OK, I understand from some of you that my last post was a little out there. Lets back it down a bit. The de-wonked version is basically a question of whether religion is an all or nothing game? Can you be a Sunday Catholic, Jew-ish, or a wine, but no pork Muslim?
My thinking has always been that since Il Papa (the Pope) has been pretty clear about who makes the rules for Catholics, the word Islam actually means to "submit" or "surrender" in Arabic, and observant Jews will make you feel guilty for even looking at a lobster or a pork rib, there is not a lot of flexibility. In the prophetic words of Mr. Cleaver (Eldridge, not Ward), you are either part of the solution or you are part of the problem.
This all or nothing approach always seemed to me to be the only intellectually honest way to go. How can you "believe" in something where the adherents are telling you to have "faith" and to trust them that they are right, when you fundamentally disagree with some of the tenets? Why would a gay man or woman want to worship in a Catholic church when the undisputed leader of the faith condemns them for who they are. That is not to say they cannot believe in Christ or build their own faith system that is not in conflict with their sexual orientation. Rather, some gays use the "I'm good with all of it except the part where they say I am broken" argument. Now, I am using gays as an example, but the same logical flaw would apply to pork eating Jews or the one that really confuses me, feminist Muslims. Other than that, how was the play Ms. Lincoln?
So how does this tie back to the Theory of Bulk and my last (apparently incomprehensible) post? What I am trying to explore is, "am I wrong?" I realize the easy answer to that question is usually, "Yes, put down the whiskey bottle and get some sleep." Hence, the reason these posts are usually early in the morning (its Saturday, cut me a break).
So, can you order religion a la carte even if the menu clearly says "no substitutions," and the restaurant is not known for their flexibility? My argument against this approach was that if you took religious leaders at their word, there is no flexibility. The rules are the rules. You can break the rules (in fact, most sects assume you will), but you need to admit it and seek forgiveness (for which they do a brisk business selling). It just sounded like a great business model to me: set unreasonable goals, promise great rewards, assume people will not meet the goals, and then sell them a ride to the finish line.
If you take some and not other parts (without creating your own deal, a la Joseph Smith), are you still getting value? Is there some scientific or logical basis to follow this path? Can you recite the Kaddish and then have a Sausage McMuffin without being a hypocrite?
As always, I look forward to your input (in this space or by email if you prefer to be less public).
Be bulky,
Larry
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
2+2=5?
In addition to the Zero Sum issue discussed in the previous post, one of the big questions is whether or not Bulk is reductionist in nature. A reductionist believes that a complex system is essentially a sum of its parts. If you understand the actions and reactions of the individual parts, you can, therefore, build a model of the entire complex system. There is a certain logic and comfort to this approach if you have a hard time with some of the more spiritual concepts of faith and determinism. Reductionism relies on a concept of linear causality (things happen for a reason and in ways that can be described and understood).
Religion tends to be non-reductionist as it posits that the nature of things is caused by a set of rules we cannot always understand. Monotheistic sects (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) teach that this is because of the will of God, which cannot always be understood by Man. Taoism, on the other hand, just says its because there are things we cannot understand (and get over it).
So here is where we get a little freaky on this. After a lot of discussion (with and without aforementioned brown liquor), the discussion is hovering around a non-linear form of reductionism.
Whoa Nelly, don't those two words "non-linear" and "reductionism" contradict each other? Our answer is yes and no (or as the lawyers like to say, "it depends"). In our construct (again, a work in progress), the energy (Bulk) is created, destroyed, and reactive in both quantitative and qualitative ways. The reductionist thinks that its all quantitative, but we just haven't looked hard enough at what we are calling qualitative data. The holistic view is that what we think is that without all of the data, we cannot understand and map the system and we cannot have all of the data because it is beyond our ability to comprehend.
So the question I pose to you is whether there is a middle ground. Can we build a non-linear reductionist model of Bulk that assumes that we can understand enough of the parts to get the big picture without relying on non-definable externalities (deus ex machina) to make the ends meet? I look forward to your comments, thoughts, criticisms, rants, and posts.
Larry
Religion tends to be non-reductionist as it posits that the nature of things is caused by a set of rules we cannot always understand. Monotheistic sects (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) teach that this is because of the will of God, which cannot always be understood by Man. Taoism, on the other hand, just says its because there are things we cannot understand (and get over it).
So here is where we get a little freaky on this. After a lot of discussion (with and without aforementioned brown liquor), the discussion is hovering around a non-linear form of reductionism.
