Now here's old Gottfried Leibniz, inventor (along with Sir Isaac Newton) of the calculus. He conceived of your 'beons' way back in the seventeenth
century, and gave them the slightly less worthy name of monads.
Monads are elementary particles with blurred perceptions of one another. (They) are the ultimate elements of the universe. The monads are
"substantial forms of being" with the following properties: they are eternal, indecomposable, individual, subject to their own laws, un-interacting,
and each reflecting the entire universe in a pre-established harmony (a historically important example of panpsychism). Monads are centers of force;
substance is force, while space, matter, and motion are merely phenomenal.
The ontological essence of a monad is its irreducible simplicity. Each monad is like a little mirror of the universe. Monads need not be "small";
e.g., each human being constitutes a monad.
You are quite the scholar! I've developed my ideas in what would be a philosophical vacuum if not for cursory readings of Descartes. I dislike
reading philosophy, because I mentally argue with every concept, but can only voice my objections irrelevantly in the margins of book pages. I also
find it extremely difficult to remember the details of an argument which I find to be fallacious. Therefore I only took one philosophy course, post
grad, while my first philosophy book was in a publisher's print queue. You appear to be considerably better read in such subjects, and I welcome any
relevant input you care to provide.
I'd only known of Leibnitz as the Kraut who independently duplicated Newton's calculus. My courses were in physics, beginning with Newtonian
mechanics and derivative ideas. Leibnitz was a footnote in the history of physics. This is the first I've learned of his metaphysical ideas.
I'm thinking that the best way for me to deal with these insights is to contrast Leibnitz' ideas, as per your quote, with mine.
"Monads are elementary particles with blurred perceptions of one another."
Beons are not particles. The best word in our lexicon is, IMO, entities. The vast majority of them have no perception of anything at all, much less
others of their kind. Highly developed (conscious, intelligent) beons have acute perceptions of one another. Beons at intermediate levels of
development have the kinds of perceptions that we see between human friends, enemies, offspring, and spouses.
"(They) are the ultimate elements of the universe. The monads are "substantial forms of being" with the following properties: they are eternal,
So far, this is a description of Beon Theory from someone who might have been in the process of developing it, but who overthought the idea.
Beon had a beginning. Although our time-concepts are not applicable to that event, the very idea of a beginning implies, not eternal
Beons are composable, in that they can grow and change, becoming more powerful with experience. If something is composable, it would seem to me to
also be decomposable.
" ...subject to their own laws,..."
WTF does that mean?
This is an absurd attribute. It certainly does not apply to beons, who interact with one another and with all aspects of the physical universe, at
levels more fundamental than those which require the intermediary of a body/brain system.
"...and each reflecting the entire universe in a pre-established harmony (a historically important example of panpsychism). "
This kind of crap explains better than anything why I cannot abide reading much philosophy. What does "reflecting the entire universe" mean? What
is this pre-established harmony nonsense? Who established it?
At this point I find myself too thoroughly immersed in absurd verbiage to even bother looking up "panpsychism."
"Monads are centers of force; substance is force, while space, matter, and motion are merely phenomenal."
According to Beon Theory, this concept is dreadfully confused. Monads and beons are about as equivalent as The Three Stooges are to Laurel and
Hardy. IQs below 100 cannot tell the difference.
Beons do indeed manifest a single force. Their substance consists of the space from which they were formed. The force they manifest is an inherent
property of that space.
Space, in the context of Beon Theory, is entirely different from the "space" we are taught about, which is an empty space that has no inherent
properties. I see space as something which is filled with a substance that has at least one property of its own (other than existence and a boundary
I've never found an adequate physical description of beon, but now I'm thinking (thanks to your feedback) that they might be well-defined as
isolated pieces of a broken space. That space is not the space within which we exist, not the space that we describe as if we fully understand it.
Astyanax, thank you for thoughtful questions!
"...The ontological essence of a monad is its irreducible simplicity. Each monad is like a little mirror of the universe. Monads need not be
"small"; e.g., each human being constitutes a monad."
While I love the concept of irreducible simplicity, this statement is an absurd and incompetent example of it. How can a "little mirror of the
universe," whatever that means, be simple? Human beings are extraordinarily complex entities, engineered over long periods of time, the result of
many experimental adjustments to snippets of DNA in suitably isolated environments. How the hell does someone use the words "human being" and
"irreducibly simple" in the same sentence, while keeping a straight face?
If I were teaching a course in Thinking 101, I would use that last idiotic comment about the ontological essence of a monad as a prime example of how
to conceal cognitive dissonance within obfuscating philosophical verbiage.
Now, tip your hat to the Mother of All New Age Mumbo-Jumbo, Madame Blavatsky, whose concept
of monads was even more like yours than Leibniz's.
According to the emanationist cosmology of Madame Blavatsky all monads emerge from divine unity at the beginning of a cosmic cycle and return to
this source at its close.
I only tip my hat to women I respect enough to be willing to wake up in bed with. IMO Mdm.B is as FOS as Seth, Kryon, RamDass, and their glut of New
Age religionist followers. I do not follow nitwits. I do not even bother to study their writings past the point at which they demonstrate either
cognitive dissonance or their complete ignorance of basic physics.
Your intimidating authorities are merely a gaggle of uninformed crackpots who cannot keep their ideas internally consistent. Nonetheless, your
feedback got me thinking again, so I definitely appreciate your contributions to this subject.
You have also done a fine job of spanking a few of the lower level nits who've inevitably popped up on this thread. Thanks! Tigers can enjoy their
tangles the better without blow-flies nipping at their butts.