Hi Stephen P. King Forgive me, but your objection doesn't seem to apply very clearly to monads.
Part/whole relations in a monad are best understood in terms of predicate logic. A monad is defined as a complete concept, that is, a subject with enough predicates to specify it as different from all other monads (which are also complete concepts). Otherwise by identity of indiscernibles it could not be. So minimum would refer to the minimum set of predicates needed to create a complete concept or monad. Maximum would be the same unless you want to add more without conflict or creating a new (possibly non-existent and therefore only imaginary) monad. Now the predicates are said to be logically (not physically) inside the subject, so if there are levels of refinement of the predicates such as dog-large-brown the "browness" would be logically, not physically, inside the "large" snd the "large" inside the subject, that being "dog." [Roger Clough], [[email protected]] 12/13/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-12, 14:32:34 Subject: Re: three logically, not physically, nested monads 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. Dear Roger, 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 : > > Animal->dog->small->barking > > Animal->dog->large->barking > > Animal->dog->large->not-barking 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 > specified), > 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. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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. -- 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.
