Paradiso 2: Flight to the Moon/Beatrice Continues the Physics Lesson

[Laurel]

Ciardi's summary:

DANTE AND BEATRICE are soaring to THE SPHERE OF THE MOON at a speed approaching that of light. Dante warns back the shallow reader: only those who have eaten of the knowledge of God may hope to follow him into the last reaches of his infinite voyage, for it will reveal such wonders as only faith can grasp. His warning concluded, he and Beatrice enter the Sphere of the Moon and pass into the substances of the moon as light into water, as God incarnated himself into man, or as the saved soul reenters God, without disruption of the substance thus entered. Still unenlightened by the ultimate revelation, Dante does not understand how there can appear on the diamond-mooth surface on the moon (as he conceived it) those markings we know as THE MAN IN THE MOON, and which the Italians knew as CAIN WITH HIS BUSH OF THORNS. Beatrice asks for his explanation, refutes it, and proceeds to explain the truth of the moon’s markings

[Lily]

http://www.worldofdante.org/media/ima...



Giovanni di Paolo: Paradiso Canto 2.1. “Dante and Beatrice Ascend to the Heaven of the Moon.” c.1450. Manuscript illumination. Yates Thompson 36. British Library.

http://www.worldofdante.org/media/ima...

Giovanni di Paolo: Paradiso Canto 2.1. “Beatrice Explains the Source of the Dark Spots on the Moon.” c.1450. Manuscript illumination. Yates Thompson 36. British Library.

[Laurel]

Lily wrote: "http://www.worldofdante.org/media/ima...



Giovanni di Paolo: Paradiso Canto 2.1. “Dante and Beatrice Ascend to the Heaven of the Moon.” c.1450. Manuscript illumination. Yates ..."

Splendid! Is the boy in gold with Beatrice Apollo? Be careful, Beatrice!

[Lily]

Laurele wrote: "Splendid! Is the boy in gold with Beatrice Apollo? Be careful, Beatrice..."

These pictures are sometimes as much a puzzle as the text. I did "get" the swift upward movement towards the moon and the vignette of Jason plowing with his comrades looking on in the lower left corner. But which figure is Dante and which is Beatrice is not intuitively clear to me. (I am often surprised how ambiguous maleness and femaleness are.) Now, what is the black bird behind the boy in gold? Is that a clue for us? (Apollo certainly seems like a good candidate, given his linkage with the sun.)

(I hope everyone notices the second link, which opens up into another miniature. I'll probably do a fair amount of that sort of thing throughout Paradiso.)

I found the comments about movement at the speed of light in the text interesting. By 1676, light was understood to have a finite speed. It would be over 600 years from Dante before rational reasoning would proclaim light to provide an absolute limit in speed, at least in the material world. Also, it will take until 1969 for living man to step onto the moon (a decade earlier for an unmanned landing).

But, by early 1600's, the telescope increased greatly understanding of those marks on the moon, although the "man in the moon" and "Cain and his bush" would continue as metaphors and myth. (Among my favorite moon-related passages is old Nikomis, daughter of the moon, lulling little Hiawatha to sleep in Longfellow's long poem.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_lan...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of...
www.innongitchegumee.com/pdf/GG_Hiawa... (an excerpt only)
http://www.timelessmyths.com/classica... (more than you will want to know about Jason)

[Lily]

http://www.lockportstreetgallery.com/...



Salvador Dali: Paradiso Canto II. “The Angel of the First Heaven.”

Fascinating to me how the mood in the first two illustrations, at least, for Paradiso seems to reflect some greater serenity than we saw in Dali's pieces for the other books. But is that doubt that has eaten jagged edges at the back of her robe?

[Everyman]

Back to the boat and ship image, not forgetting that those arriving at Purgatory arrived by boat. It took me several readings to sort out the two groups, one who could safely follow in his furrow (but have to do it quickly before "the sea goes smooth again," but who wants to die right now so they can follow Dante?), and the other group who would be unable to follow him and presumably would be drowned (as Ulysses drowned trying to find Purgatory, or was he trying to find the path to Paradise?).

[[deleted user]]

Lily, thank you again for the illustrations.

You would have had more work...but would probably have accepted the challenge for the sake of the art...

I just read that Michelangelo illustrated a volume of The Comedy, but that it fell from a ship into the sea.

Wouldn't that have been something to see!

