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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Quality of Code is Quality of Life

About 20 years ago when I started working in technology companies I remember “the best” engineers had similar patterns:
-They worked crazy hours
-They knew the systems no one else knew
-They could react and deliver something faster than anyone else
You could always hear other employees say: “Bob is really smart, no one knows how to get anything done in system X besides him!”

This reinforced optimization around being the only person who knew how to do something in some part of the code.  That in turn reinforced job security and bargaining for those engineers, but also chained them to a particular system.  We had big code bases of C++ or Java code where some “Bob” hacked up features as soon as he possibly could.  “Bob” would have occasional nuclear disasters where he’d sleep in the office or through the weekend and then everyone would thank him for how he “saved the day.”  “Bob” sacrificed his quality of life to get praise when he hacked stuff up quickly and then the second time when n…

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!

Code versus Configuration

At Ethos we are building a distributed mortgage origination system and in mortgage there is a lot of
different user types with processes that vary depending on geography.  One of our ongoing discussions is about how much of the logic resides in code vs. being in a workflow system or configuration.  After researching this topic for a bit, I have arrived at a conclusion that the logic should live outside of code very infrequently, which might come as a surprise to a lot of enterprise software engineers.

Costs of configuration files and workflow engines First thing that I assume is true is that having any logic outside of the code has costs associated with it.  Debugging highly configurable system involves not only getting the appropriate branch from source control, you also need to make sure that the right configuration values or the database.  In most cases this is harder for programmers to deal with.  In many FinTech companies where the production data is not made readily accessible…