My own thoughts:

Ritual: it depends on religious and sacred practices during centuries. Their cause is profess a doctrine which can pass through generations.
For example: when Islam prayers go to the Mecca during the Hajj pilgrimage.

Habit: it comes from experience and doesn't depend on religious or pagan doctrines but life actions. Habits can help us to elaborate a progress in our lives to do it better.
For example: the habit of having a healthy diet to keep a balanced body or weight.

Gödel? If it is consistent, it is incomplete; if it is complete, it is inconsistent. — Agent Smith

Good quote and reference! :up:

It remembers me about shûnya (empty) on Buddhist metaphysics.

Relative Existence or No Self Nature: Nothing has a essence, nature, or character by itself. Things in isolation are , shûnya, "empty." The nature of things only exists in relation to everything else that exists. Existence as we know it is thus completely relative and conditioned by everything else.

Anglicans, Lutherans, and Methodists have a lot more in common with Catholics and Orthodox than most people realize. — Dermot Griffin

Well, it supposed to be, right? They are connected to the same belief: God's existence.
I respect all your points and arguments and they are so interesting, indeed. Nevertheless, I see all of those "doctrines" as political "groups" or "conclaves" because they fought each other for the rule of power over the years.
Lutherans and Anglicans were so critical against Pope and Catholic church due to the political power of the latter. They wanted to be more "independent" from Vatican and Pope.
We can be agree here that literally all of them believe in God but... who is the responsible to profess it? I guess that's when the wars started out.

Also, some might be of the view that God is the universe, end of story — Agent Smith

Both end and beginning of the story :sparkle:

what are we dealing with here? — Agent Smith

We deal with the pursuit of equilibrium in our minds. Fulled by those products of union.

Sure, I would put an example related to Buddhism.

You already know that there were been different schools around the pursue of Siddhârtha Gautama. I.e Tendai Shû the important Chinese T'ien T'ai School, founded by Chih I in 575 AD.
Tendai became the institutionally and politically dominant form of Japanese Buddhism when Saichô began what later turned into a vast establishment of temples and hermitages (the "Three Pagodas and Sixteen Valleys") on the sacred mountain, Mt. Hiei. Most of the Kamakura schools were essentially spinoffs from Tendai, which emphasized Nirvâṇa in this life, the power of the Lotus Sutra.

But how they put it on practice?

Tendai practice on Mt. Hiei was Lotus Sutra in the morning, Pure Land in the evening. This was vividly formalized by the Abbot Ryôgen in 936, when corresponding adjacent halls for Lotus and Pure Land practice were joined by a covered walkway -- creating a , Japanese Ninaidô, or "carrying hall," (i.e. by analogy to the two buckets at the ends of a carrying pole).
This duality is expressed in the saying Asa Daimoku, Yû Nembutsu. "Morning Daimoku/Evening Nembutsu."

How do they interact and what's the end result of this interaction? — Agent Smith

I think they both interact with the practice of faith and doctrines. At least, these are one of the main basic principles of theism, the pursue of developing the witness of God.
So, the result of this interaction could be the construction of "arguments" which root for God's existence.

That metaphysics could be seen as a destructive threat for positivism... (?)
I am lost, sorry...

Metaphysics only interprets physics, therefore it is not "science".

Philosophy, and in particular metaphysics, has been killed off again and again, day after day, the deed done by a variety of assassins: eighteenth-century empiricists, Hegel, Marx, positivists of every hue, Wittgenstein, and so on. But behold, after all these massacres the poor thing rises from the grave, oblivious to the fact that it is supposed to be dead, and starts walking. Where it is going it admittedly does not know, and nor does anyone else, but that is a different question. - Leszek Kołakowski, "Our Merry Apocalypse," Is God Happy? :death: :yikes:

Nothing is absolutely created or destroyed, it only changes form.

