So I'm thinking it is something in our being and a unity. More specifically something to do with our conscious experience.

Sounds like the Hindu "atman", atman is that bit of Brahman in each being.

From wiki;
In Hinduism, Brahman (/brəhmən/; ब्रह्मन्) connotes the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe.[1][2][3] In major schools of Hindu philosophy it is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists.[2][4][5] It is the pervasive, genderless, infinite, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes.[1][6][7] Brahman as a metaphysical concept is the single binding unity behind the diversity in all that exists in the universe.[1][8]

More specifically something to do with our conscious experience. — Punshhh

You were asking about seeing monads. It would mostly be with the mind's eye. Even unity of consciousness is really something detected by the intellect.

BTW: an interesting comparison is Leibniz to Einstein on the relativity of space.

E's Special Relativity is based on a thought experiment involving motion in a void. You watch someone getting bigger and bigger and then zoom by you. There's nothing (even in principle) that allows you to say who is moving.

L's criticism of Newtonian space is that if Newton was right, God could move the universe a few miles to the west. Even in principle, no motion would be observable. Therefore space is a relation between objects, not a container which holds objects.

the human species, for instance, is a pile of monads — Mongrel

Good luck making a pile out of anything with no dimensions.

You were asking about seeing monads. It would mostly be with the mind's eye. Even unity of consciousness is really something detected by the intellect.

Yes the intellect has to fashion a suitable conceptual form. I find this monad sort of disappears when I visualise it. But I still know it's there so that's sufficient to continue.

BTW: an interesting comparison is Leibniz to Einstein on the relativity of space.

Yes, I quite like imagining a banana is the only thing in existence and then trying to visualise it, how big it is, is it infinitely large or small? What colour is it? However I imagine it requires some kind of sensual stimulus. I do know what it tastes like though.

:) For Leibniz, space and time are ideal.

Immaterial doesn't mean non-existent.... obviously. But note that when you invoke the concept of an object, space and time might run to the stage to play their roles. So you rightly point out a pending mind-explosion in regard to idealism. Where's Mariner? He explains this really well.

Yes the intellect has to fashion a suitable conceptual form. — Punshhh

A suitable form for what? I've found since I've been reading about Leibniz that a sort of mathematical vibe has entered my experience.. kind of in the background. Just walking down the street, I find I'm thinking about substantiality and what it has to do with logical imperatives.

However I imagine it requires some kind of sensual stimulus. — Punshhh

I know what you mean. Leibniz took pains to point out that he wasn't saying that motion requires an observer, but that in principle it has to be observable. He's explaining verificationism.

The void banana is (in principle) tasty.

I think about these things in imaginary visual form in the minds eye. I find it works better for me to articulate concepts in this way. When it comes to the basis of spacetime, I tend to visualise all space and time as one existing point extended into a nearly endless quantity of points of extension analogous to atoms. The one point is somehow split, or divided through a kind of symmetry breaking, so the large quantity is equal to the one, just a different form of it.

When it comes to the basis of spacetime, I tend to visualise all space and time as one existing point extended into a nearly endless quantity of points of extension analogous to atoms. — Punshhh

Time is a circle. Laying an x-y axis over it, a sine wave can be generated. Add birth and death and we have the arc. Leibniz believed the monad is immortal, but denied that memory is lost in death. This moment is a facet of the eternal diamond?

More thoughts: for an idealist, mind is not a realm of illusion or a reflection of what is. At base, to know the truth is for mind to know itself. Intuitions regarding the ubiquitous point of view are a case of this. The monad is a unit of reality.

Nice, I can see that circle and the sign wave rising up into a third dimension, in each dimension the diamond is expressed, but in greater and greater extended complexity. While it is still present in its completeness in each point in space and time.

Yes the mind is not a realm of illusion, rather that distortion happens on the physical plain. And yes by knowing oneself one realises knowing itself.

This is cool. For Leibniz, mind comes in layers. Conscious thoughts and experiences are the top layer. Innate ideas are the next layer down and emerge from structural features of mind. The bottom layer is micro-perceptions (which, per Jolley is first fully articulated by Leibniz, but originally appeared in Spinoza's views).

Mind and body are both supposed to be structured in this way. So physical motion arises from structural features of the physical which are in turn rooted in micro-physical stuff.

One thing this reveals is that the notion that Freud's layering reflected the popularity of geology is at least partly bullshit. I knew it!