1. The content of awareness is experience.
2. Experience is everything one can be aware of -self, sensation, ideas, memories the taste of mango, the fear of flying, the sound of mother's voice. Present feeling, past memories, future imagining. — unenlightened

1. OK, so I've got me a bucket of awareness. Hmm. No, awareness is not a container, material or otherwise. What is it? A type of consciousness, perception or knowledge of something happening or existing.
2. This is a subjective experience of our external and internal world or life. However, not all that happens or existed in the past, present or future can be totally known to us. Past and future imaginings can be problematic if we are not aware of their partial and illusionary qualities.

We have limited and different types of awareness. Some parts we pay more attention to, they are personally more meaningful and so, there is a sensitivity or 'heightened' awareness.
Examples: emotional, political, environmental.
Most of the time, we can choose to engage or disengage with thoughts, communication, and action.
However, we are not always aware we hold on to certain habits of thought or ways of thinking/feeling when it might be an idea to reflect and review our individual patterns.

We can be living with a religious belief bestowed upon us by our parents; we might hold them dear or fear estrangement if we doubt, challenge or change. This can be an emotional experience heightened by increased awareness.
So, I don't see 1. experience as the content of awareness, rather they are intertwined. Awareness has an effect on experience and v.v.

3. Awareness is an idea one has to have in order to understand the world, of something that is outside experience. — unenlightened

So, now 'awareness' has changed from subjective perception to an abstract concept. Who keeps that general idea or mental image in mind when different aspects of the world are explored? Scientists?
To understand anything beyond our experience, we need to travel - externally or internally - but we need to consider where we want to go. Which paths to take.

In a cage of negativity, the positives can't be seen or are out of reach.
Sometimes we are not even aware that we have been depressed until the shadows lift.
I suggest that we hardly ever have true emotional awareness.
To develop, we need to have or be shown skills; to identify moods, their causes, the tools to manage any problems. Understanding ourselves and others, to relate better is vital for holistic wellbeingness.

Thus one has the idea, but can give it no content, because if it had content it would be an experience that one was aware of not the awareness itself. — unenlightened

This doesn't make any sense to me.

So in order not to recreate awareness as an experience one has, that would necessitate another 'one' to be aware of it, I say that we have the idea of awareness, but it has to be empty, silent. Unlike the self, which is this complex of memories ideas and sensations that one is aware of and identifies with. — unenlightened

Again, no sense. How can an idea be 'empty'?
OK, I think I'm in danger of repeating myself so I'll stop here.

Thanks for engaging and provoking thought. :sparkle:

What do you mean by the 'self-complex'?
— Amity

Ideas and memories that one identifies with. Answers you might give if I asked you what you're like or who you are. I am ... 70 years old, male, a gardener, philosopher, mathematician, red hot lover, I like marmite and hill walking and I speak French and am married to... not the facts, the habitual ideas or thoughts that occur to me. — unenlightened

OK. The answers concern 'identity'. An amalgamation of all of the above gives a steady sense of self?
How we know, or think we know, who we are lies in the telling of a short or long story by self or others. I'm reminded of Dan Dennett and, I think, the Narrative Self [*]. My story has gaps, I've forgotten the details but it left an impression.

Of course, we can always be lying to ourselves or others have taken control of our identity.
Are we who we should, could be or really are? The delusions of self, the relationship with the truth - all need to be considered. Is that not the point of 'getting to know you'? The basis from which we can start taking control of the way we go or think? Our paths...

Taking the time to notice, pause and reflect when a thought 'occurs' outside our usual pattern.
And then, if we're lucky, to share in a discussion by writing stuff down. Sometimes, we don't know what we think until we do that.
If our minds can be flexed, are flexible, then change can happen with increased awareness, I think.
So selves and skills of listening can develop within this kind of community...or not...

The OP asked:

Third; what are the barriers? — Universal Student

I hope @Universal Student is still around.
Already mentioned as a mental obstacle is 'distraction'. That can lead to not even hearing far less listening in a careful manner. Also, no desire to question if what we tell ourselves or others is true.
Perhaps, if we look too hard our sense of wellbeingness would be shaken to its core.
However, a core self is not completely shattered that can be rebuilt on a sounder foundation.
Change the narrative?
Know Yourself. As much as you can...

How would that manifest as a 'silence' or an 'emptiness'?
— Amity

I have to say that, not because I experience something, but because in making the distinction, I have necessarily excluded every positive experience as being 'contents of awareness'. It doesn't manifest, it is the condition required for manifestation. Thus if my inner condition is a cacophony of noise, how can I hear anything? If my head is full of thoughts and anxieties about tomorrow, I cannot give attention to what you are saying. So to be aware is to be silent internally. It is to have room for something new. — unenlightened

I've read this a few times now and the meaning is not yet in my grasp. In other words. I'm :chin:
Perhaps if you rephrase the first 2 sentences?

I agree that if you are too anxious about future events and these thoughts fill your mind to capacity, then it is unlikely that you are able to give full attention to the present.
However, we have the capacity to compartmentalise mental activity, our thoughts.
We 'get over' ourselves, when we need to fulfil our social roles as carers, doctors or red hot lovers.

I agree, sometimes 'to be aware' might mean an internal silence, depending on context.
What our aims are, what we hope to achieve. Internal silence is not always needed rather the opposite.
It might give us room for something new, or something old...another same old story but one which is unique to the individual. Something blue. The winds of change.

[*]
Dan Dennett:
https://philosophynow.org/issues/85/Spinning_Narratives_Spinning_Selves
https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_the_illusion_of_consciousness

...It should of course be easy and clear what the answer is, because one ought to be aware of it. The answer i give is that self-awareness is always awareness of an idea that one has identified with - the self-complex. To the extent that awareness can be aware of itself, it seems (to me) to manifest as a silence, and an emptiness. I don't know if anyone else has another experience? — unenlightened

Interesting. What do you mean by the 'self-complex'?
How would that manifest as a 'silence' or an 'emptiness'?

Is your first thought aware of itself? Or is your second thought a reflection on your first thought (as mine is). — unenlightened

This stirs something in my ever-diminishing memory bank.
I seem to recall something about access consciousness...
Primary and secondary- where primary is simple perception; animals have it.
Secondary is a level up - self-reflective awareness; human animals are supposed to have it.

So, you are arguably aware of an initial thought but perhaps not as to its cause. A perception?
The cause might indeed be an increased awareness?
Particularly, if the questioner has been engrossed in topics such as:

Metacognition -

Metacognition is an awareness of one's thought processes and an understanding of the patterns behind them. The term comes from the root word meta, meaning "beyond", or "on top of".[1] Metacognition can take many forms, such as reflecting on one's ways of thinking and knowing when and how to use particular strategies for problem-solving.[1] There are generally two components of metacognition: (1) knowledge about cognition and (2) regulation of cognition.[2]
[...]
The concept of metacognition has also been applied to reader-response criticism.
Narrative works of art, including novels, movies and musical compositions, can be characterized as metacognitive artifacts which are designed by the artist to anticipate and regulate the beliefs and cognitive processes of the recipient,[78] for instance, how and in which order events and their causes and identities are revealed to the reader of a detective story. As Menakhem Perry has pointed out, mere order has profound effects on the aesthetical meaning of a text.[79] Narrative works of art contain a representation of their own ideal reception process. They are something of a tool with which the creators of the work wish to attain certain aesthetical and even moral effects.[80]
— Wiki - Metacognition

Art, then. Interaction between all kinds of consciousness and awareness.
A useful development using imagination and creativity in thought processing and product.

My feeling is that thought distracts awareness away from the present into the labyrinth of thought. Thus the suggestion is that thought and effort in this matter are counterproductive, as if one would strain to relax. the only 'how' to relaxation is to strain, and then stop straining. Think very hard about stopping thinking, and then stop. — unenlightened

I agree that thought can be labyrinthian; a complex structure of pathways which can be a confusing maze and amazing.
It is always present and will not be stopped.
The effort to do so, in my mind, would be counter-productive.
It is more about training the mind. And that takes thought. And awareness. And focus.

I disagree that the only 'how to relax' is to strain, then stop.
What did you have in mind?
The technique of physical clenching or tightening of muscles, then their release?
Yes, that's a kind of mind/body awareness that can be helpful but not all there is to relaxation.

Interesting, as always, to think a bit more...but not too much...

Thank you. — Universal Student

Curious as to what exactly you are grateful for :chin:

How do we develop our consciousness and self-awareness?

My first thought is that the inquiry itself is a helpful place to begin exploring. — Universal Student

Absolutely. Philosophical inquiry is about engaging with self and others in a hopefully constructive dialogue. As you have done by posing an eternally fascinating issue or set of questions.
My first series of thoughts: Why do you ask? Why would we want to develop? How do we know what, if anything, is wrong with our current status?

My second thought is to determine a basic foundation of what we are dealing with. What is consciousness? What is self-awareness? — Universal Student

'What is consciousness?' is a biggie with many definitions and approaches. So many theories...
So, specifically: What kind of 'consciousness' can be developed by ourselves?
I think you are talking about our individual awareness or knowledge of self, others and the world.
That seems pretty close to 'self-awareness'.
What's the difference?
I suppose it lies in the 'zoom-in'; the focus on unique, personal development.
Knowing yourself. All the better to improve practically for a greater sense of wellbeing.
Something like that.

Third; what are the barriers? — Universal Student

The barriers to developing a better understanding of self and others?

Perhaps we need to pay more or less attention; observe what is happening right now.
As you say, what is your 'base-line'?
Where are you at in your life? Think about your values regarding care of body, mind and spirit?
What are your usual habits or patterns of thought, emotions and behaviour?
Are they helping or harming you or others?

Examples can help. How do you become aware that something isn't right with yourself?
A change in mood? A lowering or darkening. What is the cause? The state of politics, people, problems.
If that Unsettling is to change, what to do? Turn to philosophy?

One barrier to reading and knowing oneself is that of Distraction.
I take leave from TPF every now and again, for various reasons. The latest:

In a recent conversation, I said I was a fan of Goethe, Italy and Marcus Aurelius.
Then I realised that if I had been asked, "Why?", I would have struggled to answer.
It's been so long since I read the Meditations, would I now feel the same way?
So, I left this place of delightful but sometimes unhelpful distractions and I picked up a few books.
Bought but never read:
Pierre Hadot's:
1. The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius
2. Philosophy as a Way of Life

Fourth; the tools to break down those barriers? — Universal Student

Being curious about your own mind. How it works, effectively or not.

I have been shown some tools along the way in my journey, but all of these were shown or hinted to me by external sources who they themselves have walked the path. Some a result of my own seeking and others, offered because they could see more than I. I have then sought to learn how to utilize these and adapt them to my unique needs. — Universal Student

It would be good if you could expand on the sources you found helpful; what 'path' have they walked?
Also, what tools and how have you adapted them to suit your needs?
Perhaps, borrowing from a Stoic's perspective?

In 'Philosophy as a Way of Life', I'm reading about what Hadot has to say about Marcus and 'spiritual exercises'.
Here's a clip from p84 in the section 'Learning to Live'
'Attention (prosoche) is the fundamental Stoic spiritual attitude. It is a continuous vigilance and presence of mind, self consciousness which never sleeps...'

The benefits?
Perhaps improved moods and relationships.
Understanding the relationship between thinking and emotions. Regulation of anxiety.
Clearer thinking and decision making?
Having better dialogues with others. Listening and learning, like here, right now...
Writing in response. Carefully.

Thanks for starting this engaging discussion :sparkle:

I am not entirely convinced there is a ‘why’ of doing so. This may sound bizarre but I just have a niggling sense that whatever function/role a Ritual plays in our lives it is essentially a creative force rather than one made of pure intent. — I like sushi

You don't need to be entirely convinced of a general reason for the function/role of Ritual.
Nor of there being a pure intent or an intent alone.
My questions of what, where, how and why addressed your specific:

'I can concoct and perform some ritual personal to me that no one else need ever know about.'
— I like sushi

I've since noted an earlier response:

I am not sure that “rituals” need to have a set purpose either. Maybe it is that some forms of “rituals” are more about exploring purpose and/or imbuing purpose by selecting some segment of time and addressing it by Visualising, Articulating, Acting Out, Analysing or Inventing. — I like sushi

From this, it seems you can indeed have a 'why', a reason or a set intention for a certain form of ritual:
What : to explore the concept of 'Purpose' or to give yourself purpose.
When: choose a a regular time to think about 'purpose'. Of concepts, self or life.
How :

As stands I have these five items.

1) Perception : Visualising
2) Thought : Articulating
3) Realisation : Acting Out
4) Reversal : Analysing
5) Development : Inventing — I like sushi

If, as you say, 'Ritual' is 'essentially a creative force', then it is of our own making.
This includes form, structure, process and intent; including your 'items' 1-5.

For your particular purpose, the ritual seems to be philosophical practice; a critical thinking process.
If it is to be of any benefit, it must necessarily involve 'social interaction' or communication.
A need to think, read, write, connect and share, no?
The end product: a new understanding or change?
Your 5) being the synthesis?

***

... a Ritual is more like an attempt at being a hierophant (the ‘translator’) and just occupying the space of ‘translations’ rather than actively mediating between ‘self’ and ‘world’ … if that makes sense? — I like sushi

:chin:

Yet, it is so drastic seppuku act, we should never forget it. It is an important piece of history that is pretty interesting to consider about. It was an Ancient Ritual and we have to respect it. — javi2541997

However, my point was that it is still being 'played out' in 2022. Fantasy role-playing.
This kind of ritual still holds an appeal. As do other killings associated with so-called 'honour'.
I do not respect this at all and find it disturbing that this barbaric way of thinking continues.
I might add that its source seems to lie more in the dominance of male power.

They were used to clan wars and a lot of blood. We evolved in to a complex society where we resolve the disputes with words and debates (a new habit which was born during the XIX century...? — javi2541997

I like the question mark.

Turned on the TV. Queen's funeral.
The marching pipe bands are quite an amazing sight and sound.
The Queen apparently had a ritual of being wakened by a piper playing outside her window, every morning between 9 and 9.15.

More and more bands to come...army, navy and airforce...

what would the point of a personal ritual be?

The search of a personal journey. — javi2541997

Or it could be the end of a personal journey ( seppuku) or victims of a so-called 'honour system'.

Earlier I posted this:

I find the idea and practice of seppuku, honour suicides and killings disturbing to say the least.
To think it has survived in fantasy role-playing...
And in modern life within certain religions:
— Amity — Amity

@javi2541997 given your recent posts extolling the life of a samurai, I wondered whether you would agree with that but received no reply.

The OP asked about the relationship between ‘Ritual’ with ‘Habit’ and ‘Instinct’.
I've already posted a little but didn't focus on the religious aspect. Some thoughts:

Religious rituals create habits of action and thought, which can be absorbed as instinctive attitudes.
Sometimes good, other times bad. There is usually an adherence to a set of societal values, morals and laws. At least on the face of it.
We all know about human hypocrisy; affected superiority whilst engaging in 'vice'.

Even yet, we are ruled by religion. World leaders and their acts or non-acts. The regalia, the medals.
And so on.
The Queen's death, the new King, today's funeral...all about ritual, power and its maintenance.
Enjoy the show but don't be dazzled. The sense (instinct) or habit of entitlement is heavy...as should be the shame of the Duke of York and more. But the basic instinct is to survive.

God, such titles...to bear...

We are both agree in the same point then! — javi2541997

You might not agree with an add-on to the original post:

I find the idea and practice of seppuku, honour suicides and killings disturbing to say the least.
To think it has survived in fantasy role-playing...
And in modern life within certain religions: — Amity

But now I'm off to prepare Sunday lunch, salmon not beef...and not a ritual...!

Well seppuku is different. The social-cultural code can be committed without the implications of others. — javi2541997

You mean seppuku can be committed alone. That I understood as obvious.
For the individual it is clearly and hopefully a one-off act; it is only a ritual in the socio-cultural sense.
I was looking at the broader framework; it is/was a Japanese Ritual and then some.

In popular culture:

The expected honor-suicide of the samurai wife is frequently referenced in Japanese literature and film, such as in Taiko by Eiji Yoshikawa, Humanity and Paper Balloons,[32] and Rashomon.[33] Seppuku is referenced and described multiple times in the 1975 James Clavell novel, Shōgun; its subsequent 1980 miniseries Shōgun brought the term and the concept to mainstream Western attention. [ ... ]

In the 2022 dark fantasy action role-playing video game Elden Ring, the player can receive the ability seppuku, which has the player stab themselves through the stomach and then pull it out, coating their weapon in blood to increase their damage. — Wiki - Seppuku

I find the idea and practice of seppuku, honour suicides and killings disturbing to say the least.
To think it has survived in fantasy role-playing...

And in modern life within certain religions:

There are estimated to be 12 to 15 so-called “honour” killings in Britain every year. Notorious cases include Banaz Mahmod, whose father, uncle and other relatives plotted to murder her after she left an allegedly abusive marriage and fell in love with another man; and Samia Shahid, from Bradford, who was killed on a trip to Pakistan. Shahid’s ex-husband and father were arrested in Pakistan in connection with her death but her father died while on bail and nobody has stood trial. — Guardian - 'Honour-based' offences

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/oct/31/honour-based-offences-soared-by-81-in-last-five-years

The discussion holds more fascination than I thought it would.
Thanks :sparkle:

Need a ritual be social? Absolutely not. I can concoct and perform some ritual personal to me that no one else need ever know about. — I like sushi

Interesting but questions then arise as to why you would want to do that.
What, where and how often. [*]
The elements involved in a ritual can relate to your physical, mental or spiritual health.
Fine in itself but isn't it also a way to connect?
Perhaps to be 'present' to 'something' or 'someone'; even your other 'selves'?
Doesn't it form a story or an inner/outer dialogue?
No man is an island...we are multi-dimensional beings.

No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as any manner of thy friends or of thine own were; any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”
[ ... ]
Of all of John Donne’s quotes – from his sermons and poetry, “No man is an island” stands apart as the most perfect expression of an individual’s position in relation to society. — No man Is An Island - Meaning and Context

--------

[ * ]

Personal rituals can take many forms, from simple to elaborate, spiritual to mundane. They don’t have to be fancy or take too long. They only need to be done regularly, full of meaning, and have set intentions...
[ ... ] In every ritual, the steps involved are very much the same: geometry, structure, rhythm, and intent.
[ ... ] The purpose behind your ritual directs your ritual fulfillment. What emotional quality do you want to focus on right now? The possibilities are numerous: opening your heart, grounding, connecting to someone or something, completion, healing, asking for help, gratitude, praise, a blessing, purification, self-reflection, linking with a higher power.
The power of ritual isn’t mindless movement. It’s a focusing technique to systematically give you an anchor point within. — bijab - wellness blog

--------

As previous comment, if you are someone drawn to 'ritual', then there can be dangers of disorder:

Or, in an unhealthy society, traditions are maintained when they do not serve any useful function, like an obsessive, they no longer contribute to an ordered society, but to disorder, and we are talking now about 'empty ritual' that has no meaning, that it might have once had, equivalent to the obsessive thoughts that prevent an individual from thinking straight. — unenlightened

How many rituals (personal or collective) become 'empty' or harmful without us realising it?