When a star explodes, its atoms continue, and their trajectory reflects and continues that of the star, including the added effects from the event of its demise. In fact, if you view the star as a gravitational phenomenon from far enough away, it has a very similar profile before it has actually ignited and after it explodes.

:up: :100:

but I remain concerned about the samurai tradition of obedience to superiors without question. You know such authority can become utterly corrupt, just like some of the politicians you mention. — universeness

I am agree that Bushido has some failures in the practice of the doctrine. But to be honest, I really think the problem is not in the samurai's part but in the authority.
It is heartbreaking to see how some superiors do not respect and consider the loyalty of samurais.
Then, the problem is not of Bushido (doctrine) but the vicious politicians and superiors (actors)

I understand and respect your point. I didn't like war (even Mishima was rejected by Japanese army...) but I really respect the Samurai/Bushido thought to fight against despair and dishonour. I think the problem are politicians not the theories.
I want to live as a samurai because I believe in loyalty, friendship, sacrifice as a way of life. I don't see it as a mechanism to put on a battle. I just want to get it right in my life. If I ever acted as a traitor or a malicious man, please kill me or I would commit seppuku.

BANZAI! — universeness

BANZAI! Brother :sparkle: :fire:

Exactly. It is very complex to get into Nirvana and Buddhism because it is a very deep content. Understand the history of India is pretty important too though.
I have learned in the past months that there are even different schools about Buddhism. So I imagine how complex is to have a clear vision inside Buddhism.

with expectation (worst) and hope (best).

:100:

Karma as you can see is a fully-automated system that replaces God.

Probably you are interested in reading this: THE BASIC TEACHINGS OF BUDDHISM

Because there is no substance or duration in Buddhism, the Buddhist view of karma is different from that in Hinduism or Jainism. Karma is only causation, without the mediation of any substance (apûrva, causal body, etc.). Reincarnation thus consists in our being caused by something in the past, and our karma is simply the effect now of past actions.

In the history of Buddhist philosophy, these doctrines created some difficulties. If there is no self, then what is it that attains enlightenment or Nirvâṇa? It is not me, for I am already gone in an instant; and if it is not me, then why bother? Also, if there is no enduring self, then the rewards and punishments of karma are visited on different beings than those who merited them. Why do I, instead of someone else, deserve the karma of some past existence? The Buddha himself probably would have been irritated with the doctrines that created these difficulties, since he rejected theorizing (it did not "tend to edification"), and he would have expected no less than that such theories would lead to tangled and merely theoretical disputes.

The future, however, can be radically different - like how bioluminiscence has delinked light from heat, we maybe able to do the same with suffering, decouple the detection of injury from the unpleasantness associated with it.

Agreed :up:

I only want to add a brief comment on your argument: The suffering or act of suffering caused by uncertainty. We never really know what would happen in the next months or even the next year. If we are positive we would say the things would be better but if we are negative we would say it would be "a bad period of time" again.
To be honest... I think that the only way to face future is attitude and maturity. Keep fighting against the obstacles! :fire:

I CAN CHOOSE to experience that hour as a curse, or I can struggle against such with the intent to defeat it

Amazing quote, friend. If you do not mind I will keep it with me. I feel it so motivational :up:

This is the thread I was thinking of yesterday.

Whenever I received the message: unsuitable I thought my life is a completely disaster. I came across to think that suffering from failures doesn't help anyone. It is a very complex task to accept how we are and how we can better persons both professional and personal.
I don't even know why I am optimist right know... I guess is thanks to Greek mythology or Japanese way of Bushido.
Anyway, I feel better whenever I share my thoughts and problems around here. It is better to just keep it them only with myself.

Broken English, it's called — Agent Smith

I thought "Broken English" referred to someone whose English skills are bad not only for grammar issues.

Any thoughts on that semi-ramble? — I like sushi

(note: ‘thinking’ is not necessarily something that involved ‘words’). — I like sushi

Just to add some more comments to your arguments, I would like to share a good work called How to Do Things With Words by J.L. Austin.
According to this philopher: A statement is performative when nothing is stated or described but an act is performed. The performative is subjected to conditions of "happiness", depending on a situational (or circumstantial) context.

