You cannot reform

[Brickjectivity]

I cannot defend this, but it seems pretty resilient to me.

Either we get on board with what the people around us think or we disagree. Both choices have a cost. There is no wiping out religions or political parties. Such things simply don't happen unless the political parties and/or religions are already doomed and destroy themselves and are forgotten. There is no reforming religions. You can find like minded people sometimes and form your own pocket dimension, and then you can claim it is a reform although it isn't. You can grow your group. Even then you will face the same choices of whether to get on board or disagree.

 

[Iti oj]

I cannot defend this, but it seems pretty resilient to me.

Either we get on board with what the people around us think or we disagree. Both choices have a cost. There is no wiping out religions or political parties. Such things simply don't happen unless the political parties and/or religions are already doomed and destroy themselves and are forgotten. There is no reforming religions. You can find like minded people sometimes and form your own pocket dimension, and then you can claim it is a reform although it isn't. You can grow your group. Even then you will face the same choices of whether to get on board or disagree.

History seems to disagree. all things change and/or die.

 

[Laika]

I cannot defend this, but it seems pretty resilient to me.

Either we get on board with what the people around us think or we disagree. Both choices have a cost. There is no wiping out religions or political parties. Such things simply don't happen unless the political parties and/or religions are already doomed and destroy themselves and are forgotten. There is no reforming religions. You can find like minded people sometimes and form your own pocket dimension, and then you can claim it is a reform although it isn't. You can grow your group. Even then you will face the same choices of whether to get on board or disagree.

Just because you agree with something doesn't mean you agree with it for the same reasons as other people do or that there is one way to act on it.

You can "agree" with something but if you don't act on it- its just a word. You can "disagree" with something, but until you resist and oppose, its just a word.

Is "reform" just a word or a commitment to act and be the change you wish to see in the world?

Is an Agreement that no-one acts on still an agreement?

 

[Sunstone]

...all things change and/or die.

Except bacon jokes. Even if humanity survives another thousand years, some folks will still be re-telling the same old bacon jokes over and over and over. Self inflicted masochism is deeply rooted in human nature.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Just because you agree with something doesn't mean you agree with it for the same reasons as other people do or that there is one way to act on it.

True. I don't know whether you wanted separate replies, but you had separate paragraphs.

You can "agree" with something but if you don't act on it- its just a word. You can "disagree" with something, but until you resist and oppose, its just a word.

Ok. Your actions are agreement or disagreement, not your words; unless the agreement is only a matter of words.

Is "reform" just a word or a commitment to act and be the change you wish to see in the world?

Reform means that you fix the religion as opposed to just letting it change or stay the same on its own. In other words reform means you fix something so that the religion is replaced by something improved.

Is an Agreement that no-one acts on still an agreement?

An agreement that no one acts upon is an agreement until the moment that it should have been acted upon.

 

[Brickjectivity]

History seems to disagree. all things change and/or die.

They do change and/or die. I don't know of any examples where reform has succeeded without division. So then I don't know of any examples of reform but only things people would prefer to think of as reform.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Except bacon jokes. Even if humanity survives another thousand years, some folks will still be re-telling the same old bacon jokes over and over and over. Self inflicted masochism is deeply rooted in human nature.

As the bacon jokes multiply, the number of words that describe bacon also multiply, which stimulates new bacon jokes. This is actually a problem akin to the one where we have too many gravestones and cemetaries. The language moves gradually towards one composed only of bacon jokes that aren't funny anymore.

 

[LuisDantas]

Either we get on board with what the people around us think or we disagree. Both choices have a cost. There is no wiping out religions or political parties. Such things simply don't happen unless the political parties and/or religions are already doomed and destroy themselves and are forgotten. There is no reforming religions. You can find like minded people sometimes and form your own pocket dimension, and then you can claim it is a reform although it isn't. You can grow your group. Even then you will face the same choices of whether to get on board or disagree.

There is some truth in that, but there are fortunate realities being neglected in there.

Perhaps chief among them is the fact that the transmission of doctrines and ideologies is unavoidably inexact and will always be complemented, adjusted and very often corrected by the personal experiences and discernment of the actual people.

Mainly by virtue of that, coupled with the aging and substitution of active participants of movements as generations succeed each other, some degree of reformation is actually unavoidable.

Such ongoing, continuous reformation can be resisted and likely will the movement's doctrine is too afraid and/or dogmatic. It is more likely to be resisted if there is a large segment of people who has made decisions that rely on the truth of the doctrine.

Of course, not all doctrines and ideologies deserve or even have the means to survive serious reformation...

