On 12/12/2012 1:43 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
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.
We cannot use the conventional mereology when considering monads;
one must use an organic mereology. The compositions of a pair of monads
is a new monad that is distinct from its parents and yet part of them.
Monads are always wholes, just as living things are always integral wholes.
2) As that suggests, there are levels of monads, each
monad "containing" a myriad of monads,
not physically but as a logical subset.
The relations between monads is Non-well Founded. There is no
minimum nor maximal monad. Each is infinite.
Here would be an example of three monads :
No, there are 6 monads in that example. The characteristics only
occur once. Animal, dog, small, large, barking, not-barking are each a
behavior/change that defines a monad. You continuwe to use the wrong
organizing principle to think of 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.
Any change that is beyond the change defining a monad is equivalent
to the creation of a new monad if we think of them as objects. But
monads are actually eternal, it is the synchronization of their percepts
that creates the appearance of creation and destruction.
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