyperianism is an attempt to “metaphysically” claim that maximizing diversity is the entire point of reality (!), and every single “argument” Rebhahn advances has this as its goal, even though it MUST be false. Rebhahn himself even talks about “Unity/IDENTITY” where there is no diversity at all!

But Rebhahn’s thoughts are so bizarre, irrational and illogical that he actually uses even Unity/Identity to defend hyper diversity. He claims that the whole point of the Unity/Identity ONE MIND is to “introduce difference and explore diversity, multiplicity and particularization” … to escape boredom, or loneliness, or excess sameness, or whatever.”

Of course, if the maximization of diversity (entropy) is the POINT OF EXISTENCE then it would of course be IMPOSSIBLE for reality to ever return to Unity/Identity, and so cyclical reality would be impossible, and, once reality had fulfilled its TELOS of reaching maximum diversity (entropy), nothing could happen after that. In science, this is actually called the Heat Death of the universe (by the Second Law of Thermodynamics) and is 100% opposed to a cyclical universe! Not that Rebhahn cares. He’s a clown and his cult slaves are clowns and all they care about is diversity and justifying diversity and they have zero interest in any logic or reason that proves that their position regarding diversity MUST be false. Rebhahn just dismisses all the processes that would be needed to create Unity/Identity, i.e., he campaigns against sameness, convergence, conformity, uniformity … all the things that are needed to achieve alignment, synchronization, symmetry, harmony, interconnectedness. He simultaneously declares that reality is cyclical, while denying that this is the case – because he actually says that reality is about maximizing, not minimizing, diversity (entropy).

In ont math, there is an eternal and necessary, immutable, perfect state of zero entropy (the State of Being, of Universals … somewhat akin to Plato’s domain of Forms). This state, by its very mathematical nature (concerning sinusoidal waves and Ontological Fourier mathematics) necessarily creates a secondary temporal and contingent domain (that of Becoming, of particulars, i.e., it creates a secondary domain of space, time, matter, gravity, temperature, entropy, friction, and so on … the scientific universe is born from a mathematical domain of pure frequency).

What happens at the Big Bang is that “Being Monads” project both “Becoming Monads” and the scientific universe of Becoming with which the “Becoming Monads” interact. At the Big Bang, the entropy of the Becoming Monads” is at its maximum – the point of maximum DIVERSITY, we might say (!), and then the whole point of this mathematical system is to eliminate that entropy (across the whole lifetime of the universe) and return to its start state (zero entropy). And that’s how you get a cyclical universe. We might say that the universe is a kind of Rubik’s Cube that starts out as perfect and then maximally scrambles itself, and then has to unscramble itself – to SOLVE itself and restore its original pristine condition. Reality is thus a self-solving mathematical puzzle and what it is solving is ENTROPY. It is eliminating entropy in order to arrive at the perfect mathematical state – zero entropy, perfect symmetry, perfect reason, perfect logic, perfection itself, the DIVINE STATE.

Hilariously, Rebhahn also refers to Rubik’s cube. But Rebhahn has an impossible problem confronting him. According to Rebhahn, the whole point of existence is to “introduce difference and maximally explore diversity”, so the “solution of existence” for Rebhahn is actually the Big Bang itself where the Rubik’s cube is maximally scrambled, maximally entropic, maximally DIVERSE! It has achieved its goal (according to Rebhahn) … the maximization, NOT the minimization, of entropy (diversity). So, if the maximization of diversity is the goal then the cosmic Rubik’s cube game can be played only once – you take the perfect zero-entropy cube and maximally scramble it and … that’s game over … it then remains in that state FOREVER. This would be the worst game ever, the shortest game ever, and the most boring game ever – literally just irreversibly ruining something perfect!

However, reality is of course entirely different from that. If we refer to entropy as “chaos” then we can say that the Game of Reality is for Perfect Order to create Perfect Chaos (at the Big Bang) and then for Order to impose itself on this Chaos and steadily eliminate it, returning the system to perfect Order. CHAOS FROM ORDER FOLLOWED BY ORDER FROM CHAOS … and repeat. That’s how you get a cyclical universe! You have a perfect ground of reality (Being = perfect Order, the eternal perfection of reality in this mode), and then you have an imperfect construct (Becoming = imperfection, particularization).

