A diagram of the Egyptian "cubit" and the "palm" measuring system.

In terms, monad, from the Greek: μονάς (monas) (NE:361), meaning: "singularity, alone, solitary, or unit"[1], from the Egyptian: sun god symbol: ʘ (circle-dot), defined as the first unit, value one, of the "cubit", or 28-division Egyptian ruler, which was conceptualized, according to Heliopolis creation myth, as the first principle or origin of all things; later becoming ciphered in a number of different symbolic ways, e.g. as being the sum of the degrees of a circle (360) plus one (1) or "361" the isopsephy value of the word "monad", or the value "1000", the circumference of the so-called "divine solar circle", with a diameter of "318", the isopsephy value of the words: Helios, the Greek sun god, or theta (symbol: Θ), the 9th letter of the Greek alphabet, among other cyphers.

## Overview

The unit of measurement of the Egyptians was the "cubit", a wooden ruler, defined by the average length of an man's elbow to middle finger, divided into 28-divisions, division was dedicated to a god, one for each day of the lunar month. The cubit ruler shown below is from the Turin Museum:[2]

The image shown below, right side of the above cubit ruler, shows the first 15 divisions:[3]

The first division, above far right, shows a circle Ο, which has "360" degrees, with a dot symbol inside: ʘ, the dot presumably representing the number "1". This is the hieroglyph of the sun god Ra, and also part of the hieroglyph of the city of Heliopolis.[3] Mathematically, we have:

${\displaystyle 360+1=361}$

Isopsephically, we have:

${\displaystyle {\text{Monad}}=361}$

In verbal summary:

“The mark which signifies the monad is the source of all things. And it reveals its kinship with the sun in summation of its name: the word ‘monad’ when added up yields 361, which are the degrees [360] of the zodiacal circle.”
Iamblichus (c.305), Theology of Arithmetic; cited by Kieren Barry (1999) in The Greek Qabalah (pgs. 65-66) [4]

Hence, the secret name of the word "monad", which overtly means "one", but has the NE-value of "361" (monas) (μονάς), represented by the circle-dot symbol: ʘ (by the Egyptians) or the theta symbol: Θ by the Greeks). This, in turn, traces back to the Heliopolis creation myth, and how all things generated from the Nun (Egyptian), i.e. water god, or nous (Greek), i.e. mind of god, out of which the sun or sun god was born.

### ʘ | 1000 units

The basic geometry of the so-called "monad circle", namely a circle with a circumference of 1000-units, which has a diameter of 318.318 units (the number 318 equals the words: theta and Helios in NE-value), which upon division of the former with the latter, yields the value of "pi" or 3.1415, which is the secret name of the the Bible (βῐ́βλος) (NE:314). Also, in Greek factional mathematics, the unit "1000" reduces to "1", in some way, aka the monad (NE:316), which equals 360 (degrees of circle) + 1.

In 500BC, the Greeks, having studied in Egypt, took the circle-dot symbol (ʘ) as the basis of the what the termed the "monad", and assigned the circumference of this monad circle to be a 1000-units, such as shown adjacent.

### Bible | 314 | π

The word "Bible", or βῐ́βλος (Greek), has a an isopsephy (or gematria) value value of "314", which is a coded reference to the first three digits of ${\displaystyle \pi }$ or 3.141596 ..., as shown below:[5]

At the core of the Bible, secretly named "Book of ${\displaystyle \pi }$", is following formula for the so-called divine golden circle, with a diameter of "318" (or 318.318), and circumference of "1000":

${\displaystyle \pi ={\frac {1000}{318.318}}}$

or

${\displaystyle \pi =3.14151\dots }$

which equates to an accurate calculation of "${\displaystyle \pi }$" to four digits (which is the best that mathematicians knew at this time).The significance of the number "318", is that it the isopsephy value of the Greek words: Theta, the Egyptian symbol of sun: , i.e. sun god (or: sun god + Apep, sun + compass, etc.), and Helios, the Greek name of sun (or sun god). The name Bible as code name "${\displaystyle \pi }$", is symbolic of the fact that the Bible, New and Old Testament, is a solar-based theology, the majority of the names, characters, prophets, gods, god sons, etc., in the Bible being monotheistic rescripts of what were originally polytheistic gods, themselves based on astro-theology.