Whoa Nelly, don't those two words "non-linear" and "reductionism" contradict each other? Our answer is yes and no (or as the lawyers like to say, "it depends"). In our construct (again, a work in progress), the energy (Bulk) is created, destroyed, and reactive in both quantitative and qualitative ways. The reductionist thinks that its all quantitative, but we just haven't looked hard enough at what we are calling qualitative data. The holistic view is that what we think is that without all of the data, we cannot understand and map the system and we cannot have all of the data because it is beyond our ability to comprehend.
So the question I pose to you is whether there is a middle ground. Can we build a non-linear reductionist model of Bulk that assumes that we can understand enough of the parts to get the big picture without relying on non-definable externalities (deus ex machina) to make the ends meet? I look forward to your comments, thoughts, criticisms, rants, and posts.
Larry
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
What is Bulk?
According to our nascent theory, Bulk is basically a form of energy. Maybe form is not the right description. Kind of energy might be a better way to think of it. Imagine an unseen force that has an interdependent effect on other matter (i.e., both affects and is affected by other matter). As we learned from Prof. Einstein, energy and mass are equivalent. So Bulk is mass, since it is energy. When appropriate, I will capitalize Bulk to differentiate the Theory from the stuff you buy at Costco. I will also thrown down a placeholder for a longer discussion on the overuse of capitalization. Bulk as mass makes it easy to remember, but maybe confusing for those of you who are still at Costco trying to by the 12-pack of capital letters.
But lets move on. Bulk is a special and positive kind of energy. It is a force that drives and results from positive action. When one takes a positive action, such as bowling a strike or skipping a rock many times across the water, one can consider it "bulky." Like mass and energy, bulk is relative. If you happen to be a pro bowler, then throwing that strike may not be as bulky of a move as it is for, say, me (I am a mediocre bowler). Therefore, being a great bowler is not necessarily bulky by definition, rather, a poor bowler scoring well is what demonstrates the person's bulk.
As the presence of bulk makes something or someone bulky, its absence makes that person or thing "slim" or "slender." There are a whole series of terms that can used to describe the presence and absence of bulk, and they coincide with the normal usage of the term. Size, enormity, girth are all synonyms as thin, slim, and slender are its antonym.
There has been much debate and discussion on whether or not Bulk is a zero sum game. What I mean by this is whether there is a finite amount of bulk in the universe. The zero sum crowd argues that as bulk is a form of energy and you must convert mass to make energy, you must have a finite amount. The zero summers (lets call them Zeds) rest their argument on observation of the physical universe. In which you may have a big pile of dirt or large bag of marbles, but at some point you would run out.
The other crowd takes more of a quantum mechanics (a discipline of sub atomic physics) approach. Lets call this crowd the Cues (an alliterative play on quantum). The Cues argument is couched in a lot of scary equations and statements about wave/particle duality and mass-less particles (e.g., gluons). This discussion is way too deep for those of us not trained in physics and probably for most people who are. Suffice it to say that there are two camps and its not easy to disprove either.
This takes us to the more metaphysical discussion of Bulk and why its a very positive thing to aspire to. But its late and I have to get some sleep, so please check back soon for another interesting edition of This is Your Bulk, with your host, Dr. Praerodo Mihi.
Yours in bulk,
Larry
But lets move on. Bulk is a special and positive kind of energy. It is a force that drives and results from positive action. When one takes a positive action, such as bowling a strike or skipping a rock many times across the water, one can consider it "bulky." Like mass and energy, bulk is relative. If you happen to be a pro bowler, then throwing that strike may not be as bulky of a move as it is for, say, me (I am a mediocre bowler). Therefore, being a great bowler is not necessarily bulky by definition, rather, a poor bowler scoring well is what demonstrates the person's bulk.
As the presence of bulk makes something or someone bulky, its absence makes that person or thing "slim" or "slender." There are a whole series of terms that can used to describe the presence and absence of bulk, and they coincide with the normal usage of the term. Size, enormity, girth are all synonyms as thin, slim, and slender are its antonym.
There has been much debate and discussion on whether or not Bulk is a zero sum game. What I mean by this is whether there is a finite amount of bulk in the universe. The zero sum crowd argues that as bulk is a form of energy and you must convert mass to make energy, you must have a finite amount. The zero summers (lets call them Zeds) rest their argument on observation of the physical universe. In which you may have a big pile of dirt or large bag of marbles, but at some point you would run out.