Think of it this way … Reality is mathematical and has an eternally perfect mathematical mode … Being = zero entropy = universalization. What would be the ideal mathematical problem for this system to solve? To generate its exact opposite … total imperfection, particularization, entropy, “chaos”, “matter”, and then SOLVE this, this most difficult mathematical problem of all.

Perfect mental mathematics ALIENATES itself in the most difficult mathematical problem and environment of all – the physical universe of matter (penetrated by countless competing monadic minds of “Becoming”) – and then has to solve this most intractable problem. In Hegelian terms, the means to solve the problem is the dialectic … a clash of thesis and antithesis, but with a critical synthesis phase that can transcend the thesis and antithesis and then serve as a new thesis, drawing forth a new antithesis and new synthesis. And this process can go on and on until arriving at the Final Synthesis … the Omega Point, the Absolute, Zero Entropy … “GOD”. And we have Absolute Knowledge of the Absolute Idea via the Absolute Mind/Spirit (Geist) at this point. We have SOLVED the question of existence, not just intellectually, but ontologically too!

Right now, we can intellectually know what reality is doing, what its TELOS is, but it has not achieved it ontologically just because the answer has been worked out in some minds. It actually has to reach the answer ontologically (and for all minds) and the ontological answer is zero entropy – the absence of all diversity. So, you can see why some nutjob such as PUKES would NEVER accept the Truth. She opposes it in every way. All of the people who remained in Hyperianism once we had exposed it had zero interest in ont math, and 100% interest in Corey Rebhahn and DIVERSITY. THAT was the answer they wanted, not zero entropy … that was the answer they DIDN’T want. So, think of PUKES. She imagines a solved Rubik’s cube to be repulsive (!) – boring, symmetrical, the “same”, uninteresting. She LOVES the scrambled Rubik’s cube – maximum “fun” and diversity. Isn’t it amazing to be repulsed by the ANSWER TO EXISTENCE? But that’s humanity for you. Many famous scientists have said they don’t want the answer to existence. Sheez! Definitely not thinking types. Most people hate completion, wholeness, closure, certainty, the Absolute. It frightens them. Whereas it is the most glittering prize for thinking types, the whole point of the exercise.

In Robert M. Pirsig’s seminal “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: AN INQUIRY INTO VALUES”, Pirsig, we now see, nailed the difference between Illuminists and Hyperians.

Pirsig wrote,

“I want to divide human understanding into two kinds… classical understanding and romantic understanding. In terms of ultimate truth a dichotomy of this sort has little meaning but it is quite legitimate when one is operating within the classic mode used to discover or create a world of underlying form. The terms classic and romantic, as Phædrus used them, mean the following:

“A classical understanding sees the world primarily as underlying form itself. A romantic understanding sees it primarily in terms of immediate appearance. If you were to show an engine or a mechanical drawing or electronic schematic to a romantic it is unlikely he would see much of interest in it. It has no appeal because the reality he sees is its surface. Dull, complex lists of names, lines and numbers. Nothing interesting. But if you were to show the same blueprint or schematic or give the same description to a classical person he might look at it and then become fascinated by it because he sees that within the lines and shapes and symbols is a tremendous richness of underlying form.

“The romantic mode is primarily inspirational, imaginative, creative, intuitive. Feelings rather than facts predominate. ‘Art’ when it is opposed to ‘Science’ is often romantic. It does not proceed by reason or by laws. It proceeds by feeling, intuition and esthetic conscience. In the northern European cultures the romantic mode is usually associated with femininity, but this is certainly not a necessary association.

“The classic mode, by contrast, proceeds by reason and by laws… which are themselves underlying forms of thought and behavior. In the European cultures it is primarily a masculine mode and the fields of science, law and medicine are unattractive to women largely for this reason. Although motorcycle riding is romantic, motorcycle maintenance is purely classic. The dirt, the grease, the mastery of underlying form required all give it such a negative romantic appeal that women never go near it.

“Although surface ugliness is often found in the classic mode of understanding it is not inherent in it. There is a classic esthetic which romantics often miss because of its subtlety. The classic style is straightforward, unadorned, unemotional, economical and carefully proportioned. Its purpose is not to inspire emotionally, but to bring order out of chaos and make the unknown known. It is not an esthetically free and natural style. It is esthetically restrained. Everything is under control. Its value is measured in terms of the skill with which this control is maintained.

“To a romantic this classic mode often appears dull, awkward and ugly, like mechanical maintenance itself. Everything is in terms of pieces and parts and components and relationships. Nothing is figured out until it’s run through the computer a dozen times. Everything’s got to be measured and proved. Oppressive. Heavy. Endlessly grey. The death force.

“Within the classic mode, however, the romantic has some appearances of his own. Frivolous, irrational, erratic, untrustworthy, interested primarily in pleasure-seeking. Shallow. Of no substance. Often a parasite who cannot or will not carry his own weight. A real drag on society. By now these battle lines should sound a little familiar.”

So PUKES and all the rest of these dimwit Hyperians see themselves as romantic, intuitive, freethinking, non-conformist ARTISTS. They LOATHE science, math and philosophy. They love content (appearance – diversity; particulars; chaos) and hate form (organization, universals, syntax, order). They cannot abide ont math, which is why they rejected Illuminism and stuck with Hyperianism. They love Hyperianism because of its “diversity” and the fact that it is led by a “diverse” person. They are in other words totally WOKE and they fucking detest reason and logic (while laying claiming to them – irrational and illogical romantics always delude themselves that they are rational and logical … as with the Dunning-Kruger effect, people without reason and logic don’t know what reason and logic actually are … PUKES has zero acquaintance with reason and logic , which is why she believes that “UNITY/IDENTITY” actually means diversity, which is of course totally incompatible with unity/identity and a direct contradiction. People such as PUKES, as she keeps demonstrating, CANNOT THINK. They adopt “romantic”, emotional positions and then simply claim they are being rational and logical. They are totally alienated from Pirsig’s classical understanding, which is of course what ont math is all about … it’s the ultimate expression of this mode! We can’t persuade Hyperians of anything … because we are “classics” and they “romantics” and we have zero in common, and opposite worldviews. 1 + 1 = 2. These maniacs actually regard the classic view as NAZI!)

Before someone such as PUKES or Rebhahn even begins to “think” about anything, they have already reached their “romantic”, “artistic”, emotional, non-conformist conclusion. Hyperianism is so hilarious because it’s a dumb-as-fuck New Age, Woke, romantic, artistic system of feelings revolving around the defining Woke word – DIVERSITY – yet is trying to use the ultimate classic system (Ont Math), which is entirely predicated on ORDER and ZERO ENTROPY. This mess happened because Corey Rebhahn is a “street artist” – a somatic narcissist craving attention – but who also aspires to be a cerebral narcissist, hence that drew his attention to Illuminism and ont math. And then this person with no education and no qualifications tried to merge the romantic and classic modes, despite the fact that they are antithetical. So, Rebhahn ended up promoting two opposite positions: 1) maximum diversity … the goal of irrational romanticism based on feelings, and 2) maximum unity … the goal of classicism based on hyper reason and logic. And he actually tried to fit them into the same system even though they totally contradict each other. Instant fail. And that’s why Hyperianism is now nothing but a total fallacy. All of the classicism of Illuminism and ont math has been ditched to provide 100% support for romantic diversity and Rebhahn has simply invented a romantic myth – based on the flower of life (yawn) – to pretend that “difference, diversity, multiplicity and particularization” are actually working in perfect harmony with “unity/identity”. In fact, they are mathematical opposites. A system whose goal is Unity (zero entropy) behaves in the OPPOSITE way from a “system” whose goal is Diversity (maximum entropy). But, hey, what does Rebhahn care? He gets $300,000 a year for talking shit, and PUKES and all the rest get to believe in a “romantic” vision of Unity and Disunity (Diversity) somehow being the same thing, and so they can be both as Woke as fuck and also claiming to be “understanding reality”. Ho, ho, ho. 1 + 1 = 3.

