[time 1119] Re: [time 1116] Re: [time 1114] Re: [time 1112] Re: [time 1109] Monads (Re: [time 1105])

Hitoshi Kitada (hitoshi@kitada.com)
Wed, 15 Dec 1999 22:38:08 +0900

Dear Koichiro and friends,

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

Subject: [time 1116] Re: [time 1114] Re: [time 1112] Re: [time 1109] Monads (Re:
[time 1105])

> Dear Hitoshi and All,
> At 2:09 on 13 Dec 1999, Hitoshi Kitada <hitoshi@kitada.com> wrote:
> [KM]
> >>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.
> [HK]
> >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?"
> Consider, for instance, Euclidean geometry as the prototype of all
> possible Universes of consistent monologic discourse. A point and a line in
> the geometry are taken to be monads each of which represents the same
> Euclidean Universe from a different point of view. These monads are
> immaterial and thus cannot act. They assume perception, but not
> apperception. Apparent interaction between the monads in the form of various
> theorems is explained in terms of the principle of preestablished harmony.
> The consistent discourse is guaranteed upon the two principles on
> noncontradiction (the truth of reason) and on sufficient reason (the truth
> of fact). However, Monadology lacks the law of causality except for
> appealing to the divine intellect. At this point, the issue of
> incompleteness may arise in the sense that consistency alone cannot be good
> enough for completeness. Some people may feel dissatisfied with the
> Euclidean consistent Universe and come up with another alternative. This
> dissatisfaction has occurred historically in the empirical domain. My point
> is that the implicit causation underlying Monadology is not justified
> empirically. If it is forcibly applied, the resulting monadology would
> mislead our empirical reality.

Then may I ask what do you think a right way to realize consistency and the
completeness simultaneously?

> In almost the similar vein, the harmony already established in the
> empirical domain can be linguistically addressed in the present perfect
> tense, though it has to be admitted to be a linguistic artifact at best.
> >> 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?
> The principle of causation can be internalized. Once the committed
> consistency turns out to be incomplete, the reverberation would come to
> influence what have been taken to be the so-called monads. Each monad would
> come to perceive a different Universe from a different point of view, with
> the consequence of destroying the preestablished harmony. Perception of
> incompleteness proceeding in the empirical domain causes an action, which
> certainly does not assume the divine intellect. The present perfect tense
> is a linguistic means to see how well the perception-action cycle has
> survived so far.

I do not see your "model" of the update. Could you describe it more concretely?

> >And
> >from where did you introduce the "post-established harmony?"
> Again, this is due to the linguistic artifact such that we cannot get rid
> of the present perfect tense.

So you set the basis on our existence?

> >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."
> In short, perception of incompleteness by whatever monads may cause
> ceaseless reverberations in Leibnizian monadologies. This fate may be
> inevitable even in any consistent monologic discourse. Once it is recognized
> that any philosophical or metaphysical discourses have been subject to
> severe criticisms by the thinkers in the later generation, the
> perception-action cycle will be seen inevitable in the empirical domain.
> Leibniz didn't bother himself with this nasty problem. The notion of
> completeness is quite strange. It can be smuggled in and even occupy the
> empirical domain.

Completeness is implicitly assumed in our daily life: We always think we said
what we want to express fully well, but it is usually an illusion. This is the
case also in sciences, which is the cause that we need to make communications
forever. If completeness had been realized, we need not exist.

Best wishes,

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