Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Notes On Leibniz Monadology - Multisense Realism
Notes On Leibniz Monadology - Multisense Realism
Multisense Realism
Craig Weinberg's Cosmology of Sense
It is a bit confusing right off the bat. To say that a something is a substance in a colloquial
sense implies already that is a ‘thing’ distinct from other things. What I am after is a much
deeper simplicity. To me a true monad could only be a boundaryless unity. An
everythingness-nothingness ‘carrier-tone’ of experiential readiness from which all
experiences are diffracted (divided from within, as ‘chips off the old block’, so to speak).
This is what I mean by the Big Diffraction. The monad itself has no parts, but its only nature is
the possibility that it imparts. My version of monad does not ‘exist’ as a simple substance
but rather it insists as the simplicity and essential wholeness of all experiences. It is sense.
This assumes a naive realism arrow of time. The true monad precedes causality and time, so
that it is as much the end result as the beginning condition. Things grow and divide, fuse and
multiply regardless of their simplicity or complexity. This is important because I think it is one
of the intellectual turns where the materialism of science is founded – in microcosmic simple
causes rather than an interplay of causes and effects on all levels of the cosmos
simultaneously.
3. Something that has no parts can’t be extended, can’t have
a shape, and can’t be split up. So monads are the true atoms
of Nature—the elements out of which everything is made.
Why can’t it be split up? If the monad is truly boundaryless, there is nothing to stop it from
‘becoming’ something else. If you are a boundaryless monad, the only way to become
something else is to split yourself into parts. To invent boundaries. Of course, since these
boundaries are invented, the underlying monad must precede them.
Yes, the monad would have nowhere to disappear to. Any pieces it ‘falls into’ are
themselves unified in the plurality of solitude that the monad becomes when it
divides/multiplies itself within itself. The monad is both the solitude, the solvent, and the
tension of the apartness relation between an ‘I’ and an ‘it’
He is forgetting that the primacy of monad is what allows existence itself to occur. Any kind of
existence supervenes upon this underlying sense of ontological fertility-fulfillment. Things
come into or out of existence relative to the experience of an ‘I’ apartment within the
monad. To the monad, nothing is lost or gained, only split into smaller and smaller fibers, tied
into larger and larger knots of knots (metaphorically speaking – they are not literal strings,
but figurative strings of sense-events making sense of each other in different ways). The key
difference between Leibniz monad and my TSM (Totality-Singularity Monad) is that I assume
that if there is only one thing, it can only be ‘everythingness’. There must be nothing that
the monad is not, and it must resist all possible definitions and other than its own. In working
with the TSM intellectually, we must proceed with finality from the outset – we must allow it
first to escape all concepts and expectations at all costs. It must precede even sanity and
causality, matter, entropy, etc. It is the base of bases…baseness itself.
Speed is a sense relation. No sense = no speed and no time. The division/multiplication of the
monad is what modulates different rhythms and scales of experience into motion-like
temporal relations. Like an old fashioned (Freemason’s) compass, the span between the
two points on paper hinges on the moving joint between them. It is there, at the joint, that we
find the monad – dividing into ratios what is external to itself but extended through its
projected ‘legs’.
as can happen in
a composite thing that has parts that can change in relation
to one another. ….[The passage from here to * is not by Leibniz. It
makes explicit what was presumably at work in his mind
when he made his remarkable jump.] That rules out every
sort of influence that one might think a created thing might
have on something else. (I stress ‘created’ because of course
I don’t rule out God’s affecting a monad.)
I do rule out God affecting a monad. The TSM is God – or that’s one name for it. I don’t
like that name because of the implication that it is an anthropomorphic entity and because of
all of the religious baggage, but if you have the TSM, you don’t need any other God.
Some philosophers
have held that one thing can affect another by sending an
‘accident’ across to it, understanding an accident to be an
instance of a property as distinct from the thing that has the
property. According to these philosophers, in addition to
the •universal property heat and the •particular thing this
poker there is a •particular property, an instance, an accident,
namely the heat of this poker; and they hold that when
the poker is plunged into cold water which then becomes
warmer, the poker sends an accident—some of its particular
heat—across to the water. Now, you might think that
although a created thing can’t cause re-arrangements in a
simple substance it might be able to affect it in a different
way by sending an accident across to it. And because you
might think this I should add that *….monads have no windows
through which anything could come in or go out! And
·anyway, quite apart from the imperviousness of monads to
them, these supposed migrating accidents are philosophical
rubbish·: accidents can’t detach themselves and stroll about
outside of substances!. . . . So neither substance nor accident
can come into a monad from outside.
