Talk:Microcosm–macrocosm analogy

Lord of the Flies

I would think that Lord of the Flies is a strong, obvious and well-known modern microcosm.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.109.0.209 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Two problems

There are two problems with this page which I don't have time to fix right now. 1. it links to itself 2. it says nothing about the alchemical significance of the two words.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.162.142.52 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

- alchemy is mentioned in the article, I'm presuming you edited it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonpilot (talk • contribs) 17:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Socrates

In paragraph 2, I think we need to explain that Socrates is always a character in Plato's writing - it might be a bit confusing for anyone unfamiliar with Plato's work. This is the sentence I don't like:

"At §368, Socrates mentions that this virtue is “spoken as a virtue of an individual, and sometimes as the virtue of the state” and that it would be easier to discern its essence if one looked at the State because it would have a larger quantity of it and then proceeding back down into the individual to see how it appears in the smaller unit.""

See what I mean?

Moonpilot 17:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Moonpilot

Western bias

This article has an extreme Western bias. The concept of microcosm/macrocosm is at the heart of traditional Chinese philosophy, completely unrelated to its Greek parallel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.75.230 (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Repeating patterns

- Repeating patterns in everything? isn't that essentially saying the world is made up of Fractals? Sp!der (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC).

I love that I went to this page to see what wikipedia had to say and someone was talking about self-similarity aka fractals. it was just missing the pic! I was hoping to find history and a mention of MESO. =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.82.194 (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Indo-European roots

The page completely ignores that the Greek concept of mico-macrocosm is in fact an evolution of the idea already existent in its Indo-European roots.71.190.182.22 (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Hence the below merger proposal. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Substandard and needs citations

- The article is substandard and needs citations, for example in the list of cultures that "observed the golden ratio in many parts of the ordered universe both large and small" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Txensen (talk • contribs) 23:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

New article on Macrocosm/microcosm

I have written an article about macrocosm/microcosm. It is at The Free Library. This should be the standard authoritative article on the subject:

• Macrocosm/Microcosm in Doric Thought online at The Free Library

I hope this clears up some issues.WHEELER (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Should be some specific definition of Macrocosm and that of Microcosm

Ok, now the article is deleted to basically nothing. The notion of Microcosm and Macrocosm is so important in ancient philosophy, alchemy, astrology, and medicine. There should be some specific definition of Macrocosm and that of Microcosm, and then talk about how that is related. I just drop off an image I found about the relation between macrocosm and microcosm. The meaning of that picture can be that man live in the body of microcosm during the day time with consciousness and then give up his astral body and ego to pass into the macrocosm when he is asleep, lying in the stream of forgetfulness. "Title Macrocosm and Microcosm Author Rudolf Steiner Publisher SteinerBooks, 1986 ISBN 1621510700, 9781621510703"

you can find more material to edit this material for sure. HillmanHan (talk) 04:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Human being and the cosmos might not be very similar in structure

Talk pages are not a blog's comment section applies. --Calton | Talk 15:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that the human being and the cosmos might be analogous because both were created by God. However, the former has the soul which was created with His breath by Him, while the latter does not. Thus, we have to be careful to think that they might not be very similar in structure.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruby2021 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Hello Ruby2021! Please see Pneuma (Stoic) and Stoic physics: the Stoics believed that the cosmos originated from a breath or spirit, which they thought of as the world soul; the spirit of God hovering over the waters in Genesis 1:2 was sometimes also interpreted along that line. However, please keep in mind that talk pages are not supposed to function as a discussion forum, but should instead be focused on the concrete improvement of articles (see #4 in WP:NOTFORUM). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Refactored talk page

This talk page was a disorganized clutter of comments, many of them unsigned and appearing in no particular order (neither chronological nor logical), so I've just added section headings to most of them and tried to put apparent replies in the section to which they seem to belong. I should also note that this article was rewritten from scratch on 21 January 2021, so none of these sections (except the last one above) apply to the current version of the article. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Size of the lead image depicting a macro-cosmic man

Hello Scyrme! With regard to this, I feel I should tell you that per WP:BRD, you should have started a discussion after your bold edit was reverted, and that per WP:QUO, you should not have re-reverted away from the status quo until consensus is established. It would be nice if you would keep to these established practices in the future!

You drastically reduced the size of the lead image depicting a macro-cosmic man, writing: A diagram which is only meaningful to those who read Latin is not instructive, it's distracting, and most readers will find the article itself far more helpful. Anyone who can read it will find a full-sized version is conveniently just 1 click away; the utility is undiminished.

The reason why the image is instructive is not its Latin text, but the way it illustrates the concept of an analogy between parts of the human body and parts of the cosmos: the head (which the Stoics called with the same name as they called God, the head and God being the hegemonikon or 'leading part' of man and cosmos, respectively) up there in the sky underneath the name of God, the feet deep in the dark part of the earth, the heart circling in the same orbit as the sun, etc. It immediately gives the reader a feel of what exactly ancient and medieval philosophers meant when they called the cosmos a 'great man' (makranthropos, insan kabir). Of course the article itself is also helpful, but at least on my devices the image at size upright=2 does not distract from the text, and it makes it in fact considerably easier to understand. As I said in my edit summary, a picture says more than a thousand words here. I urge you to reconsider. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• I don't agree that reducing the size to 1.2 is "drastic", given that measure is both above the default and larger than the typical image on Wikipedia. I think 1.2 is fairly large as it is. If anything, enlarging it to double the default in the first place seems drastic. It takes up almost half the text space, and jams the lead to one side.

Without any context, I doubt most would see everything you describe in the image. In-fact, many may not even realise the circles are meant to represent the orbits of celestial bodies; all they would recognise is geometric figures overlayed onto a man who may as well be Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man. I noticed you've been editing this article for some time, so I wonder if your familiarity is making things seem more obvious than they would be for a typical, uninitiated reader and so you may be over-estimating how helpful this diagram is.

Regardless, as I said in my edit summary, the utility of the diagram is not diminished by resizing it since a much, much larger version is only 1 click away for anyone interested in a closer look. The 1000+ words are still there; nothing is lost by resizing. I think it's better readers have the choice of whether to zoom in or not. Scyrme (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

It could well be that the image is primarily useful for those who already have some knowledge of Stoic philosophy, or have read a text of Plato or two. But for those readers, the image really is very instructive, and immediately makes some things clear which would be hard to grasp without it. I've read here and there about the microcosm-macrocosm analogy for years without getting a clear grip on what it meant, even as someone with a background in philosophy. This is because the analogy is so often mentioned without reference to its materialist, indeed often plastic context. The image makes that clear in a fraction of a second: this is not some esoteric abstraction, not some dreamy philosophical poetry, but a very literal, structural and material analogy.

But you're right that I'm quite familiar with the analogy now: I wrote this wiki article, and in my own original research I mostly deal with historical philosophical texts in which the microcosm-macrocosm analogy is a standard feature. Maybe I am not in a good position to evaluate what the average reader would understand, and I get what you say about most people not recognizing the content of the picture. But then the question is, what damage does it do? Depending on the device used, it may sit somewhat in the way. It's also not the prettiest picture, I'll give you that. But in the end, I find that a very small price to pay in return for being able to give an admittedly minority readership an aha moment that may change their entire understanding.

Now it could be that the text is already doing that (I would hope so; I really wish there had been such an article when I was first exploring these subjects). But the thing with the large picture is that it does it at a glance: you can't not look at that giant, ugly human body the size of the cosmos. That effect would be entirely undone by reducing its size and expecting interested readers to click on it. It's not that there's so much to see in the picture, it's rather that by being a little oversized it forces a mental image in the back of the readers' minds which helps them to understand better what is being said in the text.

Anyways, that's how I see it. Maybe we should ask for a third opinion? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• As you acknowledge, the image gets in the way of the text, jamming it to one side. That "you can't can't not look at" it is exactly the problem; readers are primarily here to read, and the image gets in the way of that. I don't think that's a negligible problem, and I don't think it's worth doing for the sake of a minority who might have a similar aha moment because they had the image immediately thrust before them. Nothing is in the way of that same minority clicking for a closer look and getting the same benefit. I could ask you the same question: what damage does it do? A size factor of 1.2 still leaves the image prominent on the page; just as prominent as a typical sidebar. Furthermore, even someone focusing on the article text will find the text explicitly notes that they should direct their attention to the image. (Or did before you changed the note back into a ref, making it look like just another ref; not sure why you did that.) All things considered, the diagram remains hard to miss even scaled down a bit.

If you're still not convinced then I think we do need a third opinion, because I'm not sure what more to say. Scyrme (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I have a feeling that the image may render very differently on your device than it does at mine (are you on mobile? what is your screen size and aspect ratio? would resolution be relevant?). On my desktop and laptop (a 3840 × 2160 32" 16:9 and a 1366 x 768 13" 16:9) it is (much) more prominent than an average sidebar image (which as I've explained above is of course on purpose), but it does not at all jam away the text so as to make it hard to read (it takes up 1/4th and 1/3th of the text space, respectively). On my tablet and smartphone (a 1080 x 1920 8" 9:16 and a 1080 x 1920 5" 9:16), the image renders at the screen's width, below rather than to the right of the first paragraph. In general, the image behaves well and doesn't get in the way of the text on any device I own. I've requested a third opinion, if only to check on more devices. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm on a tablet and at 1.8 it looks like this:

• File:Screenshot micro-macro.png

While the text is still technically readable, I still find the amount of space it takes up excessive, while at 1.2 it's not nearly so intrusive and is the same size as a typical sidebar template. Scyrme (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty bad. But just look at how the 1.8 size renders at my 16:9, 32", 3840 x 2160 screen:

• 

On my 16:9, 13" 1366 x 768 laptop it looks a bit less broad, but still more than broad enough for the text to look nice and attractive. On my 9:16, 8" 1080 x 1920 tablet, it just renders below the text, which is also quite okay. I suspect you have a somewhat larger than average tablet, on which the image unfortunately renders in the worst possible way. But actually most people will be looking at it from smartphones and more average-sized tablets, as well as from 16:9 laptops and desktop screens, on which the 1.8 size all looks fine. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

On your end, things look very spacious. I can see why you feel doubling the default is no trouble at all. If my end is a worst case, yours seems to be the best case. How would you feel about compromising on 1.5? It would still be larger that a typical sidebar template and therefore hard to miss, especially so if given a somewhat longer, more explanatory caption which invites readers to not just see the diagram but also understand why it's relevant and recognise its details. I think a good caption would help much more than simply scaling things up a lot more than normal. Scyrme (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Third opinion

Summary by Apaugasma

When I rewrote this article in January 2021, I purposefully set the lead image size at 2 (like here). This is much larger than average, but I've found this to be appropriate in this case because the image illustrates at a glance a number of aspects about the analogy (i.e., its concrete and literal rather than abstract and metaphorical nature), thus dispelling a common misconception and making the basic idea much easier to understand. The image would not fulfill this function if it were much smaller, because one has to see the details to understand what it represents, and because most readers would mistake it for a Vitruvian Man-like image (which it is not) and unduly ignore it (they're not very likely to click on it to enlarge). Its size has been recently reduced to 1.2 (see here) out of a concern to conform to default image sizes on WP and out of a concern for text readability. I've tested it on a few devices, but the image seems to behave well and doesn't get in the way of the text on any device I own. Nevertheless, I set the size at 1.8 (see here) for the time being, because it may (?) cause problems on devices with other screen sizes and/or aspect ratios. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Apaugasma, if we're going to use this image, it makes sense for it to be larger than standard. This is a common practice for diagrams with crucial text; the text should be large enough to be legible. If that creates an image rendering that seriously breaks page layout, the best solution is to use a different image, not to have a thumbnail that needs to be clicked on to be useful. If Scyrme wants to assert that the current size breaks layout, let's see some screenshots demonstrating that and some suggestions for a different lead image. ~Kvng (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kvng: The legibility of the text isn't relevant here because (1.) it's in Latin and (2.) Apaugasma is arguing the illustration alone, regardless of the text, is especially informative. My argument is not that it breaks the layout, but that it is distracting to many readers and that it's not so informative as to warrant such a scale. Still, I've provided a screenshot. Scyrme (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Scyrme, on the one hand, the layout does not look seriously broken, just a bit lopsided. On the other hand, if everyone agrees that text is not crucial, how about a standard thumbnail image and an improved caption to describe what's going on here. Even at the larger size, its relevance to the article was not immediately clear to me. Apaugasma's explanation in this discussion helped and I could work up an improved caption based on that. ~Kvng (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