Seppuku was a samurai ritual used when someone committed a big act of dishonour or disrespect. The act itself was accomplished in the pure loneliness — javi2541997

Not that alone.
Wiki tells us more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku

Even when such an act is performed, it's part of a socio-cultural code.
It is telling a story. In this case, the Japanese ritual is mainly about restoring honour for themselves and their families. But there are more aspects or approaches to explore...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/ritual

Arguably, there is a 'social interaction' in the sense of how individuals act and react towards each other; functioning within a given social order or structure. Individual and collective minds and behaviour are influenced in at least a 2-way process.

I usually don't know what I think until I speak – don't ever "shut up" that beautiful mind of yours. — 180 Proof

Lost for words.
Thank you.
:hearts: :sparkle:

You've answered your own questions to your satisfaction it serms (with wikis, etc), so, as Plato's Socrates might have done, I'll leave it there. — 180 Proof

:lol: I never know when to shut up but I'm learning :zip:

I would say I am getting closer by looking away from mere ‘lenses’ and ‘perspectives’ referring to lived world. By this I mean a “ritual” must be some item ‘set apart from’ the world in some manner. — I like sushi

Here's to a clean lens, clear vision, close reading and real reflection!

That was quite a poria! From Plato to King Charles. — Fooloso4

Aye, nothing like being transported from Ancient Greece to Modern Britain, huh?!

With regard to justified true belief, this is a long standing but, in my opinion, incorrect interpretation of the Theaetetus. The question is: what is knowledge? — Fooloso4

Some opinions are more welcome than others, thanks!
I enjoyed reading another of yours elsewhere:

In my opinion the scope of philosophy is the scope of opinion. It is the examination and evaluation of opinions. Theology in the broadest sense of the term remains politically, socially, intellectually, historically, and culturally important.

Theology, then, the study of religious beliefs which I believe KCIII has undertaken.
At one point, given his interest and praise of Islam, Sikhism, Buddhism, the Greek Orthodox church, I think he had hoped to change the oath, to 'Defender of Faith'. That hasn't happened. See my bolds.
Why didn't it?

The oath read by King Charles at an Accession Council meeting at St James's Palace in London states:

"I, Charles III by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of My other Realms and Territories King,Defender of the Faith, do faithfully promise and swear that I shall inviolably maintain and preserve the Settlement of the true Protestant Religion as established by the Laws made in Scotland in prosecution of the Claim of Right and particularly by an Act intituled ‘An Act for securing the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government' and by the Acts passed in the Parliament of both Kingdoms for Union of the two Kingdoms, together with the Government, Worship, Discipline, Rights and Privileges of the Church of Scotland. So help me God." — King Charles vows - churchofscotland

So help me...God!
Looking forward to the Coronation ceremony:

The ceremony is performed by the archbishop of Canterbury, the most senior cleric in the Church of England, of which the monarch is supreme governor. Other clergy and members of the nobility also have roles; most participants in the ceremony are required to wear ceremonial uniforms or robes and coronets. Many other government officials and guests attend, including representatives of other countries.

The essential elements of the coronation have remained largely unchanged for the past thousand years. The sovereign is first presented to, and acclaimed by, the people. He or she then swears an oath to uphold the law and the Church. Following that, the monarch is anointed with holy oil, invested with regalia, and crowned, before receiving the homage of his or her subjects. Wives of kings are then anointed and crowned as queen consort. The service ends with a closing procession, and since the 20th century it has been traditional for the royal family to appear later on the balcony of Buckingham Palace, before attending a banquet there. — Wiki - Coronation of British Monarch

[Note my bolds: KCIII is the supreme governor of the Church of England. What does that even mean?]

The media tells us we are all heartbroken.
How many swallow this opinion?
In awesome wonder...

I have been working on a piece about human ‘Ritual’ and wondered how others define, distinguish and explore what ‘Rituals’ are?
For a common set of related terms how do you compare and contrast ‘Ritual’ with ‘Habit’ and ‘Instinct’? — I like sushi

Most interesting set of questions and responses.
I haven't given the topic of 'ritual' much thought, never mind comparing and contrasting with 'habit' and 'instinct'.
So guess what my initial reaction or instinct was? Something along the lines of:
Help, I don't know...I might have an opinion but how valuable would that be?
I needed to fill what I considered to be a gap in my knowledge.
Rather than pause, reflect and explore, I have developed the unsavoury habit of googling, especially for definitions.
Why? Was it to enlighten myself or others? A desire to participate in a TPF ritual?

However, others have beaten me to it!
One post which caught my eye, thanks @mcdoodle. Long time no see!

Erving Goffman in the 60's to 80's wrote about talk and conversation as ritual. Indeed one of the books of essays is called 'Interactive ritual'. Although notionally a sociologist, I think he has lots of good clear things to say about the norms of talk and how they are ritualised. — mcdoodle

How we interact even within this thread - why might some posts be considered more valuable than others. Why might we ignore any uncomfortable, challenging views or those perceived as irrelevant?

So, I did as is my habit and googled the terms 'Goffman' and 'Interactive Ritual':


***

Basically, all of the terms you wish to explore concern social interaction in everyday life.

From the link provided by @Hanover

In some ethnic groups that see childbirth as a normal behavior, “the pattern will be transposed to the rites of childhood, or it may be included in the rites of betrothal and marriage”(van Gennep 1960, 193). Such a statement cannot be made without doubt. If the rite of passage is a ritual structure, how can it be discussed as a childhood, engagement, or wedding rite? It is clear that van Gennep was talking about a mixture of ritual structure and ritual purposes, and the “process pattern” in his text is not just a kind of abstract structure. We should forgive van Gennep since at the beginning of anthropology this type of defect was almost unavoidable. However, the question remains: what is the relationship between ritual, rite of passage, and social relations? — Journal of Chinese Sociology

The patterns of living, thought and action can vary according to culture and context.
If we were brought up with the Sunday dinner ritual of roast beef, then we might find it difficult to change our values and habits re ethical diet and food. We can be uncomfortable at barbecues, as per Goffman video. It can affect our relationships with others.

