[time 1112] Re: [time 1109] Monads (Re: [time 1105])

Koichiro Matsuno (kmatsuno@vos.nagaokaut.ac.jp)
Sun, 12 Dec 1999 18:48:23 +0900

Dear Hitoshi and All,

   At 23:36 on 11 Dec 1999, Hitoshi Kitada <hitoshi@kitada.com> wrote:

> I agree with Koichiro:
> > It seems to me that Leibniz would lose nothing even if his monad is
> > allowed to have a tiny window through which to see the outside nearby.
> in the point that no local system is observable if it does not change by
> perturbation associated with the observation. In so far as we consider
> observation of local systems, they have windows. However, being a true
> remains valid in the internal world of each local system, where no outside
> considered and no disturbance is from the outside.

   Any agency appeared in a completed monologue must necessarily maintains
the pre-established harmony with the Universe of the monologic discourse,
otherwise the integrity of the monologue would be ruined. The monologic
author can remain anonymous there. Leibniz on Monadology and Kant on the
Transcendental Ego living with space and time as a singular universal seem
to be a good company in seeing a consistent Universe as following the
similar nominalist tradition. In contrast, any agency appearing in an
on-going dialogue comes to live with lively exchanges and will survive if it
does it well. As far as the harmony already established in the empirical
domain is concerned, Leibniz' Monadology would be too much. If we take the
atom to mean Dalton's (empirical) rather than Democritus' (nominal),
Leibnizian monads may also require its update though the post-established
harmony would remain intact.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Dec 28 1999 - 12:06:25 JST