It's true that it's not the text in the image which is important, but the details such as the sun and the heart, or the tetragrammaton above the man's head and the glory surrounding it, which are about as large as the text and equally depend on image size to be recognizable. It's also the basic impression of a giant man the size of the cosmos: this is hard to see for most readers anyway given the stark differences between modern and premodern imaginings of the cosmos, and a somewhat larger size may help with that. While I'd be very interested in an improved caption, I still think that much would be lost by reducing it to the standard size. Yes, if it would seriously break layout on a majority of screen configurations reducing size would be an obvious choice, but I suspect that Scyrme's screen configuration is precisely the one on which the image renders in the worst possible way, and not by any means the most common configuration out there. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I did not suggest cutting it down to standard size; I only argued for upscaling it by a smaller factor. Scyrme (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Here from 3rd Opinion. I have checked the image on my smartphone, my laptop, my pc and my wife's phone, the layout is fine, as it was in the "1.2 edition"[1]. I was not disturbed by the image. But @Scyrme: is right that the image is not informative. Maybe because nowadays we are used to more "abstract" images. But it doesn't hurt either. For a small subgroup of readers that are striving to understand the topic of the article, it might save them some time, being at 1.8 rather than 1.2. So I lean a little bit towards the 1.8 version. Cinadon36 07:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I have improved the caption as there appeared to be consensus that would be helpful. ~Kvng (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: Since you said it was fine at 1.2 and agreed that it was not so informative, did you mean to write that you lean towards 1.2? Or was 1.8 intentional? It seems odd to lean towards what's best for a small subgroup rather than the majority of readers. Scyrme (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Scyrme: for the majority of readers, there wont be any meaningful difference, I guess.Cinadon36 15:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that there's no layout issue with size 1.8 (or even with the originally used 2.0) on the great majority of screens, and the only reason to adjust it really is the way it looks on screens like the one used by Scyrme. I agree from the screenshot that 1.8 is quite bad for such screens (I'm guessing a 10" or 12" 1080 x 1920 tablet?). Scyrme proposed using size 1.5 above, but I've been experimenting a bit with it at my 13" 1366 x 768 laptop (which is, after the 5–8" 1080 x 1920 screens on smartphones and smaller tablets, by far the most commonly used screen size), and at anything below 1.8 the details (e.g., the tetragrammaton, or the rays of the sun) become difficult to distinguish. @Scyrme: I wonder, how does 1.7, or 1.6 look at your screen? From the screenshot at 1.8, I gather that there's just one word from the first paragraph missing, so maybe 1.7 would already meet the desirable and reasonable goal of at least showing the full first paragraph when loading the page? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: While I'd still prefer ≤1.5, scaling to 1.6 seems like a fair compromise (being the half-way point between 2 and 1.2). If you're fine with that, I think this settled. I think we can delist this from the active list the 3rd opinion page now.

The only thing left to add, which I've neglected to say to avoid starting a tangential discussion, is that I don't think the caption and description on which it's based are quite right. I've started a new section to explain why below.Scyrme (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the compromise of setting it at 1.6. I removed this from the 3O list. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: Good job everybody. This discussion could be an example of how discussions should be. Cheers. Cinadon36 06:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Captioning Fludd

Monochord; note the astronomical symbols, sun's orbit, and fixed stars

• The light and dark regions of diagram are not the sky and earth but day (dies) and night (nox). The earth corresponds to the groin, around which the geocentric model of celestial spheres revolves; the stars and planets (except the sun) are omitted but implied, being part of the 'aetherial heaven' between the 'elemental' and 'empyrean' heavens which are also labelled. However, the figure's legs are described as two columns (duæ columnæ) of earthy microcosmic mass (molis microcosmicæ terreæ) which statuminate/prop-up (statuminatur) this universe (eius universum) at right angles (ad angulos rectus). From the groin to the head there are extra circles; these are Pythagorean intervals - the 'music of the spheres'. There's actually a monochord running from head-to-toe; for comparison, see another of Fludd's diagrams (right). I'm not suggesting we include all this in the caption, but I wanted to explain my reading of it. Scyrme (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  Actually, it's probably both day and night, and sky and earth. This derives from a cosmological tradition which posited an absolute upper and an absolute lowest part of the cosmos, with the upper parts made of the most subtle (i.e., thin and fine), light, and luminous material, and the lowest part made of the most gross (i.e., thick), heavy, and dark material. However, some elements of the upper part (mostly the planets and stars) would move through the lower part in a rotating movement, thus also conveying some movement to the lower, darker parts of the cosmos (this was used to explain volcanism, hot springs and the like). It's true that 'the' earth (i.e., where we live) is in the middle, but the entire lower part of the cosmos is also made of an earthy material (Fludd's 'earthy mass', molis terreæ), and was sometimes thought to consist of 'seven earths' (there are, e.g., references to this in Quran 65:12), just like the upper part consists of 'seven heavens'. This ultimately derives from a flat earth model, apparently developed into a hybrid geocentric model (i.e., incorporating the idea of rotating celestial spheres) by late antique Jewish and Jewish-Christian sects, as well as in medieval Hermetic texts like the Sirr al-khaliqa, but whose history is very obscure and has not yet been properly studied. It doesn't always play well with the Ptolemaic-Aristotelian model which was dominant in the Middle Ages, and like many other thinkers, Fludd was probably using elements from both.

Perhaps the way to fix this is to change it into Illustration of an analogy between parts of the human body and parts of the cosmos: the head and the divine heavenly light, the legs and the dark earthy mass, the heart and the sun.

This is of course borderline original research, but for anyone who can read the Hebrew and Latin annotation this short description should be fairly straightforward. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

That sounds plausible, but I still think the caption could be better. How about:

Illustration of the analogy in the correspondences between the human body and the celestial spheres of a geocentric cosmos: the head to the cœlum empyreum, closest to the divine light of God; the chest to the cœlum æthereum occupied by the classical planets, wherein the heart is analogous to the sun; the abdomen to the terrestrial sphere; and the legs to the earthy mass which supports this universe. From Robert Fludd's Utriusque cosmi historia, 1617–21.