Of course, it all depends on your perspective on what a 'ritual' is.
I think all of the terms have a common denominator, in that there is a lack of thought - they are automatic.
What might be considered is the degree of harm or hurt involved in their practice.
Do they help or hinder individual or collective progress? Both?
Degrees and flexibility of purpose. The pros and cons of clear thinking v non-thinking process.
The possibilities and ways of change...

As Plato might say: "opinions" (doxa) are the currency of sophists that, like Monopoly money, doesn't cash out at the supermarket or in philosophy. Aporia are, after all, coins of the realm (agora): — 180 Proof

I skipped over this and then became distracted. However, it has stayed in my mind as a puzzle.
It sounded clever and gave a :up: :100: . Thereby giving an opinion without a reason. Should we expect something more substantive? What would Plato say?

'As Plato might say' - well, Plato said a lot of things at different times and places, using Socrates as his mouthpiece. Philosophical opinions or interpretations of the Dialogues have kept dogma, rhetoric, and philosophy in an eternal, infernal business.

From wiki:

Plato's framing of doxa as the opponent of knowledge led to the classical opposition of error to truth, which has since become a major concern in Western philosophy. (However, in the Theaetetus and in the Meno, Plato has Socrates suggest that knowledge is orthos doxa for which one can provide a logos, thus initiating the traditional definition of knowledge as "justified true belief.") — Wiki - Doxa

It is not only sophists who use or abuse opinions. As to whether they 'cash out' or not, what does that even mean?

Followed by:

Aporia are, after all, coins of the realm (agora). — 180 proof

'after all' - are they? What did you mean by that?
Are you contrasting apparently value-less opinions with arguably a more valuable 'cutting through opinion without tears'?

Aporia: In philosophy, an aporia (Ancient Greek: ᾰ̓πορῐ́ᾱ, romanized: aporíā, lit. 'literally: "lacking passage", also: "impasse", "difficulty in passage", "puzzlement"') is a conundrum or state of puzzlement. In rhetoric, it is a declaration of doubt, made for rhetorical purpose and often feigned.
[ ... ]
Plato's early dialogues are often called his 'aporetic' (Greek: ἀπορητικός) dialogues because they typically end in aporia. In such a dialogue, Socrates questions his interlocutor about the nature or definition of a concept, for example virtue or courage. Socrates then, through elenctic testing, shows his interlocutor that his answer is unsatisfactory. After a number of such failed attempts, the interlocutor admits he is in aporia about the examined concept, concluding that he does not know what it is. In Plato's Meno (84a-c), Socrates describes the purgative effect of reducing someone to aporia: it shows someone who merely thought he knew something that he does not in fact know it and instills in him a desire to investigate it. — Wiki - Aporia

Socratic questioning or doubt in knowledge or opinion, then = valuable 'coins of the realm' (agora)?
Agora being a "gathering place" or "assembly". In Ancient Greece, the center of the athletic, artistic, business, social, spiritual and political life.
The modern equivalent? The internet, forums, social media...
Even on TPF, we are inundated by opinion. And isn't that how it should be? Stimulating discussion to enhance our understanding of each other and life. Sharing reasons...as well as emotions.

Back to the OP article:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/18/dial-down-the-heated-dinner-party-rhetoric-you-dont-need-to-have-an-opinion-on-everything

How can there be real change in society when people don’t listen to each other or have an empathetic approach to other positions?
[ ... ]
But breaking bread with people you disagree with and disagreeing civilly is a crucial step to understanding different points of view and sharpening your own rhetorical skills, convictions and capacity for persuasion when arguing your own corner. — Guardian

All well and good but nowhere is 'silence' mentioned.
The silence between the gaps of royal reportage.
How do we know what we don't know?
The royal or government concealment of e.g. trade deals with Saudis.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/defence-and-security-blog/2014/feb/24/arms-gulf-prince-charles

I watched Ch4 news last night. A segment on the Queen and how her power was used.
https://www.channel4.com/news/how-the-queens-soft-power-projected-britain-around-the-world

She knew it wasn't 'pure'. And it reminded me of KCIII's earlier quote:
”as Shakespeare says of the earlier Queen Elizabeth, she was “a pattern to all Princes living”.
Who else wrote about princes and royals.
Machiavelli in his 16th-century political instruction guide: The Prince.

What are our thoughts when, or if, we observe a minute's silence?
What are the thoughts of the royal 'children' standing vigil in public?
" Thank you, QEII - our very own rich, powerful, manipulative Grannie who served us well".

What about the real thoughts or opinions of a new King when he had a hissy fit about a leaky pen?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/13/oh-god-i-hate-this-king-charles-expresses-frustration-over-leaking-pen

The new monarch was shown signing a visitor’s book in front of cameras at Hillsborough Castle, near Belfast. He reacted after the pen he was using leaked on him.
“Oh god I hate this (pen)!” Charles said, standing up and handing the pen to his wife, Camilla, Queen Consort.
“Oh look, it’s going everywhere,” Camilla said as her husband wiped his fingers.
“I can’t bear this bloody thing … every stinking time,” Charles said as he walked away. — Guardian

Is it really about a faulty writing implement?
A pen is a pen is a pen.

How much real change can we expect in a 'new' era?
Is there room for a move away from ancient traditions?
Opinions matter. Slice and dice with care and humour... tears can fall as they will.

I've since realized that's an inadequate description for the category. It's also, perhaps primarily, for problems in logic itself. — Jamal

That sounds interesting. So, how then to re-write?
Re:' problems in logic'... do you mean mistakes in how we apply logic? Solving logical problems?
Do logical problems even make sense?

A forum on philosophy ought have threads on the basics of logic. — Banno

I think this is the first time I've ventured into the category of 'Logic & Philosophy of Mathematics'.
Its description: What are logic and mathematics? How are they related? How do they relate to human reason and to the world?

The last question grabs my attention. To answer that, for sure, a thread on the basics of logic would come in useful. I'm not so certain about mathematics...what is the 'philosophy of...'?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/

Moving on.

I liked the word "informal" in your previous post, it's just that propositional calculus is a formal system. It's a branch of mathematics.

If you want to raise the logical literacy of the forum, perhaps it would be better to aim at that dialect called "philosophical English," a dialect spoken by people familiar with formal systems. The traditional early chapters of a logic textbook try to show how the logical constants capture some of what we mean by familiar idioms. — Srap Tasmaner

I'm interested in being logical and literate but not to the point of formal truth tables.
I've studied this at an introductory level, read the books, then gave them away. For me, the applicability and relationship to the 'real world' seemed too narrow. The kind of 'truth', and its relationships within this artificial domain and symbolic language, seem to imply a kind of universal certainty. 'Truth preserving' perhaps...but only in a set, forced way.

What do you mean by a 'dialect called 'philosophical English'?

Seems ↪Srap Tasmaner is correct that we cannot have a less formal discussion of propositional calculus. It's either too rich for some or too poor for others. I think that a shame.

I've no intention of writing another logic text that will satisfy TonesInDeepFreeze. End of tread, I suppose. — Banno

About writing another logic text. You might like to look at this, the first out of 5 'best books' :
[the article has an excellent introduction]

I chose Logic Primer by Colin Allen and Michael Hand for the reason that I taught from it for over a decade at the University of York. One of the interesting things about teaching logic at a university is that no logic teacher at a university is happy with anyone else’s textbook. This is why there are so many logic textbooks: everyone gets hyper-frustrated with the text they’re teaching and ends up writing their own. Now, I’m quite lazy, and I didn’t. I stuck to this book, though actually I changed it in lots of ways. When I teach with it, I reorder it, I delete sections, I add in new sections and new definitions of terms, so in practice the students are learning from my annotated version of the text.

But this is why so many logic textbooks are written. The solution to that problem has arisen in our Web 2.0. I’ll mention it for reference, namely that there is now a logic textbook which is open-source and freely editable, called forallx. It’s online, and more and more logic teachers are saying ‘I’ll take that, and I can edit it in any way I like and use it.’ Anyone can freely access not only the original version of the text, but also any of its modifications. So there’s a Cambridge version of this textbook, a York version, a Calgary version, a SUNY version, a UBC version and probably many more I don’t know about. But the underlying formal language and system is the same in all of those. — The 5 Best Books on Logic

Oh, and just for @Agent Smith ( perhaps you've read it already?)

[ ... ] The next book is Mark Sainsbury’s Paradoxes. I love this book. Whole university courses are taught around this book. It’s an absolute classic.

With regard to kalokagathós, καλοκἀγαθός , "beautiful and good." I think the English language also has a word for "Beautiful AND Good": Nice. As in "She's a nice girl", meaning, good girl, beautiful girl. "That's some nice shit", meaning "good shit" and "beautiful shit", both at the same time.
— god must be atheist — Amity

Nice try but 'nice' doesn't have the same force, perhaps reflecting the word's origin: — Amity

What I am trying to make you understand is that you can't say one expression in conversation is more forceful than another, if one is not in the language either conversation partner understands. — god must be atheist

Of course, for understanding we need to share the same language or have access to Google.
The comparison was between adjectives 'nice' and 'beautiful and good' re conduct or standards
For me, the word 'nice' has less 'force' when talking about morals or ethics.
Where 'beautiful and good' can be nounified, conceptualised and even capitalised:
'The Beautiful and The Good'.
You think 'The Niceness' has the same impact?

Appreciate the condolences and the Beatles.
'Our hearts are broken' or so we are told.
In the soap opera that is the UK, everything stops for tea, Tory leader contests, the Queen's death but Royal lineage goes on and on and...
We are in for at least 10 days of fully rehearsed, televised mourning and remembrance rituals.
I am no royalist but I admit to feeling sad and shedding a tear. BBC coverage has that effect.
I am not a fan of soap opera either but hey, let's be good neighbours for at least a day...a minute?

The end of an era.

Look inside Paulo's wardrobe; more than jeans and shoes.
Catch sight of another Scottish singer/songwriter and musician - Gerry Rafferty. :cool:



Winding your way down on Baker Street
Light in your head and dead on your feet
Well, another crazy day
You'll drink the night away
And forget about ev'rything

This city desert makes you feel so cold
It's got so many people, but it's got no soul
And it's taken you so long
To find out you were wrong
When you thought it held everything

You used to think that it was so easy
You used to say that it was so easy
But you're tryin', you're tryin' now
Another year and then you'd be happy
Just one more year and then you'd be happy
But you're cryin', you're cryin' now

Way down the street there's a light in his place
He opens the door, he's got that look on his face
And he asks you where you've been
You tell him who you've seen
And you talk about anything

He's got this dream about buying some land
He's gonna give up the booze and the one-night stands
And then he'll settle down
In some quiet little town
And forget about ev'rything

But you know he'll always keep movin'
You know he's never gonna stop movin'
'Cause he's rollin', he's the rolling stone
When you wake up, it's a new mornin'
The sun is shinin', it's a new mornin'
You're goin', you're goin' home

Songwriters: Gerry Rafferty
For non-commercial use only.
Data From: Musixmatch

Here's one to match, though I couldn't find the lyrics. — Olivier5

'Fancy Jeans'.
I like the fun and cheeky wordplay.
If you click on CC, you can read the subtitles.

Are yoy saying perfection is impossible? Our standards may differ - I'm a realist, at least that's what I feel I am. — Agent Smith

My perfect answer will have to wait. Going out now, a perfect nuisance!

Do we/you need an Ideal Idol?
— Amity

If we didn't need 'em why do they "exist"? — Agent Smith

Good question, what do you think?
I think the concept of 'perfection' or a perfect being is rooted in religion.
The idea of a perfect God.
If we fail to meet certain behavioural standards, if we are made to feel sinful, then we carry a burden of guilt...that is not healthy!

That's all I have just now...bye.

Wiki has this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfection

Suffice it to say that such people exist - they have to for reasons I'm not at present able to articulate. — Agent Smith

Why must such 'perfect' human beings exist?
Do we/you need an Ideal Idol?

I've seen people who've done it so to speak. — Agent Smith

Who? Have you seen these people and how they are in all circumstances?
What they think and feel...what they might keep hidden from view?

The right balance between mental hygiene and physical well-being is not a myth though - I've seen people who've done it so to speak. Kudos to those who've seen the light. — Agent Smith

The trouble is, for most of us mere mortals, that we might know what is considered best for the body and mind but there's often a wide gap between theory and practice, words and action.

So many obstacles, real and perceived along the way.
We often don't meet our own standards, never mind those of others.
"Be good to yourself".

Take care :sparkle:

Woke up cold one Tuesday
I'm looking tired and feeling quite sick
I felt like there was something missing in my day to day life
So I quickly opened the wardrobe
Pulled out some jeans and a t-shirt that seemed clean
Topped it off with a pair of old shoes
That were ripped around the seams
And I thought these shoes just don't suit me

Hey, I put some new shoes on
And suddenly everything is right
I said, hey I put some new shoes on
And everybody's smiling, it's so inviting

Oh short on money but long on time
Slowly strolling in the sweet sunshine
And I'm running late and I don't need an excuse
Cause I'm wearing my brand new shoes

Woke up late one Thursday
And I'm seeing stars as I'm rubbing my eyes
And I felt like there were two days missing
As I focused on the time
And I made my way to the kitchen
But I had to stop from the shock of what I found
A room full of all my friends dancing round and round
And I thought hello new shoes
Bye bye blues
[chorus]
Take me wandering through these streets
Where bright lights and angels meet
Stone to stone they take me on
I'm walking to the break of dawn
[repetitions]

Songwriters: Paolo Giovanni Nutini, Matt Benbrook, Jim Duguid. For non-commercial use only.
Data From: Musixmatch

All that comes to me mind is that we're in really hot water! The easy way out is to die and/or not procreate (celibacy is a virtue in almost all religions. :chin: ). If you wanna do it the hard way be my guest; godspeed! Love you! — Agent Smith

In the meantime, be well and good :cool:
Mens sana in corpore sano.
A healthy body in a healthy body.
Aim for the best you can be and be kind to yourself.
A balance of body and spirit would seem to be the target, in a world that seems to blow hot and cold.
Buena suerte! :sparkle:

Put on a pair of 'nice' shoes and dance away from deciphering ' the polynomic system of values'.
Yep.

There's nothing quite like the smell of a dictionary in the morning.
Or the sight of a word being spelled out...or something. Don't ya feel it?

With regard to kalokagathós, καλοκἀγαθός , "beautiful and good." I think the English language also has a word for "Beautiful AND Good": Nice. As in "She's a nice girl", meaning, good girl, beautiful girl. "That's some nice shit", meaning "good shit" and "beautiful shit", both at the same time. — god must be atheist

Nice try but 'nice' doesn't have the same force, perhaps reflecting the word's origin:

; late 13c., "foolish, ignorant, frivolous, senseless," from Old French nice (12c.) "careless, clumsy; weak; poor, needy; simple, stupid, silly, foolish," from Latin nescius "ignorant, unaware," literally "not-knowing," from ne- "not" (from PIE root *ne- "not") + stem of scire "to know" (see science). "The sense development has been extraordinary, even for an adj." [Weekley] -- from "timid, faint-hearted" (pre-1300); to "fussy, fastidious" (late 14c.); to "dainty, delicate" (c. 1400); to "precise, careful" (1500s, preserved in such terms as a nice distinction and nice and early); to "agreeable, delightful" (1769); to "kind, thoughtful" (1830). — Etymonline

***

Kalos kagathos or kalokagathos (Ancient Greek: καλὸς κἀγαθός [kalòs kaːɡatʰós]), of which kalokagathia (καλοκαγαθία) is the derived noun, is a phrase used by classical Greek writers to describe an ideal of gentlemanly personal conduct, especially in a military context.usage dates from the second half of the 5th and in the 4th century B.C.. For example, in Plato's Lysis, a young man is described as imbued with kalokagathia.[4]

There is thematic discussion of kalokagathia in Aristotle's Eudemian Ethics,[5] Book VIII, chapter 3 (1248b). And how a kalos kagathos (gentleman) should live is also discussed at length in Xenophon's Socratic dialogues, especially the Oeconomicus.

In Aristotle, the term becomes important as a technical term used in discussions about Ethics — Wiki: Kalos kagathos

Y más...
And more...?

English is not my mother tongue. I oftenly make some grammar mistakes — javi2541997

Oftenly did all of I so :scream:

Google says: "Puede editar el título!"

You if want... :nerd:

Usually, people are forgiving; they may evenly attempt to answer the question...

On Shoes
1. Respect and Religion
Shoes are steeped in custom and symbolic meaning. For instance, removing one's shoes can be a sign of respect, especially when entering a sacred space. In the Bible, shoes sometimes signify servitude, lowliness, or unholiness.
2. High Heels, History, and Gender
3. Economic Class and Sexual Symbolism
4. Slippers in Pop Culture ( 'Fictional shoes are powerful and either provide or symbolize magical abilities for the wearer').
5. Interpreting Dreams of Shoes

https://owlcation.com/social-sciences/the-symbolism-of-shoes

No. What I mean is the possibility to develop arguments and essays in a pure humanistic view. Not depending on scientific validity for verification. — javi2541997

Thanks for your clarification.
I so respect you, and other TPF participants, whose mother tongue is not English :100:
I couldn't even write a simple sentence in Spanish without the help of Google, even then...

Muchas gracias, como siempre :flower:
Como siempre :pray:

How many people find any kind of 'truth based on some mathematical formulas'?
— Amity
To be honest, I personally think most of the people think in this way — javi2541997

'Most of the people' - in which community? Perhaps a particular field but I have no idea what the ordinary person knows of 'mathematical formulas'?

In my view there are two different types of language: pure linguistic (fulfilled by philosophy, readings, mythology, religion, rhetoric, history, etc...) and mathematical (Physics, Chemistry, Maths, engineering, etc...) — javi2541997

Applied creative language and thinking are arguably necessary tools in both fields of art and science.
Types of thinking which interact:
https://www.magneticmemorymethod.com/types-of-thinking/

Nevertheless, it looks like that there is a big part of the population who is sceptical about some theories if you do not show them with "essays" and "formulas" — javi2541997

Again, which 'big part of the population'?
Do you mean in academia?
Theories, I think, are by their very nature required to be shared and shown in the language of the discipline.

I would sound "out of phase" but I think I will learn more about my life thanks to both mythology and philosophy rather than "AI" or robots resolving formulas. — javi2541997

How is that 'out of phase'?

I was only claiming more "freedom" in our imagination trying to avoid taboos or limitations. — javi2541997

I think I understand. You mean away from the extreme or inflexible dogmas/institutions?
I don't think that is the same as your original claim but never mind.

But another important fact is how the thinkers/philosophers get rid of obstacles. — javi2541997

Yes.
Consider the kind and nature of obstacles; the internal and external.
The stories we tell ourselves and others tell us. How true are they?

