Hi Stephen P. King
As I see it, if there is an infinite collection of (monadic) points,
all future things foreseen (as in "pre-established harmony")
then nothing new can ever be created or destroyed, things
(including thoughts and people) just blossom like plants from
seeds and eventually die, but always in the same monad.
Notice that the phrase "pre-established harmony" just popped
naturally into my mind when I visualized the points as overlaid.
Studying Leibniz is like that, it is so logical that it will allow you
to explore without a guide.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Stephen P. King
Time: 2012-09-07, 10:22:37
Subject: Re: The universe as a collection of an infinite number of
On 9/7/2012 8:32 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
I solved this problem my own way by simply asssuming that the universe
from the beginning and before, as well as now and forever,
exists as an infinite collection of points (monads).
I agree with this.
So no problem
with the creation of new things.
No, novelty is not a priori definable, by its very definition it cannot be
considered to be given from the beginning! OTOH, we could stipulate that
novelty is a concept that only individual monads that are not identical to each
other can have, then novelty and "creation of new things" in general can be
seen in a logically consistent fashion as local transient aspects and not
pre-ordained or essence.
In principle they always were
and simply grow or unfold when the time calls for it, then
roll or fold up or whatever at the end of their useful lives.
In this veiw of reality, all of reality always consists in monadic space
as an overlapping infinite set of points.
No, that is a contradiction of terms. Monads cannot be defined as "an
overlapping infinite set of points" because "points" by definition have no
extension and therefore can never overlap with each other. There is no such
thing as a " monadic space" which might act as a container of multiple and
distinct monads. Monads, as L defined them, cannot act or exist in that manner.
Frankly, L's speculations about the "exterior aspects of Monads", found later
on in his Monadology, papers, may be the consequence of drinking too much wine
as they are completely inconsistent with his careful initial definitions of
monads. We are all finite and fallible, even geniuses like Leibniz. :-(
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at