It's a bit longer, but I don't think it's too long. It could be made a bit shorter if the attribution to Fludd is moved to an efn (regarding which, I'd like to restore the notelist; I think including notes with the refs is unhelpful and makes them easy to miss). Scyrme (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

That's generally a great improvement, but it still needs some fine-tuning. I would speak of "an analogy" rather than "the analogy" (this is Fludd's model only); "correspondences" is superfluous (and perhaps a bit too Swedenborgian, and as such anachronistic); the empyrean, aetherial and elemental heavenly sections are not celestial spheres, which except for the sphere of the sun are not shown and should probably not be mentioned; it's probably better to use English rather than Latin terms (most people don't understand "cœlum", but do understand "heaven"); the divine light article is in a terrible state and linking to it would obscure more than clarify (pun intended); heart and sun are over-linked but abdomen might be a word not everyone understands; "terrestrial sphere" for cœlum elementare may easily be misunderstood as referring to the sphere of the earth itself, so it may be better to translate to "elemental heaven" and link to sublunary sphere; the opposition between the light upper part and the dark lower part is central to the whole way of thinking, so I would include the word "dark". I therefore propose to have it like this:

Illustration of an analogy between the human body and a geocentric model of the cosmos: between the head and the empyrean heaven, closest to the divine light of God; between the chest and the aetherial heaven occupied by the classical planets, wherein the heart is analogous to the sun; between the abdomen and the sublunary elemental heaven; between the legs and the dark earthy mass which supports this universe.

The reason why a separate note list is not needed and would even be confusing is that this article uses annotated footnotes, which contain both short citations and extra information not contained in the article body. Separating these two functions would not just be artificial, it would also be arbitrary. For example, what is currently ref 1 contains an explanation of the terminology and so could be conceived of as a note, but it also refers to Allers 1944 and thereby supports the main text speaking of a small order and great order. Is it then a reference, or a note? Moreover, I just think it's a bad idea to have one set of numbered notes and another set of lettered notes. I'm also reasoning from the point of view that those readers who are interested in the extra details contained in the notes would generally also be interested in the sources the article is based on: the combination of referencing and annotation in footnotes being a standard academic practice, people who are used to in-depth reading would look at all the refs, while other readers would most probably look at none of them. But perhaps my idea that interested readers would hover over all references/notes anyway is colored by my habitually browsing WP on a desktop or laptop rather than on a tablet or mobile phone, on which hovering is not possible? Do you really think that mobile/tablet users would sooner tap on a lettered note than on a numbered note? Is that your habitual use? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The analogy" refers to the article's title, not Fludd's particular illustration of it; if you think that's unclear, the best solution would be to reverse the order, rather than use "an". The three heavens are celestial spheres, and I've no idea why you're disputing it; the second heaven literally contains the Ptolemaic spheres as a subset, and later descriptions frequently include the empyrean among them as the highest sphere. The Latin terms are linked to translations/explanations; using Latin is a concise way to directly link caption to image, whereas using translations would break that direct link without being helpful - most people don't know what "empyrean" or "aetherial" mean, so "empyrean heaven" etc. would be no more meaningful than Latin. Being able to understand "heaven" here doesn't help, because most people know only 1 heaven which when read into the caption makes no sense; they end up having to click the blue link anyway. Divine light definitely needs work, but I don't see that as a reason to not link it where it's relevant; even weak articles should be linked so that they get more traffic - getting more eyes on an article improves the likelihood that the article will be bettered. I linked "heart" and "sun" to emphasise that they refer to the literal heart and literal sun; if you think no such emphasis is needed, I don't mind delinking. How about? -

The analogy illustrated in the human body and the celestial spheres of a geocentric cosmos: the head is analogous to the cœlum empyreum, closest to the divine light of God; the chest to the cœlum æthereum occupied by the classical planets, wherein the heart is analogous to the sun; the abdomen to the sublunary sphere; and the legs to the dark earthy mass which supports this universe. [ref/efn: From Robert Fludd's Utriusque cosmi maioris scilicet et minoris metaphysica, physica atque technica historia, 1617–21.]

I would sooner tap on a lettered note than numbered one; I would assume a number just links to a citation, because that's what most of them are. If I see a letter beside something interesting, I check it to see if there's more. I don't check numbers unless I see something dubious or if I'm editing - I don't come to Wikipedia for reading recommendations. I expect that most readers behave similarly. As for academic practice, it varies. Maybe it's different in philosophy, but in science mixing footnotes and references is rare - the expected practice is that a list of references is nothing more than an index that doesn't waste your time with extraneous text; if a citation is relevant to a footnote, then the footnote simply carries a reference which those interested can then check - something your example already does, and would still do as an efn. Mixing is messy and inconvenient for those only after the notes; readers either have always check the reflist or check every ref annotation just in-case it has a note too. Separating the functions keeps the reflist tidy, and makes the notes more noticeable: they are labelled differently, they have a separate heading which is explicitly linked in the toc, and they aren't buried in a list of refs. I honestly don't understand what's supposed to be confusing. Scyrme (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, let's have two sets of notes; I personally find it confusing to have both letters and numbers appear as notes, but I can see the use that you argue it has.

Reversing the order of 'illustration' and analogy breaks the flow and is a bad idea; let's just have "the analogy" then.

With regard to the celestial spheres, these were thought of as thick, material orbs which by their spherical movement either carried the planets and stars around, or moved other material celestial spheres embedded in them so as to create a combined movement (see Aristotelian physics#Celestial spheres). While the diagram shows the division of the heaven in three sections, these are not celestial spheres as such: as you say, these sections contain spheres (though the Empyrean and the sublunary heaven do not, or perhaps the Empyrean contains one sphere carrying everything below it), but they are not material celestial spheres. It is not the case, for example, that the whole aetherial heaven rotates around the earth as one: only the planetary celestial spheres which are contained in that part of heaven actually turn, or perhaps at most a separate celestial sphere located at its outer rim. The circles indicate the division of the heavens according to the material of which they are made (very pure fire or light for the Empyrean, aether for the aetherial heaven, and the four elements for the sublunary part of heaven), not material orbs carrying around planets and stars, or carrying other such nested orbs. While it may be tempting to speak of these divisions as celestial spheres, it's a misnomer, and ultimately incorrect.

Though I think "empyrean" and "aetherial" are close enough to "empyreum" and "aethereum" for casual readers to make the connection with the Latin text in the diagram, I will not insist on this one. However, let's then be consistent and also speak of the cœlum elementare and explicitly mention the molis terreæ in our caption.

Like this: Illustration of the analogy between the human body and a geocentric cosmos: the head is analogous to the cœlum empyreum, closest to the divine light of God; the chest to the cœlum æthereum, occupied by the classical planets (wherein the heart is analogous to the sun); the abdomen to the cœlum elementare; the legs to the dark earthy mass (molis terreæ) which supports this universe. [efn: From Robert Fludd's Utriusque cosmi maioris scilicet et minoris metaphysica, physica atque technica historia, 1617–21.]

I hope we can agree on this proposal, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Even the planetary spheres are constituted of sub-spheres accounting for epicycles etc. and the primum mobile (which as far as I know is equivalent to the empyrean here) is typically listed among the spheres, so I'm not convinced it is a misnomer to refer to these bands as celestial spheres. However, I won't insist on inclusion. (As a sidenote, regarding what the empyrean contains, Fludd viewed the empyrean as being tripartite; they aren't illustrated here, but are illustrated in other diagrams.)

I've implemented this caption and re-implemented the notelist. (I used italics rather than language tags for linked text in the caption because the latter breaks wikilinks; the caption is otherwise unchanged from the most recent proposal.) Scyrme (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@Scyrme: thanks for that, it's really awesome now! One thing though: I regularly use {{transl}} and {{lang}} templates within piped links (as I also did above), and I've never known them to cause problems. Is there any documentation on them breaking wikilinks? Do the wikilinks above not work on your end? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Most of the time they work, but when I copy-pasted the caption as it was the result was broken. Using italics fixed the problem; manually replacing the italics with {{lang}} caused the problem to recur. Not sure why the wikilinks were misbehaving in this particular case. Weird thing is when I tried copy-pasting the thumbnail here, it worked fine, then when pasted it back into the article it was broken - even when pasted at another location. Maybe I'm being clumsy or something is glitchy on my end; try yourself and see if it renders properly. Scyrme (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I observed exactly the same behavior as you described. The fact that it works on the talk page but not in the article makes me think this is some kind of bug in the mediawiki software. However, after playing around a bit with it, I found a workaround: it works when putting the wiki-links in the tags rather than the other way around. Thanks again for collaborating on creating a great caption! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Proposed merge of this article to macranthropy

Macranthropy page would not be burdened with WP:WEIGHT by merging these info there. Macranthropy is a more proper term than "microcosm-macrocosm analogy", so I suggest we chuck this article there rather than that article's content here. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

