Posts Tagged ‘reality’

So-Called Reality

Make Meaning

April 6, 2011 2 comments

Can you make meaning out of this freakin’ sketch? I can’t. As I drew it, I struggled to come up with some profound (lol!) words to express my thoughts on the thick and impenetrable “personal filter” (a.k.a UCB) that prevents us from experiencing what’s truly real – which is nothing, er, “no thing“?

Why So Much Overlap?

May 18, 2010 1 comment

If, as some spiritualists say, we all create our own unique personal reality, then why is there so much overlapping commonality in what we see, smell, taste, hear and physically feel? Oh sure, there are different levels of pain, different shades of red, etc, but when 1 million people have their thumbs chopped off with a machete, I’ll assert that every single one of them will feel some level of pain and not ecstasy.

If there was no overlap in perception, we’d have nothing in common, right? We’d all be isolated and life wouldn’t be worth living, or would it? Am I taking this topic too literally? If you know the answer to my conundrum, please help me out here. Thanks.

Categories: spirituality Tags: , ,

Dorkis? Or is it Dorkus?

September 28, 2009 Leave a comment

The other day at the gym, I met a really nice, elderly lady and we started talking about the art of exercise. After a few minutes of chit chat, I introduced myself to her: “My name is Tony“. Then she dropped the bombshell: “I’m Dorkis“. Assuming that she said “Dorothy“, I asked again, and she repeated “Dorkis”. D’oh! WTF? I almost crapped a deuce, but I somehow miraculously kept my composure (which I’m not at all any good at) and didn’t start laughing my ass off.


After she said the D-word, I barely managed to verbalize the response: “Nice to meet you“. Then I automatically went into never-never land and all kinds of stupid jokes and questions spontaneously appeared in my petty little mind:

  • “How do you spell that?”,
  • “I’m sure that I’ve been called that behind my back”,
  • “I’ve called some people that, behind their backs”,
  • “Did you ask your parents why they gave you that name?”,
  • “What was it like for you when you were growing up?”,
  • “Did anyone ever bust a gut laughing just after you introduced yourself to them?”
  • “Did you name one of your children Bumpkis?”,
  • “Is you last name Asskiss?”.

I honestly didn’t hear a word that she said for the next few seconds until a group of other ladies walked by us and said “Hi Dorkis“.

What’s the funniest name of a person that you’ve met?

Categories: miscellaneous Tags: ,

Sole Source

September 24, 2009 Leave a comment

When a customer awards a vendor a contract without considering bids from other competitors, it is deemed a sole source victory. There are two ways to look at “sole source” contracts:

  • The customer loves you
  • The customer hates you

If you’ve done a great job providing a product that unobtrusively solves a customer’s problem, then that customer will love your company. Hence, if  the “rules” allow it, that customer will shower you with follow on sole source contracts for more copies and variants of the product.

If your product sux but it is inextricably and pervasively intertwined within the customer’s day-to-day operations, then your customer may hate you. However, since it would cost a ton of money and time to rip out and replace your junk with someone else’s junk, the customer may still shower you with follow on sole source contracts.

Regardless of which reality is true, corpo hierarchs will always attribute sole source contract awards to love.

Sole Source

Categories: business Tags: , , ,

Structure, Work, Entropy

August 19, 2009 Leave a comment

Entropy can be interpreted as a measure of chaos, or disorder. The second law of thermodynamics asserts that entropy increases with the passage of time. Tick, tock, tick, tock. The universe is constantly but surely on the move toward randomness.


As the universe unfolds in a  continuous and creative dance, it temporarily suspends its own law of increasing entropy. It spontaneously forms new structures while others are simultaneously disintegrating.

As human beings, we are of the universe and thus, we also possess the awesome power to create. It takes structure plus work to create and, maybe more importantly, sustain something of value. The best we can do is temporarily arrest the growth in entropy by applying structure and performing the work required to keep the structures that we create in tact. Eventually, the inexorable rise in entropy wins and our creations disintegrate. It is what it is.

