Ah, good! This whole topic has its own (though smallest) part in the book. Dreams. And by what are dreams influenced? The environment on the one hand and, according to C. G. Jung whom he quotes on this, the “Self” (which boils down to the all, the universe, god and so on).

This. And yeah, you can’t check it in a scientific way. That’s the point.

According to Binggeli the mind is influenced by the environment but that is not only limited to what we can measure and prove.

On a side note, yes, definitions are great because they allow for more precise and adjusted conversations. Obviously one can have his own definitions but then one should be aware of the difference and inform the interlocutor accordingly.

Dreams are truly influenced by the environment, but I cannot say if that is the only influence. I see them as mind's way of trying to figure out which bits of information go well together. Could be dimension travel boogaloo, too, for all I know.

What I was trying to say was that if the Divine Comedy and the world view of the time really had points that could be compared to things like black holes and Big Bang, there would almost certainly have to be knowledge of them stored inside people. Otherwise it would imply that the deduction abilities of mind are impressive far beyond what I can begin to comprehend (well, they are already anyway, but like even further). Black holes were discovered or even suggested hundreds of years after Divine Comedy (as far as I know), so to have them as a subconscious basis for hell would truly be work of either a relatively all knowing librarian within or amazing subconscious cause and effect calculations.

I forgot to mention the possibility of ghosts from another dimension whispering stuff into people's heads in that earlier paragraph. There could be other options too, my imagination is limited and I'm prone to mistakes, but those are the only ones I could come up with (thus far).

The similarities between tales of mythology and science could also be just due to the fact that on the level of things we can observe without magic apparatuses, everything follows the same (possibly limited) set of rules.

Personally, I've believed in some sort of an inner librarian for a long time, and the idea that it might know about the deeper workings of the universe makes me giggle in excitement. It's a prick though, and won't let me know the stuff without a library card.

The fun thing is: Before they were discovered some physicists (namely Antonio Garbasso in the early 20th century) made fun of Dante because his hell (which is located in the earth) seems to defy the laws of physics. As Dante and Vergil travel downwards the gravity increases rather than to vanish as it should at the core of the earth. However, if you look at Black Holes then this fits perfectly. Both cannot be left after you enter through the gates of hell (pass the Schwarzschild horizon); at their core there is a singularity (luficer); both are funnel-shaped (the Black Hole if you imagine the space-time as a rubber cloth) and so on. This book is full of this stuff.

I suppose the key point is, do these analogies prove a causal relationship? If it's not his goal to argue this, as I think you may be saying, then I'm not sure what the point of these analogies is at all.

It's a given that by making vague, symbolic interpretations it's possible to draw parallels between absolutely anything. Frankly, it doesn't take much skill to do so. One could just as easily link black holes with cups of coffee, vacuum cleaners or the metaphysical concept of fear. Why is what he's doing any better?

Definitely agreed about the 19th century world view. It is quite sad how much of most peoples' views nowadays have emerged directly from 19th century ways, especially the attitude of scientism.

Philosophically, we should adopt a continental interpretation en masse. They advocate elements similar to the medieval mind.

Also, after reading the discussion here, I want to point out Feyerabend's "Against Method." It will probably put some of you off your current view regarding science.

Has the possibility that our world view is still outdated been mentioned?

Errr, yes? Right there in the OP. Didn’t you read my initial post?

As I already twice, he wants to conciliate science and the arts. This (among other things) is supposed to show that they are two sides of the same coin. Both try to grasp the same reality but in different ways. Science relies more on outer and the arts more on inner impressions.

Eh, firstly I’d like you to find as much analogies between a cup of coffee and a Black Hole as Binggeli did between Dante’s hell and them before you utter any further undue polemic remarks. Secondly, as I noted before, the analogies are numerous and extremely plausible. This synchronicity of the analogies (which implies but not proves a causal relationship) also supports one of his other points which is that there is a deeper connection between our human mind and our environment than most people think.

THIS, this a thousand times !
Sorry for not being able to read the rest of the thread before hurrying out for a lecture but THIS has been bothering me for most of my short life. In other words - the general population is still dumb as *** but in a lot more scientific fashion. The proponents of the Enlightenment, no doubt, are spinning in their graves -_-'.

Especially if you look at what our fuckwads of politicians did to principles like the categorical imperative.

Most people that I run into don't even grasp the relativity of space/time. It says something of our limited perception of reality, IMO.

To the OP: Sorry, I did read your OP but lost that bit in the following pages of discussion.

It's not undue polemic. You can find any number of symbolic analogies in absolutely anything. That's how conspiracy theories, astrology and other kinds of hocus pocus work. You can find as many 'plausible' analogies as you like, it still doesn't imply anything beyond the capacity of the human mind for inventing symbols and metaphors.

@Tulivu: Nevermind :3

And yeah, this is why I enjoy pushing that limit. Makes you see things from a completely different angle at times. Just like this book did.

It is because of the bullshit comparison. But feel free to prove me wrong by finding some convincing analogies between your cup of coffee and a black hole.

Hell is analogous to black holes. Stretch Armstrong would be proud.

How convincing you personally find the analogy doesn't prove anything. That's the point I was making. It's well documented that people see patterns and connections where there are none. Some people are convinced that they've seen the face of the virgin Mary in their breakfast. Nothing you've offered so far implies that Binggeli is any more credible when he sees advanced physics in Dante's Inferno.

No, it makes perfect sense. Because one is a superdense collection of matter that light can't escape and has taken scientists specializing in the field all kinds of leaps and bounds in science to begin to understand and actually begin to see, and the other is a place where bad people who are gay and bad children and everyone who doesn't like to believe in the great sky monster go that has taken people without any kind of knowledge whatsoever no time at all to believe in without any proof whatsoever.

Completely analogous. It's staring you right there in the face.