Therefore, it elaborates a taxonomy of the different ways we can have of “doing” something when saying something, divided into three categories: the locutionary act (saying something is doing something), the illocutionary act (when saying something we are doing something) and the perlocutionary act (because we say something we are doing something). It recognizes in the illocutionary act the essential act of the word, therefore it tries to establish a taxonomy of the different values ​​that the verbs of an illocutionary act can adopt.

just looked up the Greek word "mythos" (= myth) in my dictionary of Ancient Greek Language --a huge one!. Both meanings are included, but with a slightly different description. The first meaning refers to speech, narration, story, independently of being true or false. — Alkis Piskas

Thanks for sharing. It is very helpful for this thread! :up:

I want to try and figure out what definitions and explanations you have of the term ‘myth’? — I like sushi

You are right. I should had started with a basic definition of mythology.
The paper I read a few days ago contains a brief definition of what we can consider as mythos or mythology: "Mythopoeic" means "making" (ποιεῖν, poieîn, from which the word "poet" is derived) "myth" (μῦθος, mûthos, means report, tale, story”)

He thought the idea of god/s were unnecessary and believed that religions generally led to conflict. He liked to garden and read books and preferred to stay out of arguments. — Tom Storm

What an intellectual man he was! :flower: :sparkle:

Man has the tendency to degrade things that were once very important but are not used any more to a considerable degree. And as I can see clearly, Philosophy is also included in them. Unfortunately! — Alkis Piskas

Agree.

I will never understood the tendency to degrade both philosophy and Greek mythology. My only guess is that some powerful people who control the education don't want to have critical thinkers.

What’ not ‘Which’. — I like sushi

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

Perhaps a particular field but I have no idea what the ordinary person knows of 'mathematical formulas'? — Amity

It is true that an ordinary person doesn't care about mathematical formulas. Nevertheless, I assume that he or she gives more credibility to scientific evidences rather than philosophical papers. For example: the Moon was always been a subject of study to mythology but until the humans didn't end up there they didn't give a "real" credibility.

How is that 'out of phase' — Amity

What I mean is that probably my way of thinking is away from modernism or new era of virtual content.

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. — Amity

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

Thanks for the conversation — Amity

Thanks to you as always! :flower:

've started threads that don't inspire others :groan:
But that's not my prime motivation. — Amity

I experienced the same feeling :cry: I remember starting some threads and didn't get any answer... but as you perfectly said: that's not my prime motivation and it doesn't affect my motivation either.

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. 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...)
Both groups have a common goal: understand the world and try to find out a meaningful life. I prefer the first ones rather than mathematical language.
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"
For example: look how obsessed is the people with Artificial Intelligence or Metaverses.

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.

Imagination is an inherent aspect of thought.
Imagination is involved in a wide variety of human activities,... — Amity

Agreed. We share the same point. Of course imagination is inherent to our thought. I was only claiming more "freedom" in our imagination trying to avoid taboos or limitations.
Thanks to imagination both mythology and philosophy developed through the years. But another important fact is how the thinkers/philosophers get rid of obstacles.

It's only tiresome if no questions are asked...and so far, the text has proved a useful starting point.
Thanks — Amity

Thanks for your kindly words, Amity. Appreciated them a lot.
Whenever I start a thread I am worried about if the users would like it or not...

A brief description of ideas and principles characteristic of the Friesian and other modifications of Kantian philosophy editorially recommended in the Proceedings of the Friesian School, Fourth Series:... — The Principles of Friesian Philosophy

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

Thanks for the article. I noticed your OP lists only 4 out of the 5 characteristics of myth and changes in philosophy as listed. The 5th: — Amity

Yes, that's true. I didn't want to put the point number 5 because I was worried about being so tiresome. Nevertheless, I see you shared ir anyway, so thank you so much. Appreciated it.