The other crowd takes more of a quantum mechanics (a discipline of sub atomic physics) approach. Lets call this crowd the Cues (an alliterative play on quantum). The Cues argument is couched in a lot of scary equations and statements about wave/particle duality and mass-less particles (e.g., gluons). This discussion is way too deep for those of us not trained in physics and probably for most people who are. Suffice it to say that there are two camps and its not easy to disprove either.
This takes us to the more metaphysical discussion of Bulk and why its a very positive thing to aspire to. But its late and I have to get some sleep, so please check back soon for another interesting edition of This is Your Bulk, with your host, Dr. Praerodo Mihi.
Yours in bulk,
Larry
Words Matter
Good morning and welcome to all new followers. Four now officially, and I am informed by email and comments that there are several other folks "lurking" out there. Kind of an unfortunate label, lurker, but very expressive. I understand the term in this context comes from the infancy of chat rooms, where some participants (usually men) would sign on, but not post. Rather, they just read the interactions of the other members with a prurient interest (related to unwholesome or sexual desires). Please note that I do not believe that my non-registered followers have any prurient interest in this blog (its way too wonky for that), but rather that the term have grown to include a less involved participation in some social media.
As the title of this post suggests, I am a fan of language and believe strongly that words do, indeed, matter. Improper usage is a pet peeve and tends to get me a little spun up. One of my staff used to say that I have a deep seated need to "comma fuck" everything. OK, he still says it, but I'm just not his boss anymore. Of course, he is right. But why? Why does it matter? It matters my dear Watson, because language is a system we use to communicate. Without some discipline, that system breaks down and communication is less effective. As Inigo says to Vizzini in The Princess Bride, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
The meaning of words change over time and the study of that change and its context is called etymology. For example, "proximate" means near, so "close proximity" is close-close. If that is your meaning, then by all means, use it. But be a smart consumer.
That is not to say that language must be a rigid system, but rather one with rules and flexibility. We, English speakers, tend to be more open to change than say the French. Although they have backed off a lot from the heyday of L'Academie francaise. The word "since" is actually a time reference. However, the common usage has changed (ironically, over time) and now it is synonymous with "because." Unlike the French, I don't believe we should fight this change, not do I think we should just string three words together to address any new meaning as the Germans tend to do.
We lost a great student and standard bearer for the study of common usage last year with the passing of Bill Safire. Reading his "On Language" column in the New York Times was a weekly ritual for many of us of this persuasion. For me, it was kind of like going to church. To borrow from Vizzini (or William Goldman who created him), the loss of Bill and his weekly sermon on words, was to many of us, inconceivable.
So I dedicate this post to the memory of Bill and his team of Lexicographic Irregulars. While I often differed with him on political issues, my respect for his love of language knew no bounds. So, my advice and counsel is to choose your words carefully, but do not be afraid to make mistakes, rather learn from those mistakes and embrace our wonderful and rich system of words and phrases as part of our human body of art.
Yours truly,
Larry
As the title of this post suggests, I am a fan of language and believe strongly that words do, indeed, matter. Improper usage is a pet peeve and tends to get me a little spun up. One of my staff used to say that I have a deep seated need to "comma fuck" everything. OK, he still says it, but I'm just not his boss anymore. Of course, he is right. But why? Why does it matter? It matters my dear Watson, because language is a system we use to communicate. Without some discipline, that system breaks down and communication is less effective. As Inigo says to Vizzini in The Princess Bride, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
The meaning of words change over time and the study of that change and its context is called etymology. For example, "proximate" means near, so "close proximity" is close-close. If that is your meaning, then by all means, use it. But be a smart consumer.
That is not to say that language must be a rigid system, but rather one with rules and flexibility. We, English speakers, tend to be more open to change than say the French. Although they have backed off a lot from the heyday of L'Academie francaise. The word "since" is actually a time reference. However, the common usage has changed (ironically, over time) and now it is synonymous with "because." Unlike the French, I don't believe we should fight this change, not do I think we should just string three words together to address any new meaning as the Germans tend to do.
We lost a great student and standard bearer for the study of common usage last year with the passing of Bill Safire. Reading his "On Language" column in the New York Times was a weekly ritual for many of us of this persuasion. For me, it was kind of like going to church. To borrow from Vizzini (or William Goldman who created him), the loss of Bill and his weekly sermon on words, was to many of us, inconceivable.
So I dedicate this post to the memory of Bill and his team of Lexicographic Irregulars. While I often differed with him on political issues, my respect for his love of language knew no bounds. So, my advice and counsel is to choose your words carefully, but do not be afraid to make mistakes, rather learn from those mistakes and embrace our wonderful and rich system of words and phrases as part of our human body of art.
