Hi Stephen P. King
1) No two monads can be the same, so at least one
of them within each type has to be the dominant one.
This is like a representative govt wherein the dominant
one governs its subset. And it is governed by higher levels.
2) As that suggests, there are levels of monads, each
monad "containing" a myriad of monads,
not physically but as a logical subset.
Here would be an example of three monads :
3) "Above" animals you have man, and to my mind at least you have a
higher level than man, say intellectual with a spiritual level (it is not
which I suppose you could think of as Jesus, and above and beyond Jesus, God
(just an eye, not a monad) looking down through all of the monads, seeing
down through all perfectly, constnatly updating their perceptions, causing
everything to happen.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Stephen P. King
Time: 2012-12-10, 10:56:54
Subject: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God
On 12/10/2012 8:33 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
God is what/who is looking through the supreme monad,
not the supreme monad itself.
This is a contradiction of the relations between monads, there cannot be a
"special" monad. Just as there is no 'center' on the surface of a sphere, there
is no central monad whose percepts are a consistent unification of all of the
percepts of all other monads. This is a subtle argument. Think of a list of all
possible and different properties that can exist for a percept. Can this list
be infinite and self-consistent? No! Do you know why?
The idea of God as a 'supreme Ruler" is foreign to Monads as they do not
allow for such a hierarchy in their mereology. Every monad is, in a literal
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