On 9/18/2012 9:03 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King## Advertising

Thinking about mereology....and Leibniz... Since a monad is a whole, it can't have parts, so you can't break it into parts. That's in fact the definition of a monad, a whole without parts. So while some, including Leibniz, speak of man or whatever as being a "colony of monads", I am having difficulty seeing that, if a monad has no parts. Also, Leibniz himself speaks of monads within monads within monads, so I obviously am missing something. It may be that you speak only over a range of resolution. It's still a puzzle. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net <mailto:rclo...@verizon.net> 9/18/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

Dear Roger,

`The trick is to solve the puzzle. The decomposition of a monad only`

`yeilds other complete and different monads. Never is there any "pieces".`

`A whole is indistinguishable from a part, in the logic of monads. They`

`are infinite! Thus they behave as such.`

-- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.