Hold on a minute, sports fans…….
Is Leibniz’ PII telling us that there cannot be two identical monad/atoms?
Clearly, there is something I’m not getting!
Is it possible that Leibniz didn’t understand the notion of a small world?
Then there is his doctrine of marks and traces…… which is in the notion of a CIC, complete individual concept.
So, yes, every atom/monad is individual…… it has an individual soul.
He had no clue about atoms
.
And chick is not supposed to, either.
What did he think about metabolism?
Atomism was rampant in the ancient world.
So what was going on in Gottfried’s head?
I might have a need to know.
………….
It seems that personalism never occurred to Gottfried.
He relied almost entirely on atomic monads and God…. and then mostly just on God’s Occasionalism and pre-established harmony.
He’s looking at a Mandelbrot set, with the little brots going all the way down.
Even with his BPWH, there is no concept of a Metanarrative……. the cosmic conspiracy of our better angels
, from outside of space and time.
We could say that he was so near, yet so far, but actually not all that far, either.
With his new mathematical insights, he became infatuated with infinities.
Any sort of Metanarrative would have been much too crude for him.
Are we all just trapped in the Metanarrative?
Well, if you come up with a better place, be sure to let us know…… keeping in mind that we are all destined to become one with the One.
We are destined to have a beer
with the One.
Do we have to do this 10^10 times?
No……. remember that we get time off for good behavior.
In the End, the BPW would have been much too simple minded for Gottfried.
There were a bunch of new ideas floating around when he was a kid, and he had to try them all out.
I sure don’t mind standing on the shoulders of giants.
Would Gottfried mind?
I’ll be sure to ask him.
The only infinity is within.
Gottfried never made the acquaintance of Quakers.
With Gottfried and Nature, we get to have our cake 🧁, and eat it, too!
It’s hard to believe that Leibniz came almost a century before Kant.
Did poor Immanuel add anything to Gottfried?
Except to lead us further astray?
His Noumenon sure didn’t do any good, except to lead us further down the primrose path of materialism.
Kant had to deny any sort of innate ideas.
How dumb was that?
Somehow, Kant has the reputation for being the father of modern philosophy.
So much for modern philosophy!
Kant could never have imagined anything like Disclosure.
Neither can any modern.
Kant was the handmaiden of the Grand Deception……. and, more than anyone else, the mentor of our great apostasy.
Clearly, Leibniz’ biggest mistake was, when it came to God, to ignore his own wisdom concerning the best possible.
Oh, no, Gottfried’s God had to be perfect…….. omniscient and all that!
I guess he had to leave something on the table.
And, yes, the best possible God will be the least possible God.
Isn’t that obvious?
Well, think of God as pouring herself completely into her Creation.
What else could she possibly do?
And, let’s not forget that with our better angels fully engaged, the best possible world is going to be the only possible One.
(cont…….)
Yesterday at 8:36 pm by U
» Why are we here?
Sat Nov 23, 2024 7:59 am by dan
» OMF STATE OF THE UNION
Fri Nov 22, 2024 10:22 pm by U
» Disclosure - For U by U
Thu Nov 21, 2024 10:08 pm by U
» The scariest character in all fiction
Thu Nov 21, 2024 6:47 pm by U
» Uanon's Majikal Misery Tour "it's all smiles on the magic school bus"
Sun Nov 10, 2024 9:36 pm by Mr. Janus
» What Music Are You Listening To ?
Sat Nov 09, 2024 12:34 am by U
» Livin Your Best Life
Wed Nov 06, 2024 8:55 am by Post Eschaton Punk
» Baudrillardian hauntology - what are some haunting truths to our reality?
Sun Nov 03, 2024 3:07 pm by dan