[Everyman]

Laurele wrote: "Ciardi's summary:... only those who have eaten of the knowledge of God may hope to follow him into the last reaches of his infinite voyage, ..."

Is the bread of angels (Hollander's translation) really the knowledge of God? This seems to come from Psalm 78, but here the bread of angels isn't knowledge of God, but is to answer the challenge of the men of Ephraim putting God to the test whether he can feed them in the desert. But even though he comes through with this proof, they still kept on sinning and not believing.

Something seems out of kilter here, since at least in this psalm eating the bread of angels does not coincide with believe in or knowledge of God. What's Dante doing here?

[Lily]

http://www.worldofdante.org/media/ima...



Sandro Botticelli: Paradiso Canto II.1. “First Planetary Sphere (Heaven of the Moon); Beatrice Explains to Dante the Origins of the Dark Patches on the Moon’s Surface, the Order of the Cosmos.” c.1480 - c.1495. Drawing.

[[deleted user]]

@ 8 Everyman wrote: "

Esolen's notes also equate the bread of angels with the knowledge or wisdom of God, but sources Proverbs.

"Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars...

...


as for him that wanteth understanding, she saith unto him,

Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled" (Prov. 9.1-5)

[Lily]

Adelle wrote: "I just read that Michelangelo illustrated a volume of The Comedy, but that it fell from a ship into the sea.

Wouldn't that have been something to see!..."

Oh, how sad! I had sort of been wondering why no Michelangelo, given the apparent prestige of illustrating Commedia, but didn't go looking, thinking he was probably immersed in all his other projects. Was it supposedly drawings collected into a portfolio?

There are, of course, far more artists that have worked on Dante than I have been bringing to these discussions. But, these have been ones rather readily available with a good diversity of viewpoints over a long period of history, so it has been rather fun to spend time with their work. Now, my dream is to see one of the Botticelli drawings as an original. So let me know if anyone hears of one or more being displayed in NYC or anywhere near.

I am glad if it is fun for others as well. It just seemed like too much was missed by each of us continuously accessing the World of Dante site plus others on Blake, David, Dali.

As Ciardi warns in one of his notes, we need to remain cognizant of Dante's own word pictures, but I find the varying artists actually help me to read his words -- they play back and forth.

But, I do want to hear how you react to Dante's slamming his reader at the beginning of Canto II. I wonder if he had any concept of the snob he was being, even if justifiably so.

[Lily]

Everyman wrote: "Back to the boat and ship image, not forgetting that those arriving at Purgatory arrived by boat...."

Thanks for calling that to our attention. I'd missed that continuity.

Dante and Psalm 78 -- I get uncomfortable with Dante's use of "facts" -- he seems to me to have an uncanny willingness to use streams of words to support his ideas, without our 21st century inclinations towards expecting "fact checking" for high quality levels of writing. In an upcoming canto, Ciardi's note indicates how Dante depended on repute rather than fact in depicting a character -- and I don't get the sense that is a totally isolated incident in the Commedia. But I get a sense he does wrestle with comprehending the "scientific knowledge" of his day, although it wouldn't have been labelled such.

[[deleted user]]

Lily wrote: "..But, I do want to hear how you react to Dante's slamming his reader at the beginning of Canto II. I wonder if he had any concept of the snob he was being, even if justifiably so. "

I had a rather different take. I thought that whoever is reading Paradise has most probably read Inferno and Purgatorio. They are already interested readers, right? Odds are they would like to finish the WHOLE book. But
Dante knows that (1) the readers need to read Paradise in order to read the important stuff--the theology; and (2) it's going to be challenging reading.

I rather thought Dante opened
Canto 2 as he did to alert readers that that rest of the book WOULD be challenging. But...IF...they could make it through they would have the satisfaction of thinking of themselves as intelligent people.

I mean, who wants to quit at those words? Or wants to just give up...when giving up means acknowledging that. one doesn't have the intellectual capacity to go on.

I thought it was a goad/ or a goal for the readers. To get them to actually read the most important part of the Comedy.

[Thomas]

Adelle wrote: "Dante knows that (1) the readers need to read Paradise in order to read the important stuff--the theology; and (2) it's going to be challenging reading. "

..."

I agree. Dante's subject in this canto is highly technical and would have been understood by few uneducated people, and yet he is writing in the vernacular, for the general public. He begins his query in this canto with a false opinion, and in Beatrice's correction he intends to educate. I think his little challenge to the reader is just a warning that the voyage from this point is going to be more intellectual and less spectacular than what was presented in Hell and Purgatory.