• Bad idea – 'Microcosm–macrocosm analogy', 'Macrocosm–microcosm analogy' or similar is without any doubt the wp:common name of this subject, while 'Macranthropy' is obscure and vague. See, for example, Google Scholar results for "microcosm-macrocosm analogy" (486 results) and "macrocosm-microcosm analogy" (222 results) versus "macranthropy" (19 results). It's also pretty plain from the book and article titles in our Microcosm–macrocosm analogy#Bibliography that at least the terms 'microcosm' and 'macrocosm' are the most common identifiers for this subject. These terms are also used with regard to non-Western versions of the analogy, as for example by Raphals 2015–2020 with regard to Chinese philosophy. Apart from that, I think that it is good to have the Macranthropy page link to various versions of the concept, and I would prefer to also keep that page for the time being. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of macranthropy here

Noted. I agree. Instead, What about merging macranthropy here? FatalSubjectivities (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The problem with the Macranthropy stub is that it not properly sourced and barely gives more than a dictionary definition. Since there is nothing useful to merge, we could instead redirect it here, but that would tend to violate the principle of least astonishment. I think the only two viable options are to write a reliable sourced section on the concept of macranthropy here in this article and to redirect Macranthropy to it, or to just leave the Macranthropy page as it is for the time being. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I think this would not wp:astonish. I am redirecting now. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi FatalSubjectivities, Macranthropy has not been redirected here. Did you forget to redirect it, or did you change your mind? In any case I do not agree with redirecting it, and you should probably not be doing this without broader wp:consensus. Perhaps this discussion should be somewhat more widely advertised? (for suggestions, see WP:APPNOTE) ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I ahve not redirected yet. Sure, greater publicising could be done. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Done FatalSubjectivities (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Undone [2] [3]. To repeat what I said in my edsums here:

I'm sorry, but the unsourced/badly sourced, vague, and undue content form Macranthropy does not belong in this article in this way at this time. It seems to me that macranthropy may be one ancient subtype of microcosm–macrocosm analogies, but in the sources that I have read when writing this article (the ones cited), that was not even mentioned. Someday someone may expand this article and write something proper about the concept of macranthropy, but they will at the very least need sources connecting it to the concept of microcosm–macrocosm analogies.

As for the Macranthropy article, as long as there is no content in Microcosm–macrocosm analogy citing a source that macranthropy effectively is a subtype of microcosm–macrocosm analogies, Macranthropy should not redirect to Microcosm–macrocosm analogy in my view. Take it to AfD if you want other editors' opinions, but in my view it's better to leave that stub be until someone comes along and decides to expand it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

alright FatalSubjectivities (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Microcosm in Greek and Aristotle.

@Apaugasma: Re this edit - the compound word "microcosm" (which I believe would hypothetically be μικρό-κοσμος?) is not attested in Greek. If we're dealing with the use of the separate "μικρῷ κόσμῳ" the term is attested being used by Democritus, well before Aristotle. And it's a somewhat trivial piece of information - although Plato doesn't use this particular phrase in the Timaeus, preferring to use verb forms such as κατακοσμέω and διακοσμέω, that work is surely is the earliest surviving complete source of the concept, as arguably "microcosm-macrocosm" is the subject of the entire work.

I didn't follow up in Kraemer at first, as it looks like Kraemer is redlisted by Citehighlighter? It's certainly showing that way for me though I don't know enough about Encyclopedia Judaica to know why. In general though, outside of specialist sources I tend to find claims that such-and-such was the first to use a greek word are usually false, which is why I always check them in LSJ, which will generally be able to invalidate them.

On the subject, i think the whole sentence here should be removed: Medieval philosophy was generally dominated by Aristotle, who despite having been the first to coin the term "microcosm", had posited a fundamental and insurmountable difference between the region below the moon (the sublunary world, consisting of the four elements) and the region above the moon (the superlunary world, consisting of a fifth element).... as its somewhat dubious (not only the broad interpretation, but Aristotle was not dominant until the 13th century in Western Europe, ever in Byzantine philosophy, and arguably only for a couple centuries in Islamic philosophy) and a bit polemical, it isn't supported by Kraemer regardless of the reliability of that source, and probably doesn't need to be in a section on Medieval Philosophy if Aristotle isn't the first person to use the term. Plato is probably the philosopher who warrants much more coverage there and earlier as the greatest influence. - car chasm (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi car chasm! Thanks for opening this thread, and please accept my apologies for my bad-humored tone in my revert earlier.

'Microcosm' in ancient Greek is in two words μικρὸς κόσμος (or in a Stoic passage referred to by Philo, βραχὺς κόσμος), just like it is in two words in Arabic ʿālam ṣaghīr and in Hebrew olam katan. The one-word form seems to appear first in Latin with microcosmus.

