Skip to main content

Cosmic Game: start with a creative destruction of your understanding of yourself

My previous blog post on the Cosmic Game got some quick twitter comments. Thanks @rzeligzon and @siguy for not letting me be lazy.

Fair warning:
if you are content with the Newtonian physics and the hierarchical view of the world with a Creator on top - stop reading now. Just like discovery of the theory of relativity, some of this knowledge will have a ripple effect that will force you to re-examine your values. For the rest I'd like to start with a little creative destruction of your own sense of "I".

The "I" as you know it is at best incomplete. Number one exercise that I tried was an observation of my mind. I have not yet successfully been able to control my thoughts for more than a few minutes at a time. As you become an observer of where your thoughts go you quickly realize that your mind is actually not you. This is contrary to the western notion of "I think" and "I reason." The control of one's mind is generally worse then their control of their pinky. Because of that you can safely say that your mind is as much you or as much not you as other organs in your body.

The second exercise is an attempt to describe yourself without describing your environment. Try to convey what it is that you are by just sticking to your physical body parts. For a complete description: very quickly you will start involving your environment. In order to describe what you are you will need to pull in information about what you do, where, with what.

These two very basic exercises challenge the normal notion of an "I". An "I" is neither your thoughts, nor is it your physical body. The things that surround you, other beings outside and inside of you are also a part of the "I". There is a way to understand the more complete "I" and evolve the "I" beyond the basic machinery that has reflexes to internal and external forces.

Part of the danger of disclosing this knowledge is that you start getting the power of interacting with other "I"s in non-obvious ways. Some of that is touched on by Bandler and Grinder in their work on the Neuro Linguistic Programming. A simple example of mis-use of this kind of knowledge is the following: someone who learned how to interact with you in non-physical ways, and influence your mind which you don't control can take advantage of you and still be completely within conventional legal boundaries.
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

SDET / QA Engineer Interview Checklist

After interviewing and hiring hundreds of engineers over the past 12+  years I have come up with a few checklists.  I wanted to share one of those with you so you could conduct comprehensive interviews of QA Engineers for your team.

I use this checklist when I review incoming resumes and during the interview.  It keeps me from missing areas that ensure a good team and technology fit.  I hope you make good use of them.  If you think there are good questions or topics that I have missed - get in touch with me!


SDE/T or QA Engineer interview checklist from Mike Borozdin
If you like this checklist you might want to check out these posts:
Emotional Intelligence in Software Teams  and Good-bye manual tester, hello crowdsourcing!

There are Only Two Ways to Treat Your Team

There are only two ways to treat your team: take care of them or let them go.  Early in my management career there have been times when someone has been underperforming on the team.  Before I knew better I let my emotions get the best of me: I’d give them the cold shoulder, avoid including them in conversations and look like I was upset with them. Thankfully with some good mentorship I came up with a simple rule: we are helping each other or you are off the team.

One of the biggest mistakes that folks make a lot of times is letting people linger on for too long.  Hiring good engineers is hard and getting new folks up to speed is hard.  You feel like you are going to miss your product delivery plan if you let someone go.

Letting folks linger when you are unhappy with each other creates a toxic environment.  This toxic environment is generally contagious and brings the entire organization down.  Of course you can’t have a constant state of euphoria on your team, but if a productive and…

Highly Effective Software Teams

A few weeks ago our Board of Directors asked me to present my assessment of the state of software.
 I was hired to organize and grow the software team and the directors wanted to know what kind of a team we needed to build.  I was hoping that I can just reference an article somewhere that would give me the answer, unfortunately I didn’t find anything suitable. During my research I did find some great material that will be helpful if your job is to put together a highly effective software team.
A highly effective software team has the following key characteristics: dependable, committed to shared goals, passionate about technology, respectful and compassionate.  These are not limited to technology industry, it can easily apply to finance, medicine, or sports as well.  Below is the summary and references that I found. Dependable If you are creating a software product, you need to deliver your software to your users.  Your users need to know that you are able to solve their problems on …