On 9/18/2012 9:03 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
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>
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
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.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at