Yours truly,
Larry
Monday, March 22, 2010
Cool, I Have Followers
I guess that means I need to write something substantive and interesting (or at least funny). Full disclosure, my only two followers are one former and one current colleague, both of whom are Great Americans and would probably follow my blog even if I was writing about non-quantitative reduction theory (but I am saving that for a later post). Thank you both for making me a legit blogger (if you post and no one reads, its it still a blog?).
Its early on a Monday morning here in our Nation's Capital (remind me to discuss Capital vs. Capitol one of these days...its a pet peeve) and I have not finished the first "real" post of this blog or at least the first one that will be on subject (i.e., Bulk). I guess every post is real, that's the genius of blogging, it can be substantive, topical, or just arbitrary. Relevance is defined in the moment and self dependent. Blogito ergo sum, to bastardize Descartes.
It was a beautiful weekend in DC, sunny and in the 70s (mid 20s for my metric friends). Spring does not last long in DC, but for a short time it is glorious. I spent Saturday doing life maintenance activities (e.g., haircut, shopping, cleaners, etc) and a little work and then had dinner with some dear friends. Too much wine and great food was consumed, but a great time was had by all.
Sunday required some significant outside time. Purely to ensure I had absorbed enough vitamin D, mind you. I was able to accomplish that by sitting on the deck at the winery of which I am a very minor partner, but more on that later.
As stated, its Monday and that requires me to spend my days working for the Man. As my day job is with the government, you are all the Man (at least those of you who are Americans). So enjoy the Spring weather (if you are so blessed and north of the equator) and I promise to start the discussion of the Theory of Bulk or maybe I will just keep rambling and see if anyone cares to listen...
yr. obt. svt.,
Larry
Its early on a Monday morning here in our Nation's Capital (remind me to discuss Capital vs. Capitol one of these days...its a pet peeve) and I have not finished the first "real" post of this blog or at least the first one that will be on subject (i.e., Bulk). I guess every post is real, that's the genius of blogging, it can be substantive, topical, or just arbitrary. Relevance is defined in the moment and self dependent. Blogito ergo sum, to bastardize Descartes.
It was a beautiful weekend in DC, sunny and in the 70s (mid 20s for my metric friends). Spring does not last long in DC, but for a short time it is glorious. I spent Saturday doing life maintenance activities (e.g., haircut, shopping, cleaners, etc) and a little work and then had dinner with some dear friends. Too much wine and great food was consumed, but a great time was had by all.
Sunday required some significant outside time. Purely to ensure I had absorbed enough vitamin D, mind you. I was able to accomplish that by sitting on the deck at the winery of which I am a very minor partner, but more on that later.
As stated, its Monday and that requires me to spend my days working for the Man. As my day job is with the government, you are all the Man (at least those of you who are Americans). So enjoy the Spring weather (if you are so blessed and north of the equator) and I promise to start the discussion of the Theory of Bulk or maybe I will just keep rambling and see if anyone cares to listen...
yr. obt. svt.,
Larry
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Inaugural Post
For years I have been talking about writing a book about a theory that my friend Larry and I developed in the 1980s. We called it the Theory of Bulk and spent a lot of time (and brown liquor) probing the edges of this description of human interaction and organization. Due to demands of jobs, families, travel and relocation, and a lack of adequate supplies of brown liquor and green chile, we never made much progress on the book. So today, I decided it was time to try another approach.
This blog will be an attempt to explore the idea using a broader collaboration of the willing. I am hoping that Larry and I will post some ideas and thoughts that provoke discussion and comment. BTW, Larry doesn't know I am doing this, so it may just be me, but watch this space for more on his involvement.
Over the next few days I will give some background on the theory and what we think it means. Some of this will be practical discussion of organizational an social theory and some of it will be pretty metaphysical. My hope is that we can bridge the two in a way that makes sense and can develop a better model of how people organize and interact.
Thanks for being part of my little experiment and I looking forward to some interesting banter.
En garde,
Larry
This blog will be an attempt to explore the idea using a broader collaboration of the willing. I am hoping that Larry and I will post some ideas and thoughts that provoke discussion and comment. BTW, Larry doesn't know I am doing this, so it may just be me, but watch this space for more on his involvement.
Over the next few days I will give some background on the theory and what we think it means. Some of this will be practical discussion of organizational an social theory and some of it will be pretty metaphysical. My hope is that we can bridge the two in a way that makes sense and can develop a better model of how people organize and interact.
Thanks for being part of my little experiment and I looking forward to some interesting banter.
En garde,
Larry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)