I stumbled across this article the other day and maybe it's relevant here -- Why Doesn't Anyone Read Dante's Paradiso?

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/bo...

[[deleted user]]

@ 14 Thomas wrote: "..."

That's a nice point I hadn't really considered. If DANTE, the character, doesn't understand tnings, has to be shown better reasoning by Beatrice, why, that WOULD be a comfort of sorts to the reader.

I know it was a comfort to me.

[Lily]

LOL! Thx for your discussion, Adelle and Thomas. Maybe I'm just feeling thin-skinned and should feel challenged rather than belittled? I wonder what Dante was like to be around as a friend and a person.

I continue to be fascinated by what a few hundred years can do to "common knowledge." One of the startling lines in 11/22/63 occurs when the time-traveling protagonist turns to his fellow school teacher who is sarcastically joking about how long it will be before there is a man on the moon (they are now in the 1950's) and must hold his tongue in retorting. But then, I'm enamored of NASA pictures.

[Thomas]

Lily wrote: " I wonder what Dante was like to be around as a friend and a person..."

I imagine he was very intense and rather opinionated. I don't think I"d want to argue with him too much. Just ask his friend Cavalcanti!

[Lily]

Thomas wrote: "Lily wrote: " I wonder what Dante was like to be around as a friend and a person..."

I imagine he was very intense and rather opinionated. I don't think I"d want to argue with him too much. Just ..."

One can sort of imagine that his personality had a bit to do with his political difficulties in Florence.

[Lily]

I have identified no illustrations from Blake or Doré for Canto II.

http://www.worldofdante.org/media/ima...



John Flaxman: Paradiso Canto II.28. “Beatrice Tells Dante to Turn His Mind to God.” 1793. Engraving.

[Lily]

For Paradiso Canto II images from the Bodleian Library 14th century manuscript try these:

http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/dept/scwms...

Paradiso, Canto II. "Dante and Beatrice Observe the Moon and Cancer."

Do we see Cain and his bush with thorns in the moon? The crab of Cancer is obvious in the sky.

http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/dept/scwms...

Paradiso, Canto II. "Beatrice Shows Dante Three Mirrors."

[[deleted user]]

@ 15Adelle wrote: "@ 14 Thomas wrote: "..."

That's a nice point I hadn't really considered. If DANTE, the character, doesn't understand things, has to be shown better reasoning by Beatrice, why, that WOULD be a comfort..."

I've re-thought the stated aspects and the implications of this scene between Dante and Beatrice.

Yes, when Beatrice proves that Dante's reasoning about the dark spots on the moon is incorrect, it does make me as a reader feel better...as in "Dante didn't understand the scientific reasons, so it's understandable that I wouldn't understand them either."

(view spoiler)[

('Though in point of fact, Dante would have had to understand them in order to have Beatrice explain them. He'd put quite a bit of previous study into the science of the spheres---as understood in his day---when he wrote Convivio.

[Aside: "In 1921 the Russian mathematician Florenskij theorized that Dante's geometry and physics surpassed Euclid's and anticipated modern theories on mass, matter, and light" (Gallagher, "To Hell" p138).]

But I kept thinking that there must have been a sounder, more basic reason, for Dante to write the scene as he did. Something more than to just a feel-good moment to jolly the reader along.

I kept going back to this scene and wondering, Why had Beatrice insisted on Dante's telling her what he thought the reason was. Why didn't she simply explain it to him?

"She smiled a little. 'If opinions go
roving on earth when senses cannot spring
the lock of truth for mortal man, by now

You should no longer feel surprise's sting.
No cause for wonder, for you see that wit,
though led by the sense, flaps with too short a wing.

But come, you tell me what you think of it'" (Para. 2.52+)

That didn't sink in when I read Canto 2 the first time.

LOL. This might have been obvious to a number of other readers, but me, :( I had missed it.

I think she has Dante put forward his reasoning...because Dante must be actively involved in his journey to Paradise.

Then she thoroughly refutes Dante's theory using sound physics, using the facts and the best reasoning that would be available to the best scientist on earth.

She refutes his reasoning with better reasoning.

So Dante now has no scientific reasoning available to him to explain the dark spots on the moon.

AND BEATRICE DOESN'T GIVE HIM ONE.

She gives him a spiritual explanation. By asking him for his explanation, and then proving it inadequate, Beatrice really brings home to Dante that human reasoning alone won't get him to Heaven. "Your money's no good here. Your Virgil's no good here either."

Dante the character (and Dante the writer would have hoped his readers, too) will have to recognize that human wit and wisdom won't be enough to rise to God. (hide spoiler)]

[[deleted user]]

"The lasting thirst, created with the soul,
for that deiform kingdom swept us far,
swift as the mind-seen wheeling of the skies.

Beatrice gazed upward, and I gazed at her" (Para. 2.19+)

Shouldn't Dante be gazing upward too?
Isn't this an indicator that Dante is still spiritually deficient?

And also in Canto III. (Well, I guess I had best post that thought over in III.)

[Lily]

Adelle wrote: ""The lasting thirst, created with the soul,
for that deiform kingdom swept us far,
swift as the mind-seen wheeling of the skies.

Beatrice gazed upward, and I gazed at her" (Para. 2.19+)

Sho..."

But it is so lovely and human -- I loved the passage. Of course, my favorite Bible passage is probably "For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them." Matthew 18:20 (NRSV) The implication to me is that we see and experience Presence through the presence of others.

[Lily]

http://www.lockportstreetgallery.com/...



Salvador Dali: Paradiso Canto 3. “Piccarda Donati.”

Once again, the delicacy of color, the arms outstretched and uplifted as if in joy, the streaming light, .... This is Paradiso, albeit the humblest ring.

(I have repeated this image in the thread for Canto III, which is where it belonged. But, since it has been commented upon here, I will leave it both places. Mea culpa.)

[Roger]

Adelle wrote: ""The lasting thirst, created with the soul,
for that deiform kingdom swept us far,
swift as the mind-seen wheeling of the skies.

Beatrice gazed upward, and I gazed at her" (Para. 2.19+)

Sho..."

I thought it was perfect--Dante is drawn into Heaven by his love of Beatrice.

[[deleted user]]

Ah, Llily, Roger. I appreciate your points of view, and possibly you are right....but me....I think for Dante to commune with God, Dante's going to have to do it entirely on his own. It seems to me...that....Dante wrote that Virgil and Reasoning can't get one to God. I don't think love for another will do the trick either. Pagans loved one another, too.

[Laurel]

Lily wrote: "http://www.lockportstreetgallery.com/...



Salvador Dali: Paradiso Canto 3. “Piccarda Donati.”

Once again, the delicacy of color, the arms outstretched and uplifted as if..."

I love this one!

[Laurel]

Roger wrote: "I thought it was perfect--Dante is drawn into Heaven by his love of Beatrice..

Exactly. I think on that day long ago when young Dante gazed at young Beatrice for the first time, he had an experience of the Numinous--he knew that if there was something that wondrous on Earth, there must be something even more wondrous beyond the earth, and thus began his long search for it.

This essay explains a little of what I mean:

http://web.archive.org/web/2008073106...

[Laurel]

Everyman wrote: "Laurele wrote: "Ciardi's summary:... only those who have eaten of the knowledge of God may hope to follow him into the last reaches of his infinite voyage, ..."

Is the bread of angels (Hollander's..."

Good catch, Everyman! The bread of angels in that Psalm is the manna that the children of Israel were given during their forty years of wandering in the wilderness:

Psalms 78:24-25
And had rained down manna upon them to eat,
and had given them of the corn of heaven.
Man did eat angels 'food:
he sent them meat to the full.

And no, they didn't get much knowledge from it, except the knowledge that comes from experience. It did keep them alive, though.

The New Testament teaches that the manna was a type of the sacrifice of Christ for the world's people:

John 6:31-35
Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat. ’” Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”
Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

So it should read, 'Only those who have accepted Christ as the sacrifice for their sin may hope to follow him to the true Joy of Heaven.'

Ciardi is at least partly right, though, as is Esolen and the verse that Thomas gives. In Proverbs, Wisdom is also a name for the Messiah, whom the New Testament identifies as Christ.

[Thomas]

Adelle wrote: ""The lasting thirst, created with the soul,
for that deiform kingdom swept us far,
swift as the mind-seen wheeling of the skies.

Beatrice gazed upward, and I gazed at her" (Para. 2.19+)

Sho..."

Beatrice's guidance is more subtle than Virgil's, but he still needs a guide, and he needs to be corrected. (After reading his thoughts here she tells him to "Direct your mind to God in gratitude..." ) The mechanism is desire in both cases -- for Beatrice and for God -- but I expect that the nature of this desire will become more "deiform" the closer Dante gets to his final destination.

[[deleted user]]

Laurele wrote: "Roger wrote: "I thought it was perfect--Dante is drawn into Heaven by his love of Beatrice..

Exactly. I think on that day long ago when young Dante gazed at young Beatrice for the first time, he h..."


Yes...but despite his years' long love of Beatrice, Dante found himself lost in the middle of his life. At that point his love for BeTrice hadn't helped him to stY on the straight and narrow. It just seems to me that it's not Dante's love for Beatricw that is working to save him; it seems to br more Beatri e's love and concern for him.

Unless we're looking at it from a perspective that when Dante found himself lost and almost damned that his thoughts turned to Beatrice.... But then, that would mean, wouldn't it? That there was no actual journey... Only a dream on the part of Dante?




I'm kinda liking the Paradisio. I'm finding it's interesting me.

[Everyman]

52 - 57

"She smiled a little, then: 'If the understanding
of mortals errs,' she said, 'there where the key
of the senses fails in its unlocking,
'surely the shafts of wonder should no longer
strike you, since you see that, dependent
on the senses, reason's wings fall short."

Here Dante is talking about a physical, not a metaphysical or philosophical, issue: the nature of the spots on the moon. I can see why he might have "gotten away" with this in the 14th century, but by the 18th century and the development of a greater reliance on scientific inquiry and method, I would think this passage would become decreasingly acceptable, and by the 21st century, particularly after the discovery of the Higgs-Boson particle, I think there is little belief remaining that there is anything in the physical world that we cannot at some point know through the application of reason to information gained through the senses (augmented as necessary by instruments and experiment).

[Everyman]

97 -
'Take three mirrors, placing two at equal distance
from you, letting the third, from farther off,
also meet your eyes, between the other two.
'Still turned to them, have someone set,
well back of you, a light that, shining out,
returns as bright reflection from all three.
'Although the light seen farthest off
seems smaller in its size, still you will observe
that it must shine with equal brightness."

But it doesn't, does it?

[[deleted user]]

It does not.

"From a modern scientific perspective, of course, particularly dealing with astronomical distances, Beatrice's conclusions about the experiment are quite wrong, but for Dante and his contemporaries they held weight" (Jay Rudd, Critical Companion to Dante, p184)

[[deleted user]]

Thomas wrote: "The mechanism is desire in both cases -- for Beatrice and for God -- but I expect that the nature of this desire will become more "deiform" the closer Dante gets to his final destination.


I see, perhaps, what you are saying regarding desire. In Canto III also (view spoiler)[

desire is motivating Dante.

"and I began [questioning the shadows]
as one almost disabled by desire" (Para. III.37).

"...although we dwell from sill to sill
throughout this kingdom, that is as we please,
as it delights the King in whose desire

We find our own" (Para. III.82+)

Dante is still follow his own desire. He has not yet even asked himself what God's desire for him is.

(hide spoiler)]

[Lily]

"...thy will be done..." That simple prayer says so much so well.

[Lily]

Everyman wrote: "...by the 21st century, particularly after the discovery of the Higgs-Boson particle, I think there is little belief remaining that there is anything in the physical world that we cannot at some point know through the application of reason to information gained through the senses (augmented as necessary by instruments and experiment)...."

Well, at the boundaries of science, there are questions about things that may exist outside the range of even augmented senses. The very ability of the senses to comprehend the world is a fascinating statement about the processes of the evolution of sensory organs. The empirical test is, of course, foundational, but humankind does not yet know its boundaries. We do know that certain rational (mathematical) reasoning suggests possibilities that may not be observable solely via extensions of known planet earth animal senses. (And I am not certain I state that exactly accurately.) As you point out, phenomena like Higgs-Boson can often be understood in ways that permit empirical evidence to be observed and measured. But there is no guarantee that is the limit of reality. (I suspect you have probably seen some of the Nova science specials, for example, speculating on the nature of time.)

Stephen Hawkings last book or some of the books that those who criticize his work suggest instead can provide readable (almost, at least) discussions for the layman on these boundaries to empirical understanding.