The name Bible, accordingly, thus renders, in words, via decoded isopsephy, as follows:

${\displaystyle \pi ={\frac {\text{Monad}}{\text{Theta-Helios}}}}$

or in words:

${\displaystyle {\text{Bible}}={\frac {\text{Monad}}{\text{Theta-Helios}}}}$

Accordingly, the word "monad" can be defined mathematically as:

${\displaystyle {\text{Monad}}={\text{Bible}}\times {\text{Theta.Helios}}}$

The coding of the word "Bible", as the book of "book of Pi", or the "book of the father", as pi (Π) is the initial of English name father (pater), is thus symbolic of the fact that much of grammatical structure of the Bible is based on so-called number-meaning ordering of words in sentences and and the use of isopsephy (or gematria) in making the names of the people in the Bible, in respect to circles, diameters, and spheres, much of which based on the circle of the sun. This new mathematical view, naturally enough, obliviates the old now defunct etymology which supposed that the term “Bible”, derived from Semitic-Greek term biblos ‘papyrus, scroll,’ being simply the name of the ancient the city Byblos, the port city through which papyrus was shipped, via the Aegean Sea.

In 1715, Gottfried Leibniz, in his Monadology, attempted to derive the "laws of motion" from a mixture of mathematics and mechanism, based on the hypothesis of the 'monad', which he defined as "simple substances", or the fundamental particles of the universe, aka a sort of "living atom" conception, a step above that of the "substantial forms"[6] model of Plato and Aristotle.

In 1893, Gabriel Tarde, in his Monadology and Sociology, building on Leibniz, John Tyndall, Emile Durkheim, Friedrich Lange, and others, attempted to outline a "universal sociology" of sorts; the following is an abstract:

“Tarde's work sets out a theory of ‘universal sociology’, which aims to explicate the essentially social nature of all phenomena, including the behaviour of atoms, stars, chemical substances and living beings. He argues that all of nature consists of elements animated by belief and desire, which form social aggregates analogous to those of human societies and institutions. In developing this central insight, Tarde outlines a metaphysical system which builds on both classical rationalist philosophy and the latest scientific theories of the time, in a speculative synthesis.”

## Quotes

The following are related quotes:

“Hence, they call the monadPrometheus’, the artificer of life, because, uniquely, it in no way outruns or departs from its own principle, nor allows anything else to do so, since it shares out its own properties.”
Iamblichus (c.310), The Theology of Arithmetic (pg. 38)
“Likewise, they call the monadchaos’, which is Hesiod's first generator, because chaos gives rise to everything else, as the monad does. It is also thought to be both ‘mixture’ and ‘blending’, ‘obscurity’ and ‘darkness’, thanks to the lack of articulation and distinction of everything which ensues from it. Anatolius says that it is called ‘matrix’ and ‘matter’, on the grounds that without it there is no number. The mark which signifies the monad is a symbol of the source of all things. And it reveals its kinship with the sun in the summation of its name: for the word ‘monad’ when added up yields 361, which are the degrees of the zodiacal circle.”
Iamblichus (c.305), Theology of Arithmetic (pg. 39); cited by Kieren Barry (1999) in The Greek Qabalah (pgs. 65-66) [4]
“I have tried to uncover and unite the truth buried and scattered in the opinions of different philosophical sects, and I believe I have added something of my own to take a few steps forward. The circumstances of my studies, from my earliest youth, have given me some facility in this. I learned Aristotle as a lad, and even the Scholastics did not put me off; I am not at all regretful of this even now. But at that time Plato too, and Plotinus, gave me some satisfaction, not to mention other ancient thinkers whom I consulted later. After leaving the trivial schools, I fell upon the moderns, and I remember at the age of fifteen taking a walk by myself in a grove on the outskirts of Leipzig, called the Rosental[7], in order to deliberate about whether I should retain ‘substantial forms’? Mechanism, however, finally prevailed and led me to apply myself to mathematics. It is true that I did not enter into its depths until after I had conversed with Huygens in Paris. But when I looked for the ultimate reasons for mechanism, and for the ‘laws of motion’ themselves, I was very surprised to see that it was impossible to find them in mathematics, and that I should have to return to metaphysics. This is what led me back to entelechies, and from the "material" to the "formal", and ultimately brought me to understand, after a number of corrections and improvements to my notions, that monads, or "simple substances", are the only true substances, and that material things are only phenomena, albeit well-founded and well-connected.”
Gottfried Leibniz (c.1715), Publication (pg. #)[8]
“Anatolius (De Decade, c.285) remarks that the Pythagoreans call the monadnous’ (see: Nun) and liken it to the one itself (to heni auten), the intelligible god (to noeto theo), the uncreated (to agenneto), beauty itself (autokalo), the good itself (autoagatho), and—among the virtues—the wisdom (phronesei) of the one.”
— Bruce MacLennan. (2019). “The Psychodynamics of Numbers” [9]