In Memorioum

My grandfather was a good man. I could pretend to tell you that I knew this firsthand because of some fantastic relationship we had. Maybe I could draft a narrative about some fishing trips, or how I told him about my first kiss, or about how he described my dad when he was my age. The truth is, I can't. I barely knew the guy. The truth is, I couldn't have know him. He lived halfway across the world from this place, and it's hard to travel that far. He came here once, when I was little with my grandmother. I was really small then. I only remember how funny my very Indian grandparents looked in winter caps and mismatched parkas in the bitter gully of winter. I have the picture, I guess.
Aside from that, my father and grandfather were estranged from each other for a very long time. I've only heard tidbits about my father's childhood from what my mom sneaks me in hushed tones every now and again when my dad is napping, or we're driving in the car. As a result, I haven't been very close to my fathers side of the family until recently.
I would ask my father about my grandfather sometimes. It was hard for me to get words out of my dad. It still is. But, when he actually talked about it with me, he said my grandfather was honest, and that he was stern, and that he respected him. He never said that he loved my grandfather, but I'm pretty sure he did. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't like talking about it, either.
I understand why my father and his father don't get along so much. They're very much alike. I'm like them, in some ways at least, too. They're stubborn and extremely ethical. They are hard working and driven. Neither of them are funny, but they both love laughing. Their tempers are fierce. They both hug awkwardly (though my dad is better now) and say "my son"--or its hindi translation--in mid embrace. They are so similar it doesn't surprise me that they fought. They were trying to be the same guy. It's the same reason my father and I argue.
I don't dream very often. I almost consider it a blessing when I actually remember my dreams. Usually I remember dreams about women. Other than that, I only remember nightmares. Rather, I should say that I remember one nightmare, I have one that comes back every few years. In it, my dad dies. They're the only times I every wake up crying. It took a great amount of deliberation to realize why this dream bothered me so much; I want to be my dad. Even though he has serious flaws, my dad is an amazing person. He's accomplished a tremendous amount in his life. If he had a better draw from the get go, he would be much more accomplished than he is now.
Anyway. The guy's my hero. And needless to say, the thought of losing your heroes is scary.
Anyway, back to my grandfather. I do know him in a way, because he and my father are so similar. Knowing my father, by transitivity, I know him. But also by transitivity, if I lose my grandfather, I lose part of my father. Which is the scary part. Part of my father is gone now, which will never come back. My memories won't come back, his body won't come back. All that really lives on of his is my father. And I suppose through part of me, too. I would only be so lucky though, because my grandfather was a good man.

Flexibility, Commitment, Love? Wha?

I’m usually pretty emo and reflective after date parties. Today is no different. But, this is more important, I think, than talking about the happenings of a date party. But, perhaps these thoughts are motivated by the happenings of the evening. I suppose.

Lately, I’ve been coming to appreciate my parents, and their marriage, more. They didn’t have the most admirable marriage that I I’ve ever seen, in fact when I was growing up, I was afraid that they were going to divorce. They fought terribly. They used terrible words. I heard it. I saw it. I hold to this day that my witnessing of their interactions has been the most significant influence of my thoughts about relationships. I never wanted to be like them.

But, I’m starting to appreciate the deeper, nuanced qualities of their relationships. In retrospect, maybe their fighting wasn’t as negative as I once thought.

They are flexible with eachother. They allow eachother to be their worst, and their words show their disgust, but implicitly, the fact that they argue and disagree shows their flexibility. If you are sticking around and taking the time to argue, that’s flexibility. Getting pissed when you could be disengaging is a sign of love, at least minimally.

My two lovely friends, Laura and Jeff sleeping below me, call that—being flexible—love.

I think they’re right. At least in part.

But there’s something more subtle that has to be at play in partner-relationships. There are many others that know each other intently and have flexibility. Those people aren’t necessarily partners.

