[time 1114] Re: [time 1112] Re: [time 1109] Monads (Re: [time 1105])

Hitoshi Kitada (hitoshi@kitada.com)
Mon, 13 Dec 1999 02:07:53 +0900

Dear Koichiro and friends,

I do not see your points; let me make some questions, which would help me in
understanding what your assertions are.

Koichiro Matsuno <kmatsuno@vos.nagaokaut.ac.jp> wrote:

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

> 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
> the
> > perturbation associated with the observation. In so far as we consider
> > observation of local systems, they have windows. However, being a true
> atom
> > remains valid in the internal world of each local system, where no outside
> is
> > 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.

In what points is Leibniz' Monadoloy, restricted to the empirical domain, "too
much?" I.e. what are the extra assumptions or arguments in Leibniz' Monadology
restricted to the empirical domain, and if any why are they so? Another question
is how "the harmony" is "already established in the empirical domain?"

> 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.

What kind of update do you think may be required and why is it necessary? And
from where did you introduce the "post-established harmony?" Is it your
additional axiom to Leibniz' or do you work in a framework different from
Leibniz'? I.e. I do not see in which context you are arguing, and if I agreed
that you are arguing in the empirical domain, I did not see the logic which led
you to "the post-established harmony" and your conclusion: "Leibnizian monads
may also require its update."

Best wishes,

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