8. Monads, ·although they have no parts·, must have some
qualities.
Wouldn’t qualities be the parts of monads? Why not? The visible spectrum is like a monad (it
may be the TSM itself expressed visually) When squeezed together, it’s colorful qualities are
cancelled out and augmented as intensity of white. This diffraction-condensation of qualities
is the monad and the monad is the experience of the relation of those qualities. This is what
Einstein neglected – that light is also color and color is light – without any speed. Our
experience of light exists within a qualitative inertial frame of visual perception; it is not a
temporal experience, it is a personal orientation between subject and object relation. It is the
joint end of the compass as well as the physical relativity between the two extended compass
points on paper. Quality does not represent this condensation of objective extension into
subjective experience – it presents it. Experience consists of qualia in its entirety.
Why not? I think this is an oversight by Leibniz. If the monad can be, why can’t it be
influenced by other monads being as well? What is stopping it if one part of the plenum is
really not primitively separated from any other part? On the TSM level at least, all the monads
are really the same unity.
There can’t be a general force for change that is the same in all monads unless the force for
change is what monads are entirely (since he says that monads have no parts). What is
change but an apartness derived from before and after causality? A force-for-change then,
implies an intention to drive apart a before and after condition yet retain the memory of the
before and appreciate the difference…hence: sense. The monad is that
force+field+action+expectation, doing-being-sensing-sensemaking, isness-aboutness.
Think of it like a subnet. As the TSM multiplies itself, the schema of elaboration grows to
accommodate new classes. The schema is only the form that the content providers use to
organize the traffic, it does not generate or experience the content. By building out more
diffraction (think fractal), the broad generality of the TSM can manifest its reflection in
relentless granularity of form. An incoherence of coherence to complement precisely the
coherence of pre-coherence that it its source.
13. This detailed nature must bring a •multiplicity within
the •unity of the simple substance. ·The latter’s detailed
nature is a ‘multiplicity’ in the sense that it has many components
that don’t stand or fall together·. That is because every
natural change happens by degrees, gradually, meaning that
something changes while something else stays the same.
Yes!! This is what it is all about. Something changes while something else stays the same.
Except I reconcile this with the TSM by saying that everything changes in every way except
one, and the monad stays the same in every way except one (its dream/desire of change…
mood, tone).
So
although there are no •parts in a simple substance, there
must be a plurality of •states and of relationships.
14. The passing state that incorporates and represents a
multitude within a unity—i.e. within the simple substance—
is nothing but what we call •perception. This must be carefully
distinguished from •awareness or consciousness, as
will become clear in what follows. [‘Awareness’ here translates
aperception. French had no noun for that job (nor did English), so Leibniz
coined the aperception on the basis of the verb phrase s’apercevoir de,
which meant and still means ‘to be aware of’.] In that the Cartesians
failed badly, entirely discounting perceptions whose owners
were not aware of them. That made them think that the only
monads are minds, which led them to deny that animals have
souls ·because those would be simple substances below the
level of minds· . . . . Like the uneducated man in the street
they confused a long stupor with death, ·whereas really a
long period of unconsciousness is different from death· in
the strict sense. This led them further into the Aristotelians’
wrong belief in souls that are entirely separated ·from any
body·, as well as confirming misguided minds in the belief
that souls are mortal.
Speculating about the afterlife is like speculating about a color that nobody has seen. Our
reasoning can never fill in the gap between our understanding of what might happen and the
quality of the experience of what will happen.
Yes! This must be one reason why people think I have been influenced by Leibniz.
If he had the benefit of General Relativity hindsight that I do, I think Leibniz would agree that
what he is talking about with simple substances are really inertial frames. A clustering of
common sense and motive channels that give rise to reasonable and coherent narratives of
realism.
