Hi Stephen P. King  

1) Sorry, I incorrectly abbreviated, as usual, by referring to the Supreme 
Monad as God.
    The correct version is that God observes and handles the world of monads 
    behind or beyond the Supreme Monad. Somehow this may have led you 
    astray. I do believe that all monads are distinct. They exist because they 

2) Distinct because each snapshot, or slide, pictures 
    the universe from our particular point of view. 

3) We are all distinct from our histories (past perceptions), and from 
    our appetities. 

4) We must all be distinct for the PEH  to operate properly. 

5) The PEH can only happen if there is only one, absolutely powerful God. 

6) I hope I haven't missed anything.

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
----- Receiving the following content -----  
From: Stephen P. King  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-16, 18:04:11 
Subject: Re: Can there be multiple numbers ? 

On 1/16/2013 11:41 AM, Roger Clough wrote: 


Bruno endorsed at least part of my viewpoint below on whether 
there can be multiple identities. I allowed multiple identities 
(such as numbers) to exist in Platonia as long as they had different contexts. 

Dear Roger, 

    Please see the post that I just submited under the subject line  

 Re: Math-> Computation-> Mind -> Geometry -> Space -> Matter  

    Identity requires the ability, the potency, for the act of making a 
distinction otherwise it is mute and degenerate. 
We must distinguish to even know that we exist, 
thus we are not ontologically primitive. You should consider the high price of 
assuming that the totality of all 
that exists is organized in a reductive, hierarchical and/or well founded 
You keep insisting on a Supreme monad as distinct from other rest of the monads 
in contradiction to even Leibniz' discussions.  
from: http://philosophy.eserver.org/leibniz-monadology.txt 

  39. Now as this substance is a sufficient reason of all this variety 
of particulars, which are also connected together throughout; there is 
only one God, and this God is sufficient. 
  40. We may also hold that this supreme substance, which is unique, 
universal and necessary, nothing outside of it being independent of 
it,- this substance, which is a pure sequence of possible being, 
must be illimitable and must contain as much reality as is possible. 
  41. Whence it follows that God is absolutely perfect; for perfection 
is nothing but amount of positive reality, in the strict sense, 
leaving out of account the limits or bounds in things which are 
limited. And where there are no bounds, that is to say in God, 
perfection is absolutely infinite. (Theod. 22, Pref. [E. 469 a; G. vi. 
    This is a bit difficult, I admit, as you know that L had to cowtow to the 
religious authority of his day, but the idea of non-well foundedness was 
clearly implied. The difference that I am considering is mereological. The 
Perfection of the monad is the condition of Identity of all monads, what state 
at which all differences or varieties vanish. This makes the totality of all 
that exists to be the Supreme monad, there all differences between whole and 
part vanish (are degenerate). 

    Why not consider that any one monad is defined by relations it has with all 
others (and itself) and thus there is no "primitive monad" in any well founded 
or reductive sense except the One whose properties vanish: the neutral ground 
of existence in-itself.  



----- Have received the following content -----   
Sender: Bruno Marchal   
Receiver: everything-list   
Time: 2013-01-16, 10:59:12  
Subject: Re: Math-> Computation-> Mind -> Geometry -> Space -> Matter  

On 16 Jan 2013, at 13:13, Roger Clough wrote:  

> Hi Bruno Marchal  
> Specific properties, at least down here, are needed  
> if you accept Leibniz' dictum that identical entities cannot  
> exist in this contingent world, for they would have the same identity.  
> I'm inclined to say that that is also true in Platonia,  
> which would be a disaster, for you could not say 1 = 1.  
> A saving grace might be that one of those 1's is before,  
> and the other, after the equal sign. That is, the numbers  
> are distinguished by context.  

I agree with all what you say here. Tell this to Stephen.  
Note that we are distinguished by context too.  


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to