Novak Djokovic. José Carreras. George Harrison.
All part of a famous group in their field.
Novak Djokovic’s name will forever be associated with Nadal and Federer.
José Carreras’ name evokes memories of Luciano Pavarotti and Plácido Domingo.
George Harrison, important member of the Beatles along with John Lennon and Paul McCartney.
All very accomplished, yet, not having the same name recall or reverence or affection as the other members of the group they are clubbed together with. 🙁
That set me thinking. Does it have anything to do with being the third member in a group, anything with being #3?
Solo George went “While My Guitar Gently Weeps”,
Novak can’t seem to buy much love.
Is it a variation of “Two is company, three is a crowd”? It’s as if there is a reluctance to welcome a 3rd member into the fold.
Talking of fold, it’s easy to divide a regular shaped paper into two or even four parts just by lining up the edges but dividing equally into 3 parts takes some effort to get it right. One third of one (1/3) yields recurring decimals unlike 1/2 or or 1/4. Could lack of division equally be a reason for reluctance when it comes to 3? In the Olympics the top two finishers are awarded gold and silver medals while the 3rd place finisher gets bronze. Gold and silver are considered noble metals while bronze is an alloy. It’s as if 3rd place finishers are supposed to have mixed feeling and not experience unalloyed delight. Why not award platinum, gold and silver instead as these metals are classified as noble metals. In some Olympic events, like martial arts and combat sports, two bronze medals are awarded to losing semi-finalists with no contest for 3rd place as though it’s not worth it. Even TV stands for smart TVs now come with 2 legs instead of 3 as if 3 upsets the balance. In the Senate a two-thirds vote is considered as supermajority which translates into 67 votes out of 100, leaving behind 33, hitting the number 3 with a double whammy. Will #3 ever get a fair shake?
TheRajBlog 