18. [The word ‘entelechy’, used in this section, is a Greek label that
Leibniz gives to monads, especially when he wants to emphasize the
monad’s role as a source of power, energy, or the like. He connects it
here with the monad’s ‘perfection’, apparently meaning this in the sense
of completeness, self-sufficiency, causal power. In 62 he will connect ‘entelechy’
with the monad’s central role in the life of a body of which it is
the soul.] We could give the name ‘entelechy’ to all simple substances
or created monads, because they have within them
a certain perfection. . . .; there is a kind of self-sufficiency
which makes them sources of their own internal actions—
makes them immaterial automata, as it were.
19. [In this section, the French word sentiment is left untranslated. It
could mean ‘feeling’ or ‘sensation’ or ‘belief’.] If we are willing to label
as a ‘soul’ anything that has perceptions and appetites in
the general sense that I have just explained, then all simple
substances—all created monads—could be called ‘souls’. But
as there is more to sentiment than mere perception, I think
that the general name ‘monad’ or ‘entelechy’ is adequate for
substances that have mere perception and nothing more,
and that we should reserve ‘soul’ for the ones with perceptions
that are more distinct and accompanied by memory.
·In this context I shall use the phrase ‘mere monad’ to mean
‘monad whose perceptions have nothing special about them,
are not distinct or accompanied by memory, are merely perceptions
with nothing more to be said about them·.
20. For we experience ourselves being a state in which we
remember nothing and have no distinct perception—for example
when we fall into a faint, or are overtaken by a deep
dreamless sleep. While our soul is in that state, there is
nothing to mark it off from a mere monad; but for our soul
that state doesn’t last—the soul recovers from it—which is
why it is a soul, something more than a mere monad.
21. But it doesn’t at all follow that a mere monad has no
perceptions at all. ·It not only doesn’t follow·; it couldn’t be
true, for a three-part reason that I have given: •a monad
can’t go out of existence, but •to stay in existence it has to
be in some state or other, and •its states are all perceptions.
But ·having perceptions is compatible with being in a very
confused state, as we know from our own experience·. When
we have a great many small perceptions none of which stand
out, we are dazed; for example when you spin around continually
in one direction for a time, you become dizzy, you can’t
distinguish anything, and you may faint. That is the state
animals are in, temporarily, when they meet their ·so-called·
death.
22. And every momentary state of a simple substance is a
natural consequence of its ·immediately· preceding one, so
that the present is pregnant with the future.
23. When you recover from your dizzy spell and are aware
of having perceptions, you obviously must have been having
perceptions just before then, though you weren’t aware of
them. That is because, ·as I said in 22·, in the course of
Nature a perception can come only from another perception,
just as a motion can come only from another motion.
24. We can see from this that if none of our perceptions
stood out, if none were (so to speak) highly seasoned and
more strongly flavoured than the rest, we would be in a permanent
daze. And that is the state that bare monads—·what
I am here calling ‘mere monads’·—are in ·all the time·.
I agree with his intuitions here, and get into them in more depth in multisense realism. Without
the divisions and multiplications of being a monad of monads within monads, there would
only be the everythingness of the outermost monad. As these levels of monad-in-monad
nestings accumulate, they present the nesting as meta-qualitative or super-signifying
richness of experience. This is how the ‘soul’ or human self differs from other classes of
selves (in our own eyes if nothing else) – through significance; exponential sense-on-sense
properties which are recovered from the TSM’s promise-potential rather than emerging
from nothingness.
The astronomer believes it intellectually, but she does not experience this belief as a visceral
reality. Even astronomers see the sun setting and not the horizon lifting.
43. Also, God is the source not only of existences but also
of essences insofar as they are real; that is, he is the source
of what reality there is among possibilities. This is because
God’s understanding is the realm of eternal truths, or the
realm of the ideas on which such truths depend. Without
God’s understanding there would be no reality among possibilities.
...
Where he uses ‘God’s understanding’, I substitute ‘sense’, or if you like ‘thense’ or
‘ence’… something to denote the primordial isness-aboutness which embodies the
difference that makes a difference to itself. He has the monad already, all he needs is to really
commit to its ultimate Totality and Singularity to realize that all seeming Godness or
understandingness must also be divisible by and through the monad, the everthingness of
self-division/self-recovery. It’s not the 1s and 0s of ‘information’, it is the expectation that
forms can refer to other forms or experiences and the power to generate forms and actions.