Structure Plus Work

Collapsing The Wavefunction

August 8, 2009 Leave a comment

I’m in the process of reading a third book on quantum physics. It’s called “The Self-Aware Universe”, and it is written by physicist Amit Gotswami. According to Q-physics, no localized object exists until a conscious observation is made. The universe is comprised of non-localized, infinitely distributed “waves” described by Schrodinger’s wave function equation. The wave function equation characterizes the “waviness” of matter and it displaces Newton’s F=ma as the universal law of motion. Even though Newton has been convincingly dethroned as the king of “materialistic reality”, Q-physics is consistent with Newton’s classical physics for “big” objects, which are all comprised of quantum waves. Thus, for (almost) all practical purposes, Newton’s laws can be leveraged in the macro world to “control” and enhance our environment to some extent.

When a subjective and conscious observation is made and discrete objects are “detected” at a point in space and time, the instantaneous collapse of the wave function occurs. The figure below woefully attempts to graphically depict this mysterious and miraculous process. On the left, we have “no”-things, just an infinite collection of waves. On the right, we have a bunch of (supposedly) independent “some”-things after the collapse. If, as most rational and educated people think, conscious observation is subjective and person specific, then why is there so much consensus on the post-collapse appearance of the world? In other words, why do most people see the same set of objects after they each independently and subjectively collapse the wave function? If you’re thinking that I have an answer for this subjective vs. consensus enigma, then you’re mistaken. I’m dumbfounded but enamored with the mystery of it all. How about you?

Wavefunction Collapse

Suppose that you and I separately “collapse the wave function” and (miraculously?) agree on the appearance of the external world the engulfs us. Referring to the example above, assume that we transcend the first communication barrier between us and we agree that a post-collapse triangle exists, a rectangle exists, a pair of ellipses exist, etc.

Now assume that the group of objects that we’ve manifested (created ?) is comprised of people and some type of observable behavior emanating from that group is “bothering” us. Also, assume that we want to influence the group to change it’s behavior so that we are less distressed. What do we do? We consciously form a personal System-Of-Interest (SOI) and we try to understand what’s causing us the distress. We try to make sense of the dynamic interactions taking place between those people encircled in our own personal SOI and then we act to change it. Here’s where our original consensus starts to diverge. Since, as the figure below illustrates, our personally created  SOIs will most likely be different, our interpretation of who and what is causing us our distress will be different. Thus, our ideas and thoughts regarding corrective actions will be different.


Note that even though we initially agreed on the number and types of objects=people present in our collapsed wave function worlds, the number and nature of the connections between those people are likely to be different for you and me. In the SOI example above, my SOI on the left contains three people and yours on the right only contains two. My SOI on the left doesn’t include the pink ellipse in the “problem” sub-group but yours on the right does. Your SOI doesn’t include an interface ‘tween the gray ellipse and blue diamond but mine does. Thus, our interpretations of what ails us will most likely differ. Add a third, fourth, fifth, etc., SOI to the mix and all kinds of diverging interpretations will emerge.

Now, apply this example to a work environment. If I’m the “boss” and you disagree with my interpretation of the problem situation, but are “afraid” of speaking truth to power because of standard stifling corpo culture norms, then you may just go along with my interpretation even though you’re pretty sure that your interpretation and solution is “right”. Since I’m the boss, all knowing and all powerful, I’m always “right” – even if I’m not. 🙂

Filtering And Distortion

March 10, 2009 Leave a comment

Virtually everyone sees “life” as an integrated, filtered, and distorted stream of continuous analog input. Each filter is person-specific and tends to get narrower as we supposedly grow-up. The designer of the filter is the personal ego and if you’re not aware of this, it can severely degrade and limit your experience of life. My goal is to remove my personal filter so that I can experience the glorious full spectrum of life. I may not attain this goal, but I’m going to try to achieve it until my last breath. Please wish me luck.


%d bloggers like this: