Back from the Edge

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

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

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

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