Besides being an interesting example of diachronicity for me, with his use of both of the e-
words, I feel like my mission is to help Leibniz finish what he started, to redeem and update
his philosophies that work and maybe correct those that are no longer relevant.
reminds me of my six-sided syzygy ideas. We both are focusing on the same principle that is
embodied in a transistor – the base (i – I, subject, ground of being), collector (ii-
perceptive/sensory/afferent), and emitter (iii -appetitive/motive/efferent). I see the qualitative
distinctions he makes between God and monad as mere points on the continuum of
qualitative richness but his intuition of 3 + 3 symmetry are matched by my own. The
difference is that I see the power, knowledge, and will of God as being the supersignifiers
which we project above us and his ‘basic nature, perception, and appetition’ as the sub-
signifiers which we project upon ourselves from the outside – ie mechanemorphic elemental
complements to our anthropomorphic cosmological superlatives.
For my own Big Six, I see an interchangeable multi-sense relation between three interiors
(who, why, and when :: sense, motive, and timespace) and three exteriors (what, how, and
where :: matter, energy, and spacetime). Later on, he gets into his universal harmony, which is
very similar to what I call perceptual inertia. I think that we are both talking about the same
thing, only that by inertial I am talking about what perception is while universal harmony refers
to what it does. Perception binds us harmonically, orients us to the realism and meaning that
our experience of the universe potentially holds for us. It is the stuff of self-revealing intuition
juxtaposed with self-concealing gaps or lapsing of these nested inertial frames of sense and
significance.
I think he was too hasty in saying that a monad is representative by nature. While his point is
well taken that, as he says earlier “each monad is a perpetual living mirror of the universe”, I
think that the other half of this profound truth is that each monad is also a non-perpetual
presentation of nothing except itself.
Again, the monad doesn’t represent the body that is assigned to it, I say that it presents it
directly. I also say that the interconnection of all matter in the plenum that he speaks of (which
is just the universe with all of the space vacuumed out) is only half of the monad story. We
also have to look at time as the anti-plenum; the ‘not-now’ which cuts across the plenum
orthogonally, generating a figurative grouping in which many events co-insist.
Here Leibniz foreshadows our modern debates about Artificial Intelligence. His reasoning is
characteristically pre-modern but not entirely wrong. Both inanimate objects and living
organisms turn out to be made of the same smallest parts (whether those parts are
‘infinity’ is arguable, what with QM and vacuum flux). Each part of even a man made
machine is made of smaller machines made of smaller wholes. The difference is not in what
can be done with these wholes, it is in how the quality of experience scales up – not from
being externally orchestrated like a puppet but growing, blooming, discovering recovered
properties of entelechy from within.
What I see and what I think he might agree with me on now is that it is the experienced quality
of awareness (rather than the presence or absence of mechanism) which differentiates
inorganic objects from living organisms. I say that everything has mechanistic and experiential
qualities, and further that those qualities are inversely proportionate – giving privilege to the
vertical, qualitative depth at the expense of the horizontal, quantitative universality. We
humans are like hothouse flowers, in constant need of countless conditions of homeostatic
equilibrium to maintain our function and sanity. We are human to the extent that we are unlike
animals, and we are animals to the extent that we are unlike vegetables, minerals, matter,
quantum, or recursive enumerations of computation.
65. And ·God·, the author of Nature, was able to carry out
this divine and infinitely marvellous artifice because every
portion of matter is not only
divisible to infinity,
as the ancients realised, but is
actually sub-divided without end,
every part divided into smaller parts, each one of which has
some motion of its own ·rather than having only such motion
as it gets from the motion of some larger lump of which it
is a part·. Without this ·infinite dividedness· it would be
impossible for each portion of matter to express the whole
universe.
66. And from this we can see that there is a world of
creatures—of living things and animals, entelechies and
souls—in the smallest fragment of matter.
67. Every portion of matter can be thought of as a garden
full of plants or a pond full of fish. But every branch of the
plant, every part of the animal (every drop of its vital fluids,
even) is another such garden or pond.
68. And although the earth and air separating the plants in
the garden and the water separating the fish in the pond are
not themselves plants or fish, they contain other ·organisms·,
but usually ones that are too small for us to perceive them.
Here Leibniz is reaching for quantum mechanical concepts, and what I call the ‘profound
edge’ which represents the blurry seam between ultra-microcosm and omni-cosmos. While
we use Planck units to plug the drain of infinity he speaks of, they are figments of impressively
ambitious dividedness. If an electron were the size of the Earth, one Planck length would still
be measured in millionths of a millimeter. Planck time would be the time it takes light to travel
that distance, if light was a billion-billion-billion times faster than it is (since the radius of an
electron is on the order of 10^-20 meters, the radius of the Earth is around 25,512,000 meters,
and Planck length is around 10^-35 meters.)
69. Thus there is nothing barren, sterile, dead in the universe;
nothing chaotic, nothing confused except in appearance.
·Here is an example of that·. If you see a pond from a
certain distance, you may see the swirling of the fish without
being able to pick out any individual fish; it may seem to
you that you are seeing confused movements of the fish, ·but
really nothing is confused in itself—what’s happening here
is that you are perceiving confusedly·.
As I see it, since the flux of realism is propagated through the quality of solitude through time
and against the interruption of the multiplicities of space, there is no need for a literal infinity
of microcosm, rather, it can be understood as a fixed potential which is forever receding in
arctic sterility from a relatively florid and tropical mesocosm of novelty production. The
universe is generated from the middle out to the ends, from the realism of the ordinary as well
as the teleological-mechanistic attractors of the profoundly unreal. I would say that Leibniz is
half right in his panpsychic optimism – indeed, on its own native scale of time and sense,
there may be nothing which is not full of order and experience, but at the same time, that
significance of focus can only exist at the expense of projecting insignificance and entropy. It
is not a defect of perception, it is the very definition of perception – to orient and separate
one quasi-solipsistic inertial frame from another. Death is as real as life, only it is always
happening to someone else. This is anthropic and figurative, but I say it is also literal from a
‘cosmopic’ perspective. Space and matter are entropy and inertia seen from the outside.
Death is the insiders triangulated view of their own outside.
70. We can see from this that every living body has one
dominant entelechy, which in an animal is its soul; but the
parts of that living body are full of other living things, plants,
animals, each of which also has its entelechy or dominant
soul.
71. Some people who have misunderstood my ideas have
thought ·me to have implied· that
every soul has a mass or portion of matter which is
its own and is assigned to it for ever, and therefore
every soul has other living things that are inferior to
it, destined always to be in its service.
That doesn’t follow; and it isn’t true, because all bodies are
in a perpetual state of flux, like rivers, with parts constantly
coming into them and going out.
72. Thus the soul changes its body only gradually, a bit
at a time, and is never suddenly stripped of all its organs.
So animals undergo a great deal of change of form [French
metamorphose] but they never undergo the transmigration of
souls from one body to another [metempsychose]. And no souls
are completely separated from matter—there are no spirits
without bodies. Only God is completely detached from
matter.
73. Another upshot of all this is that there is never either
•complete generation ·in which a living thing comes into existence
· or •complete death, which (taking ‘death’ in its strict
sense) consists in the soul’s becoming detached ·from its
body·. What we call generation is development and growth;
just as what we call death is envelopment and shrinking.
Here he is using words like soul and God when I think that if he had taken the monad to its
absolute conclusion, he would have seen the symmetry of space, time, matter, energy,
‘perception’, and ‘appetition’ and found no need to force the cosmos into a master-
servant hierarchy. We are all masters and servants.
He goes on to talk about a pre-established harmony but doesn’t specify that this would
constitute a neutral monism from which the continuum from essence and existence are
diffracted. I try to get at what this is about, using the TSM as a way to model how qualia can
be both accumulated or recovered through experience as well as incommutable glimpses of a
single holistic aeon. The only way this works is top-down: Diffraction and recapitulation, not
assembly and emergence. Assembly and emergence are existential consequences, not
essential sequences or autopoietic processes.
The last few pages get back into divinity and a City of God which are probably too antiquated
for me to relate to seriously. Efficient causes, final causes, moral realm of grace, etc. do not
translate well into the 21st century. For better or worse, the closest we are probably going to
get to a City of God in the foreseeable future is going to be free Wi-Fi. This doesn’t mean I
don’t take the prospect of correcting our dislocated metaphysics seriously, or that I don’t