As regards Leibniz and his monads, and if I understand the idea so far--almost accurately--then these bits of my reading and experience come to mind.
1. From Mooney's ethnographic account of Wavoka, the Paiute prophet/mystic.
Black Coyote told how they had seated themselves on the ground in front of Wovoka, as described by Tall Bull, and went on to tell how the messiah had waved his feathers over his hat, and then, when he withdrew his hand, Black Coyote looked into the hat and there 'saw the whole world'.
2. William Blake's famous lines from _Auguries of Innocence_, which is worth reading beyond these opening lines.
To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour . . .
3. Contemplating a fractal image or mandala.
4. My thesis that given a reading of any old book, you can find there all you need to know, provided you think about what you have read plus implicit assumptions, implications, etc. Reading the complete works of the world is not necessary. Ref. https://noematics.blogspot.com/2009/10/recommended-reading.html
5. The butterfly effect.
6. Language as used and then looked up only leads to more words to look up, so the whole and even the exact may be never known, that world's being too big to get one's head 'round.
Contrary to all of this, which may be nothing at all to occupy one’s imagination, consider considering the macro and the micro. Each direction? leads to infinite discoveries, so comprehension or even conception of the whole is not possible.
So there we are, two cultures again? C. P. Snow's conclusion, if I remember correctly, the two, science and the arts, shall never meet, or map one to the other and vice versa. But such was his, and my, hope.
This is all nothing. Ignore this post and get back to work.