Actually, I don’t think that conclusion is right. I think that relationships need not have some special subtlety over “friends”. We add value to the relationships that we want to. Almost as if we peg our relationships to some other standard, like floating currency markets depending on what they mean to us or what we want them to be. We peg our friendships to one value system, we peg our romantic interests to another, but to begin with they still have something quite the same bout them, I think. In other words, we just view them differently, even if they’re the same.

So it seems as if that pegging is expressed as commitment. If you add some layers of commitment to a given relationships, you start to define the perceptions and preferences that dictate the role of that relationship.

So, different types and quantities of commitment seem to be the culprit of why relationships are different. So, a friend relationship and a partner relationship could be quite similar, or even the same in terms of “knowing someone” or “having fun”, but the type and amount of commitment you want to throw down is what defines it from being a partner/friend relationship.

I think it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that strong relationships have the same qualities despite on what their levels of commitment are. It seems that these days, with rising divorce rates above 50%, it’s not a problem of marriages to have commitment, but that it’s the more fundamental problem of “knowing someone” or “having trust” or “negotiating conflight”. It doesn’t seem like that many people have problems committing, but rather meaningful relationships fail because they have weak foundations to build their relationships on in the first place, that love and commitment are being confused for some sort of a strong bond.

Kind of scary?

Flexibility is important. Now the really important question is…how do you use flexibility to get from “weak” relationship to one that is strong like a marriage, or life partnership.

God, this topic is so complicated.

CD Hunt

So, I was on my way to Borders today after work.

Luckily I found myself there. Otherwise I wouldn't be listening to this great music.

"The Essential India" is what I'm listening too. It's a three-cd set, with one disc for Bollywood Gold, one disc for classical acoustic, and one disc for more contemporary chart-toppers.

Talib Kweli's album wasn't there. Jason Robert Brown wasn't there. I couldn't find their selection of choral music, either. And then, this album caught by eye against the world music wall. I immediately had to purchase it. I love Indian music, but I didn't really allow myself to admit the fact until just today...I've never purchased any hindi music before.

Culture has suddenly become important to me, really without any preemption. I love being Indian. I really am Indian.

But, in the store, i started to wonder why. Why did I surpress culture for so long? Why am I suddenly coming to realize that I truly am Indian. Why do I want to learn to read and write hindi?

It's just...my body is Indian. The way I carry myself is the way of my ancestry. The way my voice sounds, is Indian. I have everything that is Indian, and I've spent most of my life developing what is not Indian.

In addition to an intimate, soulful, relationship...my Indian-ness is a void in my life. It's important to be authenthic, as I was just blogging about. However, so far I've been neglecting part of my identity. I'm Indian American. Not just American, and not just Indian either. I have to be Indian, denying it is a lie.

So, part of the next phase of my development in addition to trying to be effective and consistent in all phases of life is to further explore my identity.

It's a process of going from an by Default American-Indian man, to that of an Indian-American, because that's what I am, and Indian American. And if I don't figure out what it means to be Indian-American, I'll never know who I am. Because...at the end of the day, if I don't understand "Indian", I'm missing out of half of who I am.

Progressions

I'm sorry Mr. Blog. You've been idle for too long.

I spoke with Jennie (my boss/co-worker) the other day. Among other things, like higher education and leadership theory, we were speaking about an exercise that all student workers in the division of student affairs are doing. It was a skills assesment. So we were discussing, and we got on the topic of "being authentic" in the context of human development.

So, "being authentic" means this: You are trying to be true to yourself in all facets of life, in a sincere way. So, at work you're striving to be you. At home your striving to be the same you. At play you are still trying to be that same you. You're trying to synergize your roles in life into one person. This struggle is something that happens for many people during their lifetimes. This is the stage I'm currently at.

What interests me is the transition period. How is it possible to understand when a person makes one jump to the other. Is it a natural process in which one seamlessly passes through? Is it something that must be made discretely and explicitly? I do believe that it is made seamlessly but discretely as wel. I feel that most people mst not reflect to regularly, and thus only figure out that a jump in personal development has been made only after some "significatn" life event has been reached. Like, say an experience like camp. An experience like world traveling. So maybe after a pledge term at a fraternity or a summer abroad will someone get the opportunity, or even force themselves to reflect about what is going on with them in their lives.