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. There is not philosophy or imagination on it. I only see it as selfish people showing off their power and value over the rest.
I think we really missed what philosophy teach us: happiness, ethics, wisdom, reasoning, etc... and all of these virtues are not monetary.

lives on in QAnon — Tom Storm

I guess their followers see Donald Trump as Odysseus fighting against Cyclops.
Ivanka Trump as Penelope :joke:

. I wouldn't swap science for mythology. But I'm wary of hindsight and narrator bias. The ancients weren't dumb and we ain't too clever. — Cuthbert

Completely agree. 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.
I am with you: I wouldn't swap science for mythology.
"mythopoeic," "mythopoetic," or "mythic" thought. "Mythopoeic" means "making" (ποιεῖν, poieîn, from which the word "poet" is derived) "myth" (μῦθος, mûthos). :grin:

The story I prefer to tell myself is one of metacultural development from mythos (infancy) to logos (adolescence) to ethos (adulthood) to philosophos (maturity — 180 Proof

:100: :sparkle:

You would be required to :pray: there, offer incense, and perform a small ritual before you begin your day. — Agent Smith

:lol: plot twist: countries with a deep tradition in Hinduism tend to have similar rituals. Such as India and Thailand: Hindus, though, aren’t the only South Asians to worship elephants. Buddhists, for instance, believe so-called “white” elephants, a light-colored variant, carry special significance. In Thailand, white elephants are considered the king’s property, and wars have been fought over these relatively rare animals. S15 EP7: THE ELEPHANT MEN Living Gods

If one wants to worship Sophia one has to do so half-jokingly nowadays (re the Flying Spaghetti Monster). If you don't, be ready to be the laughing stock of your colleagues. — Agent Smith

I don't get this :sweat:

So we've discussed the pros of mythology, what about the cons? Let's not forget its limitations too, oui? — Agent Smith

Sure, there are some cons towards mythology. A good example could be the lack of innovation.. Most of the tales pass through the story tellers without any doubt or criticism. I think this is due to the loyalty shown to the "Gods" who (according to Greek Mythology) are self-justifying and do not need approval from us. For example:Zeus then sets up the stone at Delphi, so that it may act as "a sign thenceforth and a marvel to mortal men"

But, philosophy shows more self-criticism during the transition of different periods. A good example could be Socratics vs Sophits

Well written, highly informative OP. A thank you from all of us to javi2541997. — Agent Smith

Thank you to you for taking part in my thread! :sparkle:

The other facet to myths is the personification of qualities e.g. war has a god Ares, death is Thanos, life is Phanes and so on... — Agent Smith

Another common personification: Sun has a God Rê in Egyptian mythology; Helios in Greek mythology; Utu in Mesopotamian culture, etc...

I think is important to highlight the fact that mythology also uses human representations. For example: Odysseus. He is a legendary Greek king of Ithaca and the hero of Homer's epic poem the Odyssey.

We might see ourselves at the end of a great tradition originated by them. Should we be more critical of our hindsight? The texts are minimal. That leaves a lot of blanks for us to fill in however we want. — Cuthbert

We were losing a lot of originality, indeed. I am agree with you in the fact that we should be more critical with our insight but... where is our real background? Everything sooner or after end up in Socrates, Aristotle or Plato works (thus, Greek philosophy which flourished from mythopoeic).
Then, we have to take part in mythology again if we want to be critical again.

Whereas the philosophical mind demands a reduction to some common cause that stands behind all things. — apokrisis

Agreed! This is a good difference between myth and philosophy too: the cause behind all things and arguments. That reduction of common cause come from a debate during decades among all the philophers. Whereas in mythology it didn't appear to be causes at all because there were multiple explanations without even logic. A good example is Egyptian mythology. The Gods and heroes are represented by different scenarios so randomly, without a common cause explained with argumentation.

Given your interest in the Japanese and mythology I thought this was an interesting coincidence. — Fooloso4

:up: :flower: