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>
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.