However, this is yet another reason that I advocate for regular reflection (a blog is a very good way to reflect)...because with regular reflection, the jump--in personal growth--is constanly being worked on, but also it can be noticed quicker. Then, the skill or growth that has been improved can be exercised more confidently faster. Reflection is the practice in "practice makes perfect". This reminds of another interesting piece of advise that I heard on an NFL commercial; "Ameteurs practice until they get something right, professionals practice until they cant get something wrong".

How true is that. Skills are practiced. Leadership is practiced. Sports are practiced. Studying, writing, researching, and horseshoes are practiced. Everything can be practiced. What cannot be? Grace, i think that's it.

But anyway, how long are these transition periods? Are they turbulent? Do they come with age? Must htey come with age? What is the role of a nurturer or teacher? All these questions are fascinating.

I've also been speculating about what the next possible phase for growth may be, after "authenticity". I have a feeling it might be something along the lines of "finding/living by principle. Being able to live as one person, in a principled way. Then perhaps, being able tolive as one person in a principled way in a manner that benefits others.

It's so exciting...my only qualm is...it takes a long time. And being able to negotiate principles with my lifestyle would be really important in college, right now. I could really use the skill of pushing myself to be disciplined to benefit others. I mean, I wish I was farther in the progression...I could really do alot with those skills now. I feel as if some of these realizations might come too late in life, or they coul dbe better serving if they came erlier in life. What an adventure, what an adventure.

Goodnight moon.

Happy Diwali.

Also, it's sweet typing laying down with your eyes closed. it's so much trust in your mental ability, and a freeing sensation from your eyes and ears. typing without looking with your eyes is like putting a ton of trust into your sense of touch and the sharpness of your mind.

Oh how I miss the blog.

Just?

So, I just got back to my place from studying downstairs. I've been reading quite a bit; I'm halfway up to my eyeballs as of yet. Still plenty of steam left.

Anyway, I've been reading a good load about the O.J. Simpson trial--as required for my Legal Philosophy class--and it's been rather interesting. The last line of the reading prompted some thoughts about what is just and morally correct. More so, if some case is judicated erroneously is there ever a time where its justifed to defy the opinion through judicial nullification, etc. etc.

Actually, why don't I just quote the text.

"Can a historically erroneous verdict ever be a legally--and morally--just result? As a Socratic teacher of law, I leave you to ponder this uncomfortable question." - Alan M. Dershowitz (From Reasonable Doubts)

Basically, some argue that O.J. got away with double murder, but the question Dershowitz raises is if it could possibly okay or worth it (he was partially framed, the police work could have been unjustly and racially motivated, etc. etc.)

Well, I wish to go to the basic premise of why we have a judicial system in the first place. It's to punish offenders of the laws, but why do we have laws? To keep order, and keep the citizenry safe.

Legally-
Of course this can be legally justified. If the rule of law is followed in the proceedings, the judicial proceedings that is, then everyone has a fair shake at a fair trial. I believe that our legal system even compensates for issues like racial/gender imbalance in a courtroom body (juries, judges, lawyers) through jury selection, right to choose counsel, and the possibility for appeal. Also even accounting for jury nullification, the trial is still fair. It is an assumed risk that the jury might praise you or screw you over. Would you rather have it another way? No permanent eye-witness can, or probably should, exist...in any case everybody's case is in the hands of the jury/justice/group of justices. To break it down quick: shit happens (and sometimes juries are psycho).

Just-
Gosh, what is just? I wish Socrates were here, haha. Now, let's assume that the person gets off of double murder. Then it is just, because the defendant is innocent until proven guility. I suppose I define unjust as the innocent being proven guility, and everything else as just. Yes, this means that murderers can go free. But, if they commit crimes on top of double murder, they should eventually get caught. Innocent vicitims is the sunk cost in exchange for liberty and fair trials. Though, I pray that my loved ones aren't those trampled in vain by criminals who have walked.

