Skip to main content

Humor: Sheldon's Prayer

Theoretical Physicist Dr. Sheldon Cooper Sc.D. has hardly anything to do with this post except for an optimistic allusion toward his positive delight at throwing a monologos tantrum such as this in any of The Big Bang Theory episodes preferably not named as the same suggested title.
You see,

All metaphysics, of/for every
sectarian-/semi-/secular-/pseudo-/anti-religion's theory seems to thrive
on this evolutionary blindspot
in the cognitive process;
Hit by unreferenceable 'knowing';
And admixed with confused human imaginations.

This mystery,
this mental phenomenon metastasizing through last few millennia,
which in fact is a fairly short period of time in terms of evolutionary time-frame,
is akin to my inability of licking my own elbows. <smirks>

Or you might say, this physical incapability, that's the appropriate term,
is an outward projection of the psychological one.
For human mind as an apparatus is still a work-in-progress by the Evolution,
in some areas at least.

In any case,
Raj, is that Om? or Sunyata, if that word pleases your soulless-egolessness better?
Or perhaps a creator ± personal God speaking your favorite tongue, Howard?
Leonard, how about the whole Dr. Dawkins + Dr. Dennett + Dr. Pinker gang
− huddled around a genetically modified Buddha?

First, let me establish, with nullary,
That God has the right to have capital G,
because Evolution precedes with capital E.

Evolution needs time. And space.

Oh, but you argue − keep time out of this,
it has nothing to do here;
"Oh My Goodness" is the same through millennia!
Silly, is that what you think?
Is it indeed the same God?
Living on a biblical roof,
with man on the ground floor,
and the devil in the car-park below,
collecting rent from up there, if you like,
for all those hindu reincarnations included?
Clearly, you do not own this place, do you?
Look at how you made a mess out of everything!
You cheap tenants!
Vandalizing someone else's property.
You should be stuck to the roof,
of space,
with a materialist super-glue.

Let me provide a few clarifications before you people ask.

- Is this disregarding a God? Absolutely not. Evolution invented God.
- Is this against religion? No. Evolution needs religion as a short-term fix.
- Is this mocking of "spiritual" experiences? Not at all.

Remember what Dr. Carl Jung wrote, "Religion is a defense against a religious experience."

Now, isn't there a few millennia worth of wisdom
at your disposal right there in a sentence?
As against to your million pages long scriptures.

But while Evolution is doing its job,
the religions seem to have deviated from the task cutout for them.
Namely, to preserve the species using control and confusion,
until Evolution is ready with the next big accidental leap,
and erases these cognitive blindspots from the brain design.

Any sensible life-form will tell you that
Evolution needs a life-form, a species.
And if religions aren't facilitating survival,
they must stop being defiant, and, to the very least,
refrain from facilitating an extinction!

For now, this conversation is suspended.
I shall go back to working on my prayer,
a.k.a. elbow to tongue proximity project
inspired by my giraffe friends. <smirks>


Popular posts from this blog

The Pygmalion vs. The Golem Effect

There are two kinds of self-fulfilling prophecies. They are broadly defined by wiki as follows: The Pygmalion effect , or Rosenthal effect, is the phenomenon in which the greater the expectation placed upon people, the better they perform. On the other hand is the Golem effect , in which low expectations lead to a decrease in performance. In ancient Greek mythology, Pygmalion fell in love with one of his sculptures, which then came to life. The theme was in the main stray of many English literary works during the victorian era. One of which is George Bernard Shaw's play titled "Pygmalion" from which Rosenthal effect gets its name. In Shaw's play, the protagonist, a professor of phonetics Henry Higgins makes a bet that he can train a bedraggled Cockney flower girl, Eliza Doolittle, to pass for a duchess at an ambassador's garden party by teaching her to assume a veneer of gentility, the most important element of which, he believes, is impeccable speech. (The pl

"Peter Drucker - Managing Oneself" on

IN THE INTRODUCTORY paragraph of this legendary paper for Harvard Business Review, Peter Drucker writes: We live in an age of unprecedented opportunity: If you've got ambition and smarts, you can rise to the top of your chosen profession, regardless of where you started out.  But with opportunity comes responsibility. Companies today aren't managing their employees' careers; knowledge workers must, effectively, be their own chief executive officers. It's up to you to carve out your place, to know when to change the course, and to keep yourself engaged and productive during a work life that may span some 50 years. To do those things well, you will need to cultivate a deep understanding of yourself - not only what your strengths and weaknesses are but also how you learn, how you work with others, what your values are, and where you can make the greatest contribution. Because only when you operate from strengths can you achieve true excellence. Marking a small foot

HBR: Most Popular Articles of 2010

AN EXCITING YEAR IS DRAWING TO A CLOSE. Coming full circle of seasons it is winter again while the haven freezes over and a friend messaged from Leh in north-western Himalayas, "Its -15.4° C (4.2° F) here. Expect snow typing." I am almost sure it was meant to read "slow typing". HBR on their part collectively published some 1000+ articles over the last 365 days. Recently, one of the editors listed the top 10 most popular articles among them (try  here ). Listed below are the five articles that I liked most. 1. Why I Returned My iPad by Peter Bregman Peter Bregman stands in a two-hour queue-for-a-gadget for the first time to get his hands on iPad on its launch day. And within days, he is hooked. In this I-fear-I-might-loose-boredom post, Bregman talks about returning his iPad to Apple because it was "too good". He writes, "It's too easy. Too accessible. Both too fast and too long-lasting. For the most part, it does everything I could want. W