Hi Stephen P. King Remember that when I speak below of monads within monads, I don't necessarily mean geometrically inside, but logically inside.
Leibniz does speak of plants as seed within seed within.... All living things reproduce by something like that. And note that here mendel's genetics enters the picture, and the number of plants increases exponentially. Each seed, if pollinated is at first a squinched up but then it unfolds as it grows. Sometimes plants produce multiple seeds (as humans produce twins, etc.) Which brings us to man. Since each human can be a monad, and each monad logically at least contains a homunculus, then each homunculus has sperm monads, which then can be treated as a seed, etc as above although only some are "planted" on good ground, the rest keep somehow reproducing. The numbers get staggeringly large, not sure how sperm are created. Are there sperm within sperm ? And for women, the hierarchy proceeds down similarly to the egg which contains an egg...etc. Women do keep producing eggs regularly each month, except most are eliminated by flooding out. These, sperm and egg, then would unfold only if intercourse takes place. ----------------here I am only half done !!---------- Within each man monad contains a homunculus with sperm, I guess both the homunculus and the sperm multiplying as above (so it is not the sperm that reproduces, it is the homunculus that produces the sperm (?), similarly for women. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Now there are other monads within man, I suppose these must be whole qualia, such as the five sense, logically within the mind (brain) end so forth as above..... Whew !! logically inside of it a each man there is a sperm with a sperm.... And inside of each woman, an egg within an egg. But if we break them down individually, each monad of a pwerson Roger Clough, [email protected] 9/19/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-18, 10:02:40 Subject: Re: Monad mereology. Can there be monads within monads ? 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, [email protected] 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 [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