Moral-
Wow, this is difficult to argue. I suppose it could be argued to be moral, if the trial overall has some societal good. As if, the helps maintain the order of law as a deterrent because the trial actually happens. As if, there is some fundamental good in the judicial system functioning, in and of itself. It could concieveably aid the citizenry, even if a guility criminal goes free, because the system yields benefit because it is acting legally and justly (see above).

However, I don't think ethical souls can stomach this defense (which I admit, is threadbare and not deep. To which I say, gimme a break, it's only my blog with a very small readership, if it has one at all)

I see this as undermining the moral value of the legal system if criminals knowingly go free. The system is supposed to find those who are guility, guilty. The system is supposed to make criminals pay. The system is supposed to be a beacon for fairness and truth, and it is simply not honest when guility criminals go free.

It is not fair to everyone for someone else to play the system. It makes the system appear dysfunctional, thereby causing a removal faith in the system as a whole (see, if a witness lies once, all of what he says could be a lie), a removal of faith in the system promotes lawlessness and in turn tarnishes the value of the rule of law...contradicting the purpose of having a legal system in the first place.

So...Legal, Just, but not moral.

But that's just from a pontificating semi-adult college student. Not to mention, he's wearing purple athletic shorts, listening to Mr. Brightside, how blasE. I'm not going to lie, I really just wanted to use the word blasE, even if it doesn't fit in context.

It's such a cool word, na?

The Killer Thrill

Thrills just need to be felt. My age cohort thrives on thrill. We learn, work, and play all in a thrilling fashion. We are addicted.

Look at the academic system for example. The system is high intensity with high-stakes and a high yield for rewards. Those who are strong push, push, and push. The ambitious ones survive and in turn seek more thrills and successes.

The same goes for the social scene: alcohol, sex, and loud music. It's rather thrilling from what i can grasp about it. I'm thrilled even when I'm in the evironment.

But, why are thrills so addicting? Could it be physiological? It must not be exclusively, because emotions/moods feel wierd when thrills are not present.

The only reason that I can imagine that thrills are so fantastic because of how controllable they are. They are pleasureable and controllable. It's a rush to feel like you are doing something...controlling something...and making progress. It's a occurence that is fleeting of tension and freeing of passion.

Why should I try to stop people from thrills? How to define the costs of a thrill? Because there are costs.

Revision about mountains

A revision about my theory of climbing mountains.

In the previous post "So you climbed a mountain, so what?", I concluded that
"The great expanse of western states is unimaginable and truly beautiful. But, I don't think it'll ever be big enough to satisfy the need for knowledge and global culture.
-Note: It sure is fun to explore, especially climbing things"

I would like to make a revision on that statement.

The incredible splendor of the natural world is unimaginable and truly beautiful. But, I don't think those things will ever be big, impressive, or beautiful enough to satisfy the need for knowledge and global culture, in and of themselves.

I make this distincition after spending a night sleeping on one of the dunes at Sleeping Bear National Lakeshore. I was there on a fraternity retreat; we spent time shooting the wind, bonding, and being generally amiable. My brother, Dan-O "Skeet Skeet" Ostahowski (an adventurer if I've ever known one) wanted quite badly I think, to sleep on the dunes for a night. It was late at the time and I said if he went I would go with him. Mind you, that I was banking on the fact that he might not go. (I was all about it at first, but then flinched when some were telling tale tales of "cougar attacks" the year prior).

But, we went. The earth was spinning below me. The sky was like I hadn't been able to see it in many moons. I wished on a shooting star.

And, we began talking...about intelligible--seamlessly with unintelligible--things. It was glorious. It was beautiful. I wanted to take back my childhood and spend more time outdoors. I wished my family had been a nature-loving one, instead of a let's get a hotel and go to tourist attraction types (to be fair, my dad was all about these sorts of things; at least we went car camping once because of him). In a phrase, I felt as if my life hadn't been complete thus far. It was not mixed properly; it had time spent reading, writing, exercising, and that sort. It was not complete with ample time in nature, barely any time until relatively recently.