It’s an incredibly disturbing thing to see. You realize exactly why humanity is so fucked. These Hyperians and all the other Woke romantics just like them are literally blocking human evolution. We can advance as a species ONLY if we switch from romanticism (Mythos and Pathos) to classicism (Logos and Ethos). There is no choice here, folks.

Pirsig identified an extraordinary dialectic – that of feeling types (romantics) versus thinking types (classicists). You can see throughout history the clash of “romantic systems” and “classical systems”. The Spartans were highly classical, the Athenians more romantic. The Romans were fantastically classical. The Jews were romantics with their vision of God and themselves as the Chosen People in their Promised Land. They were destroyed when they challenged the power of Rome. We could view the Spanish Conquistadores as “classical” and the Aztecs as “romantic”. The classics always defeat the romantics in a fight. Sometimes, a group can be both classic and romantic. The Nazis had a classic technology and largely founded the modern age, but they were also “romantic racists” – with all their blue-eyed, blond Aryan Superman – master race – ideology. The Soviets were classics, but with a romantic “Mother Russia” idea. The Americans were classics, with a romantic “American Dream” idea. The Japanese were classics, with a romantic idea of Japanese exceptionalism under their “divine” emperor.

Hyperianism is nothing like these systems. It’s founded on romanticism and then makes a fake attempt to explain romanticism classically. Hyperianism would be destroyed INSTANTLY if it came up against any classical system. It would be a massacre.

Who ruined the West? It was the Beatniks and Hippies with their “counterculture”. They imported Eastern mysticism and promoted extreme individualism, extreme diversity, love and light, unconditional love, meditation, cosmic consciousness, peace and love. Peace, man. Namaste.

They created today’s Woke World based on extreme consumer capitalism, increasingly predicated on FANTASY. The classic mode is now increasingly used to provide the platform for romantic fantasy. The Metaverse is a classic technology, the whole point of which is to allow romantics to live in a fantasy world. Fantasy never ends well. You must live in reality. Look at Hyperianism – a bunch of romantic misfits who imagine they are “hyperaware World Shapers” but are actually just dumb suckers giving all their money and attention to a malignant narcissist and psychopath who compulsively lies to them, manipulates them and exploits them.

The classic mode excludes bullshitters – you can’t bullshit your way to actual usable technology. You truly have to know what you’re doing. But the romantic mode is entirely reigned over by bullshitters – people living in a fantasy world and constantly spinning fantasies around themselves that are designed to hook others and draw them into the fantasy. Malignant narcs are the perfect fantasists since their whole “reality” is a fantasy, predicated on a False Self (since their True Self could not cope with reality). Corey Rebhahn, who will soon be 34, cites as his favorite movie “The NeverEnding Story”, a children’s story literally about a fantasist! This is the man who never grew up. Hyperia is Fantasia (from the movie).

Woke World is INEVITABLY taken over by malignant narcissists and psychopaths who manipulate stupid, emotional romantics (“artists”) by telling them the romantic fantasies they want to hear. These people ALWAYS promote extreme individualism (“diversity”) and always hate the collective. The collective isn’t “romantic”. It seems like a vast, impersonal force of “sameness”, crushing all romantic, individual dreams.

Well, too fucking bad! Humanity cannot evolve until all humans are marching together in the same direction, with the same goal, under the same banner (the Star Trek vision) – the ultimate force multiplier and the prerequisite for making humanity a community of gods, a society of the divine. Perfect Gods perfectly agree. They are perfectly rational and logical. They are not absurd fantasists – “romantics”. Fuck these cretins. They are the force of anti-evolution.

DELENDA EST HYPERIANISM