[Roger]

Everyman wrote: "52 - 57

"She smiled a little, then: 'If the understanding
of mortals errs,' she said, 'there where the key
of the senses fails in its unlocking,
'surely the shafts of wonder should no longer
strik..."

Science surely explains more and more as time goes on. But the notion that it will ultimately explain everything is faith, not science. The laws of the universe could just be too complex for the human mind to comprehend.

[Roger]

Everyman wrote: "97 -
'Take three mirrors, placing two at equal distance
from you, letting the third, from farther off,
also meet your eyes, between the other two.
'Still turned to them, have someone set,
well back..."

I say Beatrice is right. Note that she says the more distant light is just as bright, but smaller. I take her to mean just as bright per unit solid angle. Think of a bright disk reflected in the three mirrors. We know that the farther reflection, being twice as far, must have one fourth the total brightness. But its angular diameter will be half that of the nearer reflections, and its solid-angular size will therefore be one-fourth. With one-fourth the brightness in one-fourth the solid angle, the brightness per unit solid angle will be the same!

[Roger]

Dante takes extraordinary care to explain his story with the best science of his day. Is this the first science fiction story?

[Laurel]

Roger wrote: "Everyman wrote: "52 - 57

"She smiled a little, then: 'If the understanding
of mortals errs,' she said, 'there where the key
of the senses fails in its unlocking,
'surely the shafts of wonder shoul..."

I agree with you, Roger. The idea that science can explain everything went out with the nineteenth century.

[Everyman]

Laurele wrote: "I agree with you, Roger. The idea that science can explain everything went out with the nineteenth century. "

I agree with that also. But when we're talking about physical phenomena, which is what Dante seemed to be talking about, then I think the idea is still there, whether or not it eventually proves valid.

[Laurel]

Everyman wrote: "Laurele wrote: "I agree with you, Roger. The idea that science can explain everything went out with the nineteenth century. "

I agree with that also. But when we're talking about physical phenomen..."

Got it.

[Wendel]

I would skip Beatrice’s long and winding explanation for the spots on the moon, were it not that James Burge (Dante's Invention) made me aware of its meaning. I hope you don’t mind a long quote (p.184-185):

“Why are there areas of light and dark on the surface of the moon? Since it is a heavenly body one might expect it to be featureless, an evenly lit pearl. It seems a slightly trivial question for the first astronaut in history to ask, but it is there because the answer involves the whole universe. Beatrice explains that the light of God’s wisdom, which pours into the spherical universe from the outside, is refracted and modified by the rotating spheres as it makes its way downwards. The effect of this is to produce diversity; not just the patches on the moon but all the diversity that we see around us. What she tells him is actually the answer to a much wider question to which Dante will return at the end of his life: how come the universe isn’t the same all over? In theological terms the question is, ‘why are there all these objects and living creatures everywhere when God could have just created a glowing pool of His love?’ In modern cosmology the same question occurs in different form: ‘Why, after the big bang, did the universe not just settle down as a pool of pure energy? Why are all these planets and stars here?’ Dante was right to be concerned about the question because the stakes are high – in the homogeneous universes which grand theories suggests we could simly not exist.”

[Lily]

Wendelman wrote: ""Dante was right to be concerned about the question because the stakes are high – in the homogeneous universes which grand theories suggest we could simply not exist.”...."

Love it! Thanks for bringing to our attention.

[Laurel]

Lily wrote: "Wendelman wrote: ""Dante was right to be concerned about the question because the stakes are high – in the homogeneous universes which grand theories suggest we could simply not exist.”...."

Love ..."

Yes!

[Borum]

Thank you! Wendel's quote helped me out a lot.
I haven't wondered so much about the moon's shadows but I have wondered why God would make both people that are good and evil and somethings-in-between in the first place when he is omnipotent and can make everything and everybody good in the first place.
But Wendel's quote explained to me the 'why ask about the moon's shadows all of a sudden?' question that's been bugging me, but it still hasn't answered my question of 'why not a perfect universe in the first place?' yet (especially when Beatrice's outdated evidence is faulty from our point of view).
Am I right in understanding that she's telling Dante that we are all good people but as seen from various distances(or from various viewpoints and circumstances), they just 'appear' to be different?). I hope it will finally reveal itself more clearly when I finish the book, or as Dante did, at the end of his life.

[Borum]

Roger's comment on the first science fiction reminded me of how Ted Chiang's "Stories of Your Life and Others" mixes theological dilemmas with scientific phenomena.