Talk:Microcosm–macrocosm analogy

message: 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)
thread_title: Lord of the Flies

message: 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)
replies: text: - 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)
thread_title: Two problems

message: 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)
thread_title: Socrates

message: 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)
thread_title: Western bias

message: - 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Repeating patterns

message: 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)
thread_title: Indo-European roots

message: - 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)
thread_title: Substandard and needs citations

message: 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)
thread_title: New article on Macrocosm/microcosm

message: 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)
thread_title: Should be some specific definition of Macrocosm and that of Microcosm

message: 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)
replies: text: Hello !  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)
thread_title: Human being and the cosmos might not be very similar in structure

message: 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)
thread_title:  Refactored talk page