Posts filed under 'Family'
My little brother is a math genius. I kid you not. He sent me an e-mail yesterday giving a very simple but - obviously - true proof that 1 equals 2. Here it is for your thinking pleasure:
a=x
Add `a` to both sides:
a + a = a + x
Combine like terms:
2a = a + x
Subtract `2x` from both sides:
2a - 2x = a +x - 2x
Combine like terms:
2a - 2x = a - x
Factor out a ‘2′ on the left and ‘1′ on the right:
2 (a-x) = 1 (a - x)
Divide both sides by `(a-x)`:
2=1
Voila!
Now, who can tell me why my brother is not only a mathematical genius, but also a joker?
May 19th, 2006
I had a great time coming home to San Diego this weekend. Mom and I went to Meeti’s wedding (Congrats!), which was great, and my brothers and I spent most of Sunday with Mom celebrating Mother’s Day. I’ve uploaded the album for Mother’s Day to Flickr.
May 14th, 2006
Last weekend, my family and I participated in the walk for a cure for MS. It was a pretty enjoyable morning, and the walk was relaxing. We unofficially settled on a “No-iPod” rule, so we all just talked and made fun of each other. Good time.
Check out the album.
May 2nd, 2006
A couple days ago, my Mamaji (uncle) and I rented a 2000 PSI pressure washer from Home Depot to clean his driveway and backyard pavement. His neighbor (”Simon”) was going to chip in as well so he could clean his yard, too.
After we finished the driveway, we let Simon have it for a while. I went out for a bit and told my uncle I’d be back later to help finish up. A couple hours later, I got a call from my Mamiji (aunt) telling me there was no need to come back.
“Why?” I asked.
“Because someone stole the pressure washer,” was her reply. Simon had gone inside for a moment, and when he returned, the hose had been cut, and the pressure washer was gone.
I was shocked. For the next couple hours, I thought a lot about how our expectations of people can be so magnificently out of whack.
I wouldn’t have dreamed in a thousand years that someone would be scoping out Simon’s yard for the perfect moment to steal the pressure washer. And those things aren’t light. You need two people to lift it onto a truck bed to haul it away. Or you can wheel it away, but good luck doing that quickly.
I never lock my house’s front door; I leave my windows open; I’ll even leave my car running if I’m parked in the driveway and will be quick. This incident made me think a lot about how our attitudes are so different pre-event versus post-event.
Pre-event, I’m confident in my fellow human that my car will still be on my driveway when I come back out of my house.
Post-event, I’m angered at myself for my initial confidence. I’ll likely experience an increase of distrust.
But what’s the alternative? Can I merely choose to have my post-event attitude all the time? If I’m cautious in the beginning, I’ll never leave my car running or my doors unlocked or my windows open… So I’ll maintain ownership of my belongings, but what have I sacrificed?
April 28th, 2006
As my uncle (Masarji) and I were driving up to Hillsborough to pick up their new dining table, we had another interesting talk.
Masarji explained to me that unconditionality was necessary for true love. He believes most relationships aren’t actually based on love in its truest form. For example, two best friends who love each other (not necessarily romantically) can drift apart due to some catastrophe - or even due to some minor thing.
Similarly, Masarji believes most couples don’t truly love each other. If they did, divorce or separation would be an impossibility. But we all know that spouses can commit a handful of action that are deal-breakers in most relationships.
These loves aren’t true, because each requires a degree of decency from the other to sustain their relationship. So, they aren’t unconditional.
Masarji said he hadn’t yet discovered a relationship that is categorically based on true love. The nearest relationship he’d found was that of a parent to a child, and I agree 100%.
Parents exhibit a love for their children that can’t be explained except to say, “Well, they’re parents.” Funnily enough, that explanation usually suffices.
Masarji pointed out that if a child committed a serious crime, he would still be welcome back in his home. His parents could punish him, and they could report him to the authorities, but they wouldn’t do this out of malice, fear, or even respect for the law. They would do this because they felt it was the best thing they could do for their child. If they didn’t belive this, then they would probably shelter the child and hide his crime to the best of their ability. If they did turn him in, though, they would punish themselves for having harmed their child - even though it was for his own good. This is a true reflection of a parent’s love as I have seen it and come to believe it. Of course, there are exceptions to this (hence why this doesn’t fully meet Masarji’s definition of love), but in general I think this is true.
I have to admit that I find it hard to deviate from Masarji’s perpective. “True love” is a term so often used that it’s been canonized to the point where its sanctity blurs its definition. We just assume it means something like, Of or relating to the driving force behind ‘Sleepless In Seattle’
. But the mystical quality of true love is not something we can achieve. It’s ascribed to relationships ordained by fate to have it. The real quality of true love is something we can achieve. It’s a state of mind and soul fostered by feelings of good. I like to think that we can control our feelings. It’s just very difficult. That might explain why examples of true love are so hard (or impossible) to find.
This post is dedicated to my Mom.
The discussion is more active at Shoutwire.
March 28th, 2006
Previous Posts