 

[Laika]

True. I don't know whether you wanted separate replies, but you had separate paragraphs.

Ok. Your actions are agreement or disagreement, not your words; unless the agreement is only a matter of words.

Reform means that you fix the religion as opposed to just letting it change or stay the same on its own. In other words reform means you fix something so that the religion is replaced by something improved.

An agreement that no one acts upon is an agreement until the moment that it should have been acted upon.

I'm replying on an iphone, so the spacing probably makes more sense that way.

What I'm getting at is that you can't seperate words from actions. Whilst we may use the same words to describe why we are doing something (we "agree" or "disagree") the practical implimentation of that creates much more possibility and diversity. So to "reform" a religion or a political ideology isn't simply what you do on paper or describe in words- its the actions that signify reform because it is actions that have consequences. Words or intentions alone don't have consequences.

I hope thats clear. I'm not sure. My oruginal response was a little bit "zen".

 

[Brickjectivity]

There is some truth in that, but there are fortunate realities being neglected in there.

Perhaps chief among them is the fact that the transmission of doctrines and ideologies is unavoidably inexact and will always be complemented, adjusted and very often corrected by the personal experiences and discernment of the actual people.

True, but people tend to invest personally in old ways. Its probably due to evolution and the impulse to preserve energy and substance. Consider how some people will feel compelled to collect empty jars. They may have an entire room full of jars kept in case they encounter something that needs storing. Similar impulses make people lazy and even make us reticent to think. We (as a species and as Mammals) like systems and old ways, and we don't like rethinking them. Therefore Reform has proven impossible or extremely unlikely.

Mainly by virtue of that, coupled with the aging and substitution of active participants of movements as generations succeed each other, some degree of reformation is actually unavoidable.

I would call that drift rather than purposeful reform, though I follow your meaning that it can be positive change.

Such ongoing, continuous reformation can be resisted and likely will the movement's doctrine is too afraid and/or dogmatic. It is more likely to be resisted if there is a large segment of people who has made decisions that rely on the truth of the doctrine.

If it is at all innovative people will resist. If it requires rethinking or in any way throwing away old habits, the mammal will resist. If the mind sees it must be lifted an inch it will try to sink by two inches first.

Of course, not all doctrines and ideologies deserve or even have the means to survive serious reformation...

I don't disagree.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'm replying on an iphone, so the spacing probably makes more sense that way.

What I'm getting at is that you can't seperate words from actions. Whilst we may use the same words to describe why we are doing something (we "agree" or "disagree") the practical implimentation of that creates much more possibility and diversity. So to "reform" a religion or a political ideology isn't simply what you do on paper or describe in words- its the actions that signify reform because it is actions that have consequences. Words or intentions alone don't have consequences.

I hope thats clear. I'm not sure. My oruginal response was a little bit "zen".

That is clear. Thanks. So you might see reform that isn't written down?

 

[oldbadger]

The Prophets have always been the great reformers.
Science is a great reformer............

There will be more........ both Prophets and Science.

Always be ready for Prophets, Science and great reforms.

 

[Laika]

That is clear. Thanks. So you might see reform that isn't written down?

Interesting question. I hadn't thought of that. I think the answer is "yes" but only if you say reform includes unintentional change.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Interesting question. I hadn't thought of that. I think the answer is "yes" but only if you say reform includes unintentional change.

Sorry no freebies. I can only accept purposeful reform as a reform, or its just drift.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The Prophets have always been the great reformers.
Science is a great reformer............

There will be more........ both Prophets and Science.

Always be ready for Prophets, Science and great reforms.

Oh, that is a nice retort! Remember though that the best prophets are often hounded out of society, and/or killed, or ignored if they're lucky!

Scientistists often must struggle in the face of opposition. Remember how the National Football League opposed Bennet Omalu. The NFL is still in business, too! D'boors still controls the diamond industry. McDonalds McNuggets are still make of pink goop.

 

[icehorse]

I cannot defend this, but it seems pretty resilient to me.

Either we get on board with what the people around us think or we disagree. Both choices have a cost. There is no wiping out religions or political parties. Such things simply don't happen unless the political parties and/or religions are already doomed and destroy themselves and are forgotten. There is no reforming religions. You can find like minded people sometimes and form your own pocket dimension, and then you can claim it is a reform although it isn't. You can grow your group. Even then you will face the same choices of whether to get on board or disagree.

Ideas DO die out. In much of the US, smoking went from being cool, to being uncool in the span of a generation. Breaking the cycle of indoctrination, and consistent marginalization of bad ideas are techniques that do work, albeit slowly.