So, I revise my statement as to not marginalize time spent in nature. Time doing many things is important. Without exposure to pop culture, nature, politics, atheltics, and whatever else life just feels a little incomplete.

Noise.

The television is off. The lights are off. The radio is now off. All that's on is the computer, and at the moment it's less of a PC and more like a notebook.

It's almost quiet. It's an interesting transition. This time last year I was uncomfortable with the quiet (dinner was accompanied by a television, drives were supplemented with a CD or the FM radio, even during showers I listened to 95.5 in the morning.) Now, I like the quiet.

The television seems like noise most of the time. I don't like having the TV just be on in the background...it's an overload to have so many forms of media encompassing all moments of life. I like hearing the sound of my breathing...I actually feel alive. I don't feel dead. The television makes me feel dead. It makes me feel like I'm living life passively. The less TV, the better.

I take that back, TV is cool when it is engadging. When you can connect with it, instead of just being entertained by it. Like Grey's Anatomy. It's a connectable show. Some people connect with Emeril Live. Others connect with Friends or CNN.

Alas, life is moving quickly...faster by the year, it seems. I don't know whether I like it. Sometimes I wish it would fast forward to the age of 27, other times I wish I could stay in a place forever. So...i'm undecided. But, what I have decided, is that it's better with the volume turned down.

A side note--progress is being made on proving the inherent good of love. I hope.

This I Believe

It has been too long since I have performed the "This I Believe" exercise. I think it's part of the reason why my moods/anxiety levels have been so out of whack.

I had to catch up on reading three essays today which were very varied and interesting.

The Craft of Dreaming- 9:45 PM
Not too long ago, I was riding in a car with my father. He was on his way to be unwillingly seperated from my mother because of a new job. He worked in the same engineering job for the same company for twenty years. He was now blazing a new trail.

My dad is a world traveler, but he rarely speaks of it (He worked on a boat for a shipping company for five years before he met my mother, taking him to Iran, Singapore, Portland, and Malta to name a few places). He is an explorer, a hard worker, an intellectual, a rock. Though, most of all, I think he is a dreamer. Not only does he dream though, he is an expert in the craft of dreaming.

He advised me in our discussions:"You must create a dream".

When I say the craft of dreaming, I mean the meticulous process of finding an idea, vigorously examining and challenging it, and realizing all the steps necessary to making it a reality. "Dreamcraft" was an integral part of my father's life, without the creation of a dream, he would have never moved to the United States from India. His defining qualities are the skills necessary for building dreams. He didn't get to where he is on luck, not by a longshot.

I'm begging to see that his advice is good. Building dreams is necessary for anyone without complete good fortune to try to chip away at getting what they want in life. The most successful people--financially, socially, romantically, intellectually, soulfully--are the ones who dream big and strong. It seems like the ones who have what they want in this world, have perfected and practiced the craft of dreaming.

I believe, I have to believe in the craft of dreaming. It seems like the only way to getting what I want in this world. Afterall, I'm not that lucky anyways.

--10:21 PM--

24Bash II is this friday. Will you be there?

Welcome home Melanie!

From round the country, and the world.

So. As most people do, I keep track of blog visitors. Don't worry, the only valuable information is the location of where people access my blog from, when they do, and how long they stay, etc. It's pretty standard stuff.

But...what boggles my mind, is where people log-in from.

Like...Denver, CO. I know about 3 people in Colorado...and I don't think any are from Denver. Boulder, maybe. It's kind of cool...especially because its Denver. I want to visit Denver SOOOO badly. Colorado in general. From what I can understand, I think I would love it there. Boulder too...except I don't think I'm wealthy enough, maybe not liberal enough, either.

24Bash II is next week:

http://umichigan.facebook.com/event.php?eid=2204958325