Thanks for the conversation :sparkle:

A year late in responding. Never mind.
I come here from your current, thought-provoking thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13432/mythopoeic-thought-the-root-of-greek-philosophy/p1

So, this OP is another from the Friesian website you recommend.

The wrap-around feature of the diagram indicates the generality of the term "good." The morally right is an ethical good, and both moral and non-moral ethical goodness are good and beautiful -- an expression the Greek combined into one word, kalokagathós, καλοκἀγαθός , "beautiful and good."... — javi2541997

The article continues:

Moral goodness concerns right and wrong actions; ethical goodness concerns what is good for human life,including right actions but also *good shoes, good pizzas, etc.; and aesthetic goodness concerns what is simply good-in-itself, whether morally, in human life, or quite generally. — The Polynomic Theory of Value ἡ τὴς Ἀξίας Πολυνομικὴ Θεωρία after Immanuel Kant, Friedrich von Schiller, & Leonard Nelson

[emphasis added]
Here, shoes are given as an example of an ethical goodness. See later * where this seems to be contradicted.

So, my mind isn't working as well as it could. Bear with me...
How can something be described as: 'non-moral ethical'?
Why not simply 'non-moral'?
Why is the 'beautiful' seen as a 'non-moral ethical goodness'?
What is aesthetic judgement or appreciation and how is it linked to morality?
Does it depend on whether it arises from a subjective or objective point of view. Both?

I am confused by the article and its various tables, one which I can't reproduce but is further explored:
Logical Relationships of Moralism and Moral Aestheticism
https://www.friesian.com/poly-2.htm#log

In traditional logic the Square of Opposition displays the relationships between particular or universal and affirmative or negative propositions. The same thing can be done to show the relationships that can occur with the affirmation or the denial of polynomic value. In the Square of Opposition, items on the diagonals from each other are contradictories, which means that if one is true, the other must be false. The two upper members are contraries, which in traditional logic cannot both be true; and the two lower members are sub-contraries, which cannot both be false. If one of the contraries is true, the subcontrary immediately below it, called the subaltern, is true. If the polynomic nature of value is accepted, then both moralism, which holds that all value, or all ethical value, is moral value, and moral aestheticism, which holds that all value is aesthetic value, are false. The contradictories of those, namely, morality, that not all value is aesthetic value (some value is moral value), and aestheticism, that not all value is moral value (some value is aesthetic), are true. If the polynomic theory of value is wrong, then one of the contraries must be true. This occurs with either Moralism or Moral Aestheticism. Note that moralism does imply the existence of moral value (the subaltern); but, of course, the existence of moral value does not imply moralism. Similarly, moral aestheticism does imply aestheticism, the existence of aesthetic value; but aestheticism does not imply moral aestheticism. Seeing these relationships in the Square of Opposition should help keep them straight. — Friesian

[emphasis added]

Perhaps others can see these relationships in the 'Square' and keep them straight.
However, I don't know what this or the wall of text means.
Grateful if anyone can explain in clear, concise English, thanks.

From the start of the article:

The Old English derived cognate of "value," which is "worth" (German Wert), is a perfectly useful alternative word in its own right. Things have worth; but it is the general meaning of "value" and "worth" that is appropriate for the Polynomic Theory.

* Shoes have value and worth; but, without tortured formulations, they do not have moral value or worth.

If we are among the modern Nihilists who do not believe that morality exists, this is a useful circumstance. Nietzsche sought to replace moral value with aesthetic value -- the fallacy of moral aestheticism...

[emphasis added]

Is it the 'general meaning of 'value' that is appropriate for the Polynomic theory?
If so, of what value is it when it comes to morality?
It sounds to me that the shoes example is seen as exclusive or inclusive.(* above and bolded)
Their value can lie in a variety of moral choices and decisions.
For example, vegan-friendly footwear is valued by some for its zero animal cruelty.

As for Nietzsche...is it true that is what he sought to do?

Whenever I start a thread I am worried about if the users would like it or not... — javi2541997

I understand that concern. What matters is that it inspires and provokes thought.
You do that exceedingly well.
I've started threads that don't inspire others :groan:
But that's not my prime motivation. I also don't bother too much about its popularity or lifespan.
Sometimes, it is an article or thought that I want to share and explore, just for the hell of it.
Usually, too lightweight and not obviously 'philosophical'! :chin:

I prefer your kind of discussion which informs and leads to interesting questions and discussion.
Cheers :party: :flower:

I fully recommend you that philophical website. It is so interesting and there is a lot of information. You can learn a lot! — javi2541997

Thanks, I've clearly had a quick look and yes, it's interesting but not so sure it's for me.

Sadly, we currently live in a social context which depends on scientific materialism. It looks like the truth is based on some mathematical formulas but we forget and give up on imagination.
— javi2541997

Wow. That is some general statement or claim to make.
How true is it?
Where is the evidence; how do you know? — Amity

Easy. Just check out what the millionaires spend their money: meta-verses, cryto-coins, fake internet worlds, artificial cells to live longer, private trips to Mars or Moon, etc...
Those "investments" are pure materialistic — javi2541997

That is a different kind of materialism, as you probably know.
You referred to 'scientific materialism', one definition:

Scientific materialism

This common underlying worldview is known as "scientific materialism" or "scientism." As defined by twentieth century philosophers William James and Alfred North Whitehead, for instance, scientific materialism is the belief that physical reality, as made available to the natural sciences, is all that truly exists [Haught2010, pg. 48].

It is clear that there is little room for religion in this philosophical system, since religion involves faith in unseen and presumably empirically untestable entities.
But religion is not the only victim of this worldview. If we fully accept scientific materialism, we would also have to discard art, literature, music, and many other fields of human endeavor that are essential aspects of our modern world. — science meets religion: scientific materialism

Is it true that we all 'live in the same social context' which may or may not depend on this worldview?

How many people find any kind of 'truth based on some mathematical formulas'?

I doubt the truth of your claim that: 'we forget and give up on imagination'.

Imagination is an inherent aspect of thought.

Imagination is involved in a wide variety of human activities, and has been explored from a wide range of philosophical perspectives. Philosophers of mind have examined imagination’s role in mindreading and in pretense. Philosophical aestheticians have examined imagination’s role in creating and in engaging with different types of artworks. Epistemologists have examined imagination’s role in theoretical thought experiments and in practical decision-making. Philosophers of language have examined imagination’s role in irony and metaphor. — SEP: Imagination