On 12/6/2012 9:00 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking
about L's metaphysics.
1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is.
2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual
atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you
realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe
acts "as if" there's no God.
It is not "atheist/materialist" at all, my way. It is anti-special,
in the sense that the potential of the One must be immanent in all of
the Omniverse, not to be confined to special occasions/locations.
I have trouble with this view
in speaking of "mental space", but I suppose you can
consider mental states to exist "as if" they are real.
Your thoughts are easily seen to be a "mental space" when one
understand that a 'space' is just a set plus some structure of relations.
L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenal
world (the physical world you see and that of science),
but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is
not real, only its monadic representation is real.
yes, but Monads offer a very different ontological vision. It is
not the "atoms in a void" vision at all, and yet allows for the
appearance of 'atoms in a void' as a mode of perception.
I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but
a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2).
Actually, Bruno's view is Idealist!
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