Encyclopaedia Judaica itself is of undoubted reliability (this may be a problem in CiteHighlighter), but of course encyclopedias in general by their non-specialist/non-secondary nature can sometimes be off the mark. However, in this case the claim is corroborated by other sources; see for example Allers 1944, pp. 320-321: "Aristotle opposes[ref to Physics 252b 26] the μάκρος to the μικρὸς κόσμος. L. Stein has suggested that this passage gave rise to the whole microcosmistic speculation. This cannot be the case, since the idea, if not the term, is found with the predecessors of the Stagirite."

Allers explicitly says that the term is not found before Aristotle. The Democritus fragment cited by LSJ is in fact DK B34, which is taken from David (6th century; our article is problematic: compare SEP), Prolegomena philosophiae 34, who actually speaks about microcosm in his own words and only attributes the idea to Democritus [4]: τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον καὶ ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ μικρῷ κόσμῳ ὄντι κατὰ τὸν Δημόκριτον ταῦτα θεωροῦνται ("these things are also observed in the same manner in man, who is a microcosm according to Democritus").

With 'fragments' of presocratic philosophers one always has to be careful to take into account the fact that they are the words of authors who sometimes wrote as much as a millennium later, many of them also quite unreliable. More often than not it's unclear whether it is a paraphrase or an actual quote, and if it's a literal quote it's often doubtful whether the author who provides the quote himself had access to a reliable source (think, in our case for example, about pseudo-Democritus). For a discussion of DK B34 and how it relates to other Neoplatonists' use of the phrase, see this source, pp. 148-150. The idea that Democritus coined the term may have had some force in the time of Diels & Kranz, but would be considered naive by scholars today. In any case, please be careful with using LSJ as a reference for this kind of thing: on Wikipedia we should always be looking to actual secondary sources discussing the subject.

As for removing the whole sentence, that proposal certainly has some merit. In my view the fact that the term is first attested in Aristotle is encyclopedically relevant information, but it's not placed in the right context here (which would probably be some 'Etymology' section or similar). Aristotle in general, and his cosmology in particular, absolutely was dominant in Arabic philosophy (al-Kindi, al-Farabi, Avicenna, Averroes), which preceded European scholasticism as the 'major' tradition of Western medieval philosophy. I think it's safe to say that in the Western canon, Aristotle has dominated from the compilation of the Theology of Aristotle in the 9th century until the Renaissance. But of course, this canon itself is the product of a modern (post 17th-century) tradition of scholarly historiographical study, and there are in fact a plethora of medieval philosophers who rejected or even simply ignored Aristotelian cosmology.

Now Aristotle's influence is definitely relevant for the history of the microcosm/macrocosm concept, since it are precisely the non- or anti-Aristotelian philosophers who often championed the concept, and there is a clear pattern where the concept was popular among the influential philosophers of late antiquity (mainly the Neoplatonists), plunged into obscurity in the Middle Ages, and came back to the fore in the Renaissance and early modern period precisely with the abandonment of Aristotle (Ficino, Paracelsianism, Hermeticism, etc.). Because of this context it's absolutely relevant to juxtapose the microcosm/macrocosm concept to Aristotelian cosmology. However, the big thing here is that the sentence as it stands is unsourced. I know these things from my own expertise as a historian of philosophy, and I think there's a good chance that they are verifiable in RS (and thus meet WP:V), but I wasn't writing from the sources in this particular case, and anything for which no source is given can be reasonably challenged and removed per WP:BURDEN. So if you believe the article would be better off without the sentence, please feel free to remove it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I see your point about Democritus being a dubious attribution now, thanks for explaining it! Allers corroborating the attribution of the first *unambiguous* use of the term to Aristotle addresses my concern about the claim as well. As for the more general juxtaposition of microcosm/macrocosm with Aristotle, I'll trust your expertise that it's probably verifiable in WP:RS. I'd certainly love to read a more in-depth treatment of that myself if you have any recommendations on possible sources for the claim, but I think the sentence as it stands now is fine, it gives something to expand upon in the future.

I'll agree to disagree at least on the encyclopedic value of the first use of a particular word - I tend to think the conceptual development is more important, independent of the specific terminology, but if you expect others to also find the etymological information useful or relevant in this case, then I suppose that it does belong in the article.

And I'll be more careful about LSJ in the future as well - while I was restricting use of it as a "gut check" to remove dubious information rather than citing it as a source (which would be WP:SYNTH), I'll also be more careful about attributions of fragments and stick to unambiguous uses where the claims aren't cited by a recent WP:RS (e.g. sometimes people claim a word occurring in the Odyssey/Iliad was first used by somebody else. which... maybe it was a later addition to those works but that's something I feel always requires additional qualification). - car chasm (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)