Donnadogsoth Posted June 24, 2017 Share Posted June 24, 2017 Thoughts on Leibnizian monads, God, and the Universe: Everything that exists is either a soul (monad), a trick of the senses (e.g., double vision) or trick of the mind (e.g., pantheism), or the sum of all unknown souls and tricks. I call the latter sum "the firmament", which exists inside the mind and is not separate from it. There is nothing outside of souls, meaning souls' respective experiences which are built into them. Thought-objects (knowledge) are not souls as spiders or cats are souls, but are rather imprints in the mind from the mind of God and so are located in the firmament, as I've named it. We live and walk within the mind of God, who has created everything through impressions of the archetypes into matter. Thus the individual soul is material (in a special sense of the term) fused with form, those forms of which are God's ideas. Even man-made tools are God's ideas which man has discovered and brought into existence. Think of a soul as a clear glass marble into which character is shot in the form of metallic dyes. The questions "Where are souls?" or "What's in between souls?" misunderstand. Souls are non-extended and non-local and therefore cannot be located. An infinite number of souls can therefore exist at the same time with room to spare. Similarly, there is nothing in between souls, not even space or a medium of any kind. Since souls are non-local the problem of them consequently "bunching up" is not a problem. Everything you experience is the mind of God, expressed in terms of the phenomenological manifestations of, and relationships between, souls other than yourself. You cannot escape the mind of God, but are defined by it and your own choices. Souls manifest through one's experience, and they pass away out of manifestation. Hear that "CHOO CHOO" sound? A thought from God and discovered and built by man is coming towards manifesting. Are you standing on parallel steel rails? If so, this is knowledge you might like to know. The most complicated number is 1, because there is 1 Universe, which encompasses all that number is capable of encompassing. Number is not capable of encompassing God who is the source of Number. The most complicated part of the Universe is the human economy, composed of the noösphere comprising the human race, its knowledge (thought-objects) plus its prostheses (tools) and capital. This comprises a unity that transcends time, connecting all human beings, past, present, and future into a single instant Lyndon LaRouche terms the "simultaneity of eternity". When one first encounters such a statement one, coming from the perspective of naïve materialism (even fundamentalist materialism), one is incredulous. How can the past have any connection with the future except in mechanistic, even Marxist terms? Yet, if one denies that the Sun is circling Earth then it is possible to see things in the light that time is, not an illusion, but a secondary aspect to an æternal reality of what Terence McKenna termed the “ecology of souls”. Our loved ones are not dead but passed away. Their bodily monads have scattered and their soul continues to exist in whatever terms God has seen fit to carry them to. We live in a plenum of souls. Even the emptiness of Outer Space, the closest thing we can get to nothingness, the most rarified thing we know of, is still part of the Universal Monad, not a part of God but its own indivisible unity in which all pairwise interactions relate primarily to the Universe itself and secondarily to each other. The Universe is a-causal. No thing causes any other thing to occur, but all is the will of God applied in terms of the choices individual souls make, Providence, and predestination. When one cuts the pear with the knife, one merely wills the event to happen, in terms of the magical instruments one has, knife, plate, table, time, hand, etc.. God grants the intention that the knife moves, the knife's monad so experiences motion, the pear's monad experiences division. The Universe is a-logical. No thing logically follows from anything else. The sky could have been green and foliage blue. The entire arrangement of the Universe is granted by the fiat of God. What we call logic is a temporary grid or pattern we overlay onto a part of the Universe. This logic grid grants us power to act and to predict...up to a point. Gödel blew apart the the notion that a single self-consistent logic grid could adequately account for the entire Universe. The Universe is emotional. That is, all monads are defined by perception and desire (appetition). What we call intuition is a bubble of emotion, itself shaped by the monads and one's personal firmament, which has a certain shape that can be “read” and used to act and predict...up to a point. The refinement of this intuitive power is akin to witchcraft. The human prosthesis-potential comprises a single master archetype associated with the single archetype of the human body, which expands to fill the entire Universe. Human destiny is “be fruitful and multiply” and fill the entire Universe for the glory of God. Not understanding these things has led to great confusion and vulnerability in the population to drift from Christianity into heresies and heathenism, weakening the West. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeel Posted June 24, 2017 Share Posted June 24, 2017 is this not also basically pantheism? Or have I misunderstood? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted June 24, 2017 Share Posted June 24, 2017 2 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said: We live and walk within the mind of God, who has created everything through impressions of the archetypes into matter. Quotes as this make me want to point and cry, "AHA! Platonism!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted June 24, 2017 Author Share Posted June 24, 2017 1 hour ago, Dylan Lawrence Moore said: Quotes as this make me want to point and cry, "AHA! Platonism!" Aha! Aristotle also believed in entity comprising form plus matter. In fact I'm not sure if Plato ever spoke of matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardY Posted June 26, 2017 Share Posted June 26, 2017 Gingers have no souls.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted June 27, 2017 Author Share Posted June 27, 2017 On 6/24/2017 at 2:47 PM, neeeel said: is this not also basically pantheism? Or have I misunderstood? Sorry, neeeel, missed your post. No, Leibnizianism is not pantheism. What passage gave you that idea? Although Cusa tells us God is everything in everything and nothing in nothing, that is not pantheism either but a way of describing how everything bears God's stamp, even the things we ourselves create were thought of first by God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardY Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 Metaphysical Positions. Physicalism - (Everything Matter) - Determinism/Predetermined, No ethics. Mind/Spirtialism - (Everything Consciousness, Everything Part of God, Part of a Tribe, Pantheism)- Spinoza and the Stoics, No ethics. Dualism - After thinking about the first 2 positions I was inclined to conclude that to allow for the possibility of Ethics dualism might be the way to go. The conclusion of which made multiple universes a possibility. Although thinking about it, maybe this would be similar to the Euthyphro scenario by Plato, Socratic Dialogues. Leibnizian Monadology - I guess allows for the possibility of Ethics(Ethos?), but includes the acceptance of God, from reading briefly about it, it also seems to resolve the "double slit physics experiment phenomena". I came across the following quote by Schoppenhauer on Wikipedia "Higher Consciousness". "The better consciousness in me lifts me into a world where there is no longer personality and causality or subject or object. My hope and my belief is that this better (supersensible and extra-temporal) consciousness will become my only one, and for that reason I hope that it is not God. But if anyone wants to use the expression God symbolically for the better consciousness itself or for much that we are able to separate or name, so let it be, yet not among philosophers I would have thought." Donna?, could you recommend any books to read on Lebinizian Monadology or perhaps Dualism? Or perhaps something else. If anyone has other ideas on different metaphysical positions I'm open to suggestions, please share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted June 27, 2017 Author Share Posted June 27, 2017 57 minutes ago, RichardY said: Metaphysical Positions. Physicalism - (Everything Matter) - Determinism/Predetermined, No ethics. Mind/Spirtialism - (Everything Consciousness, Everything Part of God, Part of a Tribe, Pantheism)- Spinoza and the Stoics, No ethics. Dualism - After thinking about the first 2 positions I was inclined to conclude that to allow for the possibility of Ethics dualism might be the way to go. The conclusion of which made multiple universes a possibility. Although thinking about it, maybe this would be similar to the Euthyphro scenario by Plato, Socratic Dialogues. Leibnizian Monadology - I guess allows for the possibility of Ethics(Ethos?), but includes the acceptance of God, from reading briefly about it, it also seems to resolve the "double slit physics experiment phenomena". I came across the following quote by Schoppenhauer on Wikipedia "Higher Consciousness". "The better consciousness in me lifts me into a world where there is no longer personality and causality or subject or object. My hope and my belief is that this better (supersensible and extra-temporal) consciousness will become my only one, and for that reason I hope that it is not God. But if anyone wants to use the expression God symbolically for the better consciousness itself or for much that we are able to separate or name, so let it be, yet not among philosophers I would have thought." Donna?, could you recommend any books to read on Lebinizian Monadology or perhaps Dualism? Or perhaps something else. If anyone has other ideas on different metaphysical positions I'm open to suggestions, please share. Here's a good commentary text: G.W. Leibniz's Monadology: an edition for students Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts