sittinG LoudLy

The Things My Girl Has Ever Done

2011-12-07T08:01:00.001+07:00

Saying that it was Judas who demanded to touch Jesus' wounds. I still believe it was Thomas.
Saying that Moses had an affair and took someone else's wife. I think she was referring to David taking Bathsheba.
Insisting that prayers from sinners are heard by God (doa orang-orang berdosa didengarkan Tuhan) because she felt she had read it somewhere in the Bible, only to have second thoughts when I said, "Isn't it supposed to say 'prayers from the oppresed are heard by God' (doa orang-orang teraniaya didengarkan Tuhan)?"
Pronouncing bear as beer, while still pronouncing a polar bear as how it is supposed to sound.
Pronouncing fusion as fashion.
Calling me Poo, without the slightest idea of what it actually means; and not knowing my full name for a full month, despite our relationship.
Saying lots of things in English. Some of the time it's American English and some of the time it's her own kind of English.
Failing to tell a buffalo from a cow. She once said that her Chinese zodiac was the cow.
Failing to tell a lion from a tiger.
Making one plate of fried rice with seasoning enough for two, forcing her guest at the time to live with the consequences.
Making very well-done toasts with too much jelly in it, forcing her guest at the time to live with the consequences.
Making a plate of spicy rice with one fourth of processed chilli, forcing her guest at the time to live with the consequences.
Putting me in a lot of mysery, agitation, and stress that sometimes make me want to go, "Aargh!" on her.
Running back to a bookshop while her flight was almost leaving, just to get me a few books.
Forcing me to study, because most of the time I won't.
Never failing to make me smile again, no matter how many times I want to go, "Aargh!" on her.
Telling her stories for hours nonstop, playing her loud music while she's driving, screaming around at random moments, making me miss her when she's not around to keep my ears full.

I care about my girl.
A lot.

Finding God's Will

2011-09-19T21:47:00.032+07:00

There’s a story I once heard about a climber who climbed a mountain alone on a cold and moonless night. He climbed carefully because he almost couldn’t see. As expected from such a reckless action, at one point he slipped and fell. He didn’t go all the way down because he was still attached to a safety rope. Suspended in air, he started to think about what to do. He couldn’t pull himself up because his arm was injured from the fall. He couldn’t cut the rope also because below him was a dark and bottomless pit.

For hours he did nothing. He was still thinking about the situation when suddenly a voice was heard. “Cut the rope and you will be fine,” said the voice. The climber was shocked. He turned his head around but he couldn’t find anyone. “Who is that?” he yelled. The voice didn’t answer; instead it said the same thing. “Cut the rope and you will be fine.”

The climber was perplexed. He was too scared to cut the rope. He tried to listen more but the voice was never heard again. He finally decided to ignore it. He spent the night suspended in freezing air, waiting for daybreak. The next day, people whom he was supposed to meet looked for him. They found him hanging, frozen to death, and only two meters above a steady rock. Had he cut the rope that night, he would have been saved.

The morale of the story is simple: listen to God’s will and you will turn out fine, do the opposite and hardships will surely follow, because after all God’s ways are not your ways.

In life, we are often faced with difficult options. They don’t usually concern ethics (which will surely make them somewhat easier to decide upon, such as to kill or not kill), and they are important to us. Work problems, love problems are the commonest issues that usually involve this kind of options. Should I work here or there? Should I take a risk with her or go? Most often, there is no morally right or wrong value in these choices. They’re just options, and yet they affect us deeply. That’s why they are so hard to pick.

Dealing with such a situation, we may wonder what God’s take is on the matter. We may pray for Him to show His true will. We want His guidance. Just like the morale of the story, we don’t want to pick the wrong option, the wrong decision, the way He doesn’t want us to take. We refuse to be brought down to a path that leads us to bad consequences. We need the correct answer.

I used to think the same way, but for the last few years I’ve grown further and further away from the concept. The reason stems from my own personal experience. Unlike the story, the voice of God in my life, if there is any, has never been clear. He has never truly uttered a single word in my heart. Perhaps it is my fault, perhaps I sin too much or I don’t open my heart big enough, but still I have to admit that my questions usually go unanswered. It’s just like what the guy from the film The Island says when a clone questions about God: “You know—when you want something really bad and you close your eyes and you wish for it? God’s the guy that ignores you.” I don’t know what He wants. I’ve never heard Him say it. Sure, there are a lot of signs everywhere, but sometimes they so contradict each other that I start to think that they are products of my own imagination. The voice of God is the sound of silence. I often feel lost and don’t know which way to go. And it is that kind of thought that used to make me very scared. I often thought, “If I’m a bad sheep who’s not able to hear His will, then how will my life go?” I feared that I would make a lot of wrong decisions and thus my life would be miserable. Had I just been able to hear Him, I would have gladly done what He said, but the fact was I couldn’t.

The experience drove me nuts until I decided to develop my own subjective truth. The story may be right for someone lucky enough to be able to hear God’s voice, but it is definitely not right for me. I even start to think of it as rubbish. The idea of God as a powerful being who likes to play guessing games with our happiness as stakes sounds ridiculous for me. I may not know who or what He actually is, but that seems a bit low... and off. The story stands on an assumption that life can only be good if it is done according to God’s will, and it can only be bad if it is not, while the will itself is a mystery. People who believe it and obviously don’t want to live a bad life will desperately try to uncover the mystery, regardless of its plausibility, and live accordingly. But what is good or bad anyway? I don’t believe that that's the way life runs. Any kind of choices can lead to any kind of consequences. Good choices don’t always make good consequences, bad choices don’t always make bad ones, and even a single choice can have various consequences at the same time, good and bad. Good things and bad things happen to anyone regardless of their choices. Everything is almost as if it is made out from chaos. Such a chaotic notion contradicts what the story’s trying to say. You cannot expect to find God’s will to make your life all good and happy. Bad things will always happen. Perhaps the whole point is not to guess which option is the one that God really wants. Perhaps it is about choosing one anyway and accepting all consequences that follow. Perhaps that’s also the reason why God always sits in silence no matter how hard I ask. God’s will is never really found standing behind the right option. Instead it stands with us - the persons who are trying to choose, willing for us to pick an option, live through it, and grow from learning to deal with anything that comes after.

When I first saw Fast & Furious: Tokyo Drift, I liked what the character Han told the character Sean. He said, “Life is simple. You make choices and you don’t look back.” The statement is an oversimplification. Letting go of the past is never simple. But still I think it aims at a good point. Life is not about making the right choices, because sometimes there are none. It’s about living anything we choose. Good things may happen and so may bad things. But we try to go through them anyway, making up answers as we go. Perhaps, only then will God’s will truly be served (if He did will us to grow and not just guess correctly because correct options didn't exist anyway). And perhaps, only then will our prayer turn into what the character Maria in the film Sound of Music says. It is not “God, show me the correct path so I can be all happy”, it is “For what we receive, may the Lord make us truly thankful.” I think now all I can say to myself is just, "Pick a choice, live through it." If God does exist and is as loving as everyone says, He will be there all the time with me while I grow through the consequences.

Yogyakarta 11

2011-09-04T13:17:00.005+07:00

There were a couple of highlights:
- at one time, most of the family sat down together and painted (too bad I didn't take pictures of the paintings)
- we went to Kuwaru Beach, which was beautiful... and also eerie when fog descended and covered the whole place
- and, I got to meet my newborn nephews (there were two of them)

Happy times :)

The Third Thing

2011-09-04T03:20:00.013+07:00

Once there was a guy who had had enough with women who kept saying, “Men love women because of their physical appearance. The prettier the women are, the more love the men give.”

The guy happened to have a beautiful girlfriend whom he loved very much.

So when on a dinner a female acquaintance mentioned the same thing, he just couldn't take it anymore and stood up.

“There are three things that I want you to remember!" he shouted.

"First, those who can choose physical appearance because they are secured and independent are definitely not worse than those who cannot because all they ever care about is to be loved, no matter where it comes from!

Second, most women fall into a trap of thinking they can only be picked! The reason the idea stands is only because it comforts and assures them that they will all eventually be picked!”

“And third,” he slowed down as he pointed his finger at the beautiful girlfriend.

“The reason I love her and why she stands out so much...
is because she's among the few who doesn’t give a damn about the first two things.”

I always think that a great woman is carefree. She’s larger than life, and definitely larger than insecurities or cheap dramatic ideas served only for comfort.

So yeah, I’m not telling the story because I’m a misogynist.

I’m telling it because I’m a feminist.

A Good Night

2011-08-20T03:28:00.005+07:00

Let me write this just for the sake of it.

In the midst of cold air and warm feeling,

I just had a g...

...great night.

I Want Money, a Whole Lot of It

2011-08-14T17:56:00.005+07:00

There's a time in every weekday when I close my eyes and shut the world outside. The time varies but the place is always the same. It's a street right beside Jatinegara market. As the bus that takes me home passes it, I will be found cowering, eyes tight until I'm sure I'm well off the place.

I never have the guts to see,

not with all the horrid torture that's going on.

Ever since I was a child, I've always hated the characters in the movies who do nothing but shut their eyes when someone close by is getting hurt. They even cry sometimes, although of course it doesn't mean squat in the eyes of the victim because the hurt is still on. It only makes it a selfish action. The cowards only care about their own feelings. Even if their hands are tied up, the least they can do is watch and be there for the victim, all the way, sharing the pain.

Obviously, I'm just as bad as the cowards. And that's why it kills me to write this. Because I know that none of it is going to make a difference anyway. It's no better than shutting my eyes tight, like what I have always done in the bus. The only thing that can change anything is money, and my pockets are as empty as a eunuch's underpants.

But, I'm still writing it anyway.

I guess at the very least, I have some hope that it will remind me of what I have to have. I want money, a whole lot of it. Maybe by then, only by then, will the monkeys, birds, cuscuses, rabbits, fishes, and all the poor creatures feel any difference.

Although of course, my heart hopes for a time a lot sooner.

A lot, lot sooner.

Encounters

2011-06-25T00:18:00.009+07:00

Jean-Paul Sartre, the French philosopher, didn't believe that we could truly meet someone.

Sometimes I believe him.

Afterall, we are independent beings cut off from the world. What we know for sure is only our very own existence. I cannot tell with the same confidence other people's thoughts and feelings, and I never will.

And again, how could we?

Everytime I meet someone, I don't truly meet him. All I meet is what I assume of him in my mind, and so does he. We may both meet in flesh, but we never truly face each other. All we ever face is our own assumptions.

We never perceive through anything but our own existence. We are private beings, dettached from each other. There's no one in our hearts to talk to, only our voice. Other people, no matter how close they are, remain objects to us. We spend our lives by ourselves. We are truly alone.

Sartre was right.
Truly meeting someone is impossible.

There are other times when I don't believe that, though.

One is when I watch this TV commercial.

Contrary to what I wrote above, stories of encounter, just like the ad, interest me. I guess in part it's because they remind me how at times I do feel in sync with someone, even when I realize that the other part is my own wish of not wanting to believe in Sartre's words.

Either way, people do meet.

Sometimes, they may even take a higher level, just like the commercial. Its characters violently contradict Sartre's words. Not only is the male shown not knowing who he is, he also only succeeds in doing so after looking at himself through the female's eyes.

He finds himself through the eyes of someone else.

Ain't that grand?

A simpler, yet richer encounter can also be found in the film Before Sunrise (yep, that movie again). The characters Jesse and Celine blatantly mention it when they talk about losing oneself.

Jesse & Celine at the Park

Jesse: Oh, yeah. Yeah. I know what you mean about wishing somebody wasn't there, though. Its just usually its myself that I wish I could get away from. Seriously, think about this. I have never been anywhere that I haven't been. I've never had a kiss when I wasn't one of the kissers. Y'know, I've never, um, gone to the movies, when I wasn't there in the audience. I've never been out bowling, if I wasn't there, y'know making some stupid joke. I think that's why so many people hate themselves. Seriously, its just they are sick to death of being around themselves. Lets say that you and I were together all the time, then you'd start to hate a lot of my mannerisms. The way, uh, the way every time we would have people over, uh, I'd be insecure, and I'd get a little too drunk. Or, uh, the way I'd tell the same stupid pseudo-intellectual story again, and again. Y'see, I've heard all those stories. So of course I'm sick of myself. But being with you, uh, it made me feel like I'm somebody else. Y'know the only other way to lose yourself like that is, um, y'know, dancing, or alcohol, or drugs, and stuff like that.

Celine: Fucking?

Jesse: Fuh... Fucking? Yeah, that's one way, yeah.

And again in numerous ways in the film Before Sunset, one of which is this powerful scene.

Jesse & Celine Embrace

Lastly, just like what Celine said above, a scene from the film Meet Joe Black also reminds us of such an encounter.

Love Scene in Meet Joe Black

So,
can people truly meet?

I certainly hope so.

Although ironically, and also obviously, it seems we are only able to do that exactly when we lose ourselves and stop being subjects anyway.

Well, as long as we get the chance of experiencing and remembering it, you won't have the slightest objection from me.

Double Stupidity

2011-06-21T21:37:00.003+07:00

South Korean troops mistakenly shoot at Asiana Airlines jet
Reuters, SEOUL

South Korean marines fired rifles at a South Korean commercial aircraft flying near the sea border with North Korea, thinking it was one of the North’s jet fighters, but they never hit their target, military sources said yesterday.
The shooting illustrates the level of tension between the two Koreas, still technically at war after the 1950-1953 Korean conflict ended in a truce rather than a peace treaty, which came close to all-out war last year.
A Republic of Korea (ROK) Marine Corps spokesman said two soldiers guarding an island on the waters off the South’s western city of Incheon fired their K-2 rifles for about 10 minutes at around 4am on Friday.
The plane was later identified as an Asiana Airlines Airbus A320 flying from China making its descent into Incheon International Airport.
A South Korean defense ministry source said the plane, carrying 119 passengers and crew, was undamaged as it was about 500m to 600m out of the range of the handheld K-2 rifles.
Yonhap news agency and other local media said the soldiers believed the plane was flying north of the normal air corridor. Asiana officials told the news agency the plane never left its scheduled course.
“We checked yesterday through the air force and the airport control center to make sure there were no abnormalities such as being off course,” Yonhap quoted a company official as saying.
An airline official confirmed the plane was an Airbus A320, but made no other comment.
Yonhap and other news reports quoted ROK Marine Corps officers as saying troops would undergo thorough training on how to identify civilian aircraft. Airlines will be asked to ensure their planes do not deviate from set courses.
The North denies responsibility in the sinking in March last year of a South Korean warship and says it was provoked in the second incident, the shelling of the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong after the South test-fired shells into disputed waters.
The two attacks killed about 50 South Koreans.
The North this month rejected a proposal from Seoul for a series of three presidential summits after a secret meeting of officials from the two countries. The North denounced the South’s call for an apology for the two attacks.

I guess sometimes we are graced with two strikes of stupidity that cancel each other out.

Major disaster, avoided.

The Blasphemous Act of Waldjinah

2011-06-13T01:33:00.009+07:00

Waldjinah as Ratu Kembang Katjang, 1958

When Waldjinah, the famous singer, took the stage and sang in the 1960s, the place was always full.
And when Waldjinah, the singer, went down the stage right after, the place was never less crowded.
The people were all waiting for her to do one more act.
She was expected to touch them.

Waldjinah is a legend in the world of Keroncong. She rose to fame in 1958 by winning a radio contest that granted her a record deal. In 1965, she won the President Soekarno trophy while being seven months expecting. Charmed by her voice, the President went as far as giving a name to the yet unborn child. Kris Biantoro, the famous all round entertainer, also loved her voice, calling her ‘Meteor dari Sala’ (‘the meteor from the town of Solo’).

It was also the same voice that kept the people in their place. They were so deeply captured by it, that they even considered her touch as grace. The pregnant women wished that it would grant their child power to sing, while the mothers with sick babies hoped that it would bring out health. Waldjinah would gladly answer their hopes, touching them one by one before eventually leaving the place.

Had this interesting thing happened 50 years later, it would have been considered a blasphemous act. Especially when we put in mind how the country is now filled with people whose god is so weak that it has to be chosen all the time and put in a constant contest with its own creations.

Thankfully, it didn’t.

It happened in the time when people lived with a very different set of values.
It happened in the time when people wanted their offspring to have a knack for things that, profit-wise, questionable.
It happened in the time when people were able to appreciate the most subtle-and-easily-fall-to-boring-in-nowadays-standards-things, such as Keroncong.
It happened in the time when people were closer to God, in a much more profound way that involved mundane things, than wearing specific attire or screaming some exact words.
And in such a time, Waldjinah shone like a crack in the skies. Through her voice, people were readily taken away, brought to a transcendent connection with the Absolute itself. Simply, when people saw her sing Keroncong, they felt God.

So, surrounded by this kind of beautiful blasphemous realization, the people earlier did what their heart told them to do. They waited for her and asked her to share some crumbs of that once felt connection left.
“Touch your hand to me and my baby, and everything is good,” they said.
Waldjinah humbly answered their hopes, touching them one by one before eventually leaving the place.

Seeing in Retrospect and Saying, "Aw Dude..."

2011-05-21T22:16:00.024+07:00

I found a journal I had completely forgotten writing a few days ago. It's only got five entries, so no wonder I couldn't remember.

It doesn't change the fact that I was very happy when I found it, however, because I don't keep notes about events of my life very often (even this blog mostly consists of articles, not private writings). So finding it is like having a second chance to relive a particular moment. I mean, you can imagine how much connection you can have by reading your own writing if in daily basis you already relate to writings of people you don't even know.

Anyway, I'm not going to post the five entries here, just two... Well, one and a half, because one is just the cover. The entry was written on August 31st, 2008. To give it some context: I just graduated from med school, didn't have a clue about what to do in life, and it was a day before I went on a road trip with my best friends. There were supposed to be eight of us, but one female friend, that I cared very much, cancelled at the last minute. Her mother and boyfriend at the time told her not to go.

It shouldn't have been a very special case to me. Sure, it's upsetting but people cancel all the time, right? The only problem was, then, I was so engulfed with her situation. She hated her boyfriend, while her strict mother worshiped him. Obviously, I responded the way an unstable man in his mid-twenties would. I acted like a passionate hero.

Clearly, this ended up with a disaster, a whole year of it as a matter of fact. However, it also spawned a lot of good other things. What happened next was one of the reasons I started this blog, although the aftershocks, which were definitely not smaller in scale, hit me so hard that I left it for a good four months in 2009.

All in all, the journal gave me back a piece of memory I didn't know I still had, about a moment right before a great fall. And now, looking back from the safe and understanding future, I just can't stop saying to myself, "Aw Dude... You don't know what's coming to you."

Damn, I was off back then. :)

Slapsgiving: an Interesting Sunday Mass Sermon

2011-03-09T19:30:00.008+07:00

Matthew 5:38-48 (New International Version)
Eye for Eye
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Love for Enemies
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

This is a long overdue post, based on a sermon I heard weeks ago.
But in my opinion, it is still worth to write.

The priest opened the sermon by referring to the latest headline at the time, the occurrence of some religious persecutions in Indonesia. He said that it was hard to be a part of the minorities in this country, especially considering how powerless the government was against groups of religious fanatics who were free to roam and wreak havoc in the country, all in the name of a loving God.

“So based on the passage, what should we do?” he asked.

The question was hard, because really, in reality being passive isn’t only impractical, it also seems to be the wrong thing to do. When a parent was asked by the priest if she told her son to do nothing if a boy hit him in school, she understandably answered, “Of course not.”

So what should we do?

The priest said that had we read the passage carefully, we would have found that Jesus had never asked us to stand still and do nothing when people hurt us.

Jesus told us to turn over the other cheek,

which is not the same as doing nothing.

Taking a nonviolent path is different than doing nothing at all (which usually only means repressing all the hurt deep down of our chest). It actually means doing something that will take everyone away from violence, putting everybody’s sights into the unshackling correct perspectives.

Or in other words, it’s an act of turning over the other cheek.

In such an action, the victim stands up, takes whatever evil thing the perpetrator is doing, and declares it right in front of his eyes, WITHOUT adding fuel to the flame.
It is basically an act of unmasking the true face of evil, enlightening the bad guy how he is actually doing a bad thing (or in a more popular term, “the passive aggressive shit” – Celine, Before Sunrise), just like what Réne Girard wrote about Jesus and the crucifixion.
And in the end, hopefully, the perpetrator will be brought to light and come to his senses.

And the religious persecution?
Well, in such a case, the priest asked us to do the very least thing we can do.

SPEAK UP!

With every religious persecution that comes, we have to speak up about it.
Ask the people around what they think. Do they really think it is right? Do they think it is something that can be looked over?

Only by speaking up, will religious persecution become an issue. And only by making it an issue, will it not so easily go away. Speaking up will enlighten people that it is not something that can be taken for granted. Religious persecution is wrong, and people DO have the rights to choose and practice their own religion.

Regardless of whether such an interpretation is biblically correct, I think the idea is intriguing. Being passive to harm doesn’t solve anything. It traps the victim in a state of constant hurting and the perpetrator in a state of bleeding frenzy. Freedom of both parties from the circle of violence can only be achieved by an exaltation of awareness. And awareness, as well as the end of the whole issue of slapsgiving, starts with the two words this post is trying to do, SPEAK UP!

All Lovey Dovey in Hastily Speedily

2011-03-07T23:20:00.026+07:00

A week ago, I was having a discussion with some friends about the act of marriage when two questions came up.

What is your take in love (as in the romantic one)?
and
Does it exist?

This is what I came up.

Years ago, I used to believe everything about it, even its divine attribute, like ‘your soul mate is set in the heavens’, etc, so of course I believe that it exists.

Some time after that, I didn’t believe anything about it anymore. To me, it is no more than our biological tendency as sexual beings that because of our developed minds receives new values, such as friendship, devotion, monogamy, or even an unconditional state (just having the words biological and unconditional in one sentence alone does feel a bit odd, doesn’t it?).
That’s why I think love is almost impossible to define, because for the most part it’s filled with make-beliefs that are, of course, subjects of subjectivity.
So, does love exist objectively? Of course not.

But lately, I’ve begun to warm up to it again. My understanding hasn’t changed (I still believe that it’s a hyped up biological tendency), but my reaction towards it is not as harsh and more hopeful.
Does it exist, objectively? My answer is still no.
But does the fact that it exists mostly subjectively mean nothing at all? My answer is definitely hell no.
Now I say, if you believe in it, it exists, and if you don’t, it doesn’t.
The make-beliefs that I didn’t put into consideration before are now playing an important role.
Because if I believe in something, don't my views, my actions, and my whole entirety change according to it?
And if the effects are real, is it still easy to say that what I believe in doesn’t exist?
Perhaps that's the whole point about love. Its reality lies in the way we live the idea.

So consequently:

I don’t think there’s a universal truth about this kind of love. No rules and no guidelines, like ‘if he does this then he doesn’t love you unconditionally’, or other mumbo jumbos.
Love is much much more personal than I thought, and that’s why I think it is important to find someone who has the same belief about what it is.
The thought shows me how our ability to create our own reality is amazingly vast, which is also the subject of some schools of thought, such as idealism and Buddhism.

And on a more personal note, well, now I get to love again.

The Man Who is My Father

2011-03-05T19:47:00.009+07:00

If there’s one thing I like about growing up, it’s that I get to know my parents better.

As years of my life flip like a calendar, I begin to take a lot of things in the way I see my parents. It almost seems that every now and then I have a chance to do these completely new close-up shots of them that I didn’t even know before. They started out as Mom and Dad, figures of authority who brought me to this reality, but ended up as a dude and a girl who happen to be my parents.

I quite enjoy it.

I don’t know exactly how it happens. Maybe it’s because as I get older, my life and my parents’ start to mirror each other (you’ve got less change when you’re older, right?). But one thing for sure, it always keeps me nailed in place every time I find their old photographs or hear some revealing stories about them, which are curiously always come from someone else.

Over the last few years, I’ve got a lot of stories like that, especially about my father. He is this really really old guy. I’m not talking about his age (which is pretty old too), but about his character. He walks slowly, whines, forgets how to pause or stop when talking, only likes music from his time (which involves a heavy dose of keroncong), doesn’t get current jokes, and is basically clueless about anything with screens.

Believe it or not, this character is almost how I always know him.

However, the stories I’ve heard these past few years gave me a lot of sides to the otherwise simple man. The stories come from the time around his early 20s before he truly met my mother, and I guess that is why they made such a deep impression on me. Not only did they give me some insight about him when he was far younger, but they are also surprisingly relatable (even though I’m definitely not in my early 20s anymore).

Here are some facts I’ve got from the stories:

My mother is not the first person he’s ever loved (perhaps it’s no revelation to anybody else, but I always thought that my parents came into this world already a couple - it’s stupid but hey, that’s how I know them all my life).
The first girl he loved dumped him the moment the world was against them, no matter how hard my father tried to change things.
My father almost became a priest. Had he not moved to Yogyakarta, he would have ended becoming one.
There was a time when my father was a player.
My father started senior high school at the age of 19 because for three years he just didn’t feel like it.
My father once gave a girl a ride home with a borrowed motorcycle without the slightest knowledge about how to ride one. It obviously ended with a crash. Everybody survived.

In short, he was this dude.

I need to remind you though that the second point devastated him and crushed his heart to pieces. He only managed to get through it with the help of his best friends. That’s why they’re still best friends even to this day.

Anyway, I guess the point that I want to bring can all be summarized with a title from a book I’ve never read, supposedly about someone’s father.

The title is My Grandfather’s Son.

Just like what the title says, my father wasn’t always a father. At some point he was just a kid, someone’s son. At one time, especially before he truly met my mother, he was a simple quirk no different than me, faced with the same (if not more) hardships that I have to deal about love, idealism, reality, friendship, money, and well, every single thing there is in life. I still hate the guy sometimes, and we even still have out fights, but nevertheless, the realization lets me respect and appreciate him in a different way.

Although of course, thinking that he was once a cheesy romantic fool is still a lot of fun.

PS: Don’t feel so bad about how devastated he was because of the girl. In the years after, he found a tough, beautiful girl, who also happened to be a painter and a dancer.

But, that is another story. :)

Blackberry: Gallivanting towards Collective Awareness?

2011-02-04T01:21:00.003+07:00

For the past week, I’ve been using the friggin’ device. Apparently my old cellphone couldn’t stand being submerged underwater (along with the handler as a matter of a fact) for a good 15 seconds.

Anyhoo, I wasn’t exactly ecstatic of using it. And the reason was simple. It was too much of a cost for something I wasn’t sure of needing. And of course, there’s also that thing about my obsessive-compulsive tendency which would surely give me a pain in the ass if I ever tried to build a whole new set of meticulously detailed contact list,
which
only a smart phone can give.
Hoh…

Nevertheless…
Here I am now, BBMing (if there is such a term) my fingers off. I haven’t got any problem with my contact list also (since I strategically haven’t started building it).

But, one thing still came out though (and not the bill by the way).
I had a sudden feeling that Blackberry will lead humanity…h (just like how the great General DuGalle used to enunciate) to a state of collective awareness.
Communications… communications… communications…
Everyone’s trading ideas at warp speed.
Presenting… feedback… re-presenting…
Commenting… feedback… re-commenting…
I can’t help but think how I’m entering a hive not unlike a hornet’s nest.
All that idea-ing in unison, creating a super synergy... the collective awareness.

This damn powerful tool unites minds.

It’s cool, isn’t it?
All the super-races in fiction history are built upon collective awareness. You know, the Zerg, the Borg, um… that bald race from Dark City.

However, I think it also made me miss subjectivity.
I miss reading those private journals of secluded, reserved, private, individual minds.
You know, those writings that come out like a diary, prominent in movies in which stories revolve in the 18th or 19th century where people wearing suits or dresses would ink them carefully in a leather strapped note. The common words “I feel…”, “I think…”, “it made me…”, in them always have a different weight to me than the same words in a chat, forum, or whatever article that is primarily meant for the masses. Maybe it’s because such private journals were never written for anyone else, even when they are placed in a public media. They were written for the writers themselves, instead.

So, it’s no wonder to feel all touchy reading such works.

A writing one writes to oneself…

Isn’t that the peak of individuation?
And since I find individuation and subjectivity romantic (also somewhat divine), it only adds to the appeal.

Here’s one example…

As I sit I can still feel my body shaking and my knees bleed through my jeans. Scars of how weak a human being I am. They tell me to relax. They tell me not to think. They tell me to rest. They tell me not to worry. They tell me to just let go. But what am I without my thoughts. What am I without my guilt. What am I without my fear. What am I without my rage. What am I without my doubts. What am I without my anxiety. I still hear footsteps behind my back. I know they're chasing after me.

I found it in a public place, but I guess the thing that matters is to whom the writer writes it.
It makes it certainly different than a chatter.

Anyway, this article, ironically, is not such a journal. Especially if you look upon the first paragraphs.
I guess it’s just like what they say, “When you talk about it, you’re never it,” isn't it?
The true completion of the idea behind this article does not rest here.
It rests in the secret and private places out there.

-excerpt taken from the*ordinaryother-

The Path to Redemption Starts Yesterday... Or Much Earlier

2011-01-21T22:48:00.000+07:00

I'm starting to build my life with true blocks of medicine again, I guess.
I just hope the beauty of ideas doesn't elude me.

Have always been stuck within the two worlds anyway, so why not just have fun with it?
An MD and a jack of all idea-trades.
Kekeke...

Christmas 10

2010-12-30T13:00:00.002+07:00

I was thinking about shooting some Christmas pictures since I was spending the days after in a hotel, but it turned out there weren't many Christmas shingalings.

So, I took whatever things that resemble Christmas.

And after that, I decided to add some more that don't.

I took the pictures during day and night (at some point in nighttime, the light was so scarce that I had to shoot things that either produced light or reflected some, that's why most of the pictures are very dark).

Anyway, merry Christmas!
May we become like Christ in the warmest, loveliest, happiest way mostly possible (cross your fingers). :)

Freedom

2010-12-18T20:48:00.005+07:00

[this is not a note about determinism]

'Cause it's a bittersweet symphony this life
Trying to make ends meet, you're a slave to the money then you die
I'll take you down the only road I've ever been down
You know the one that takes you to the places where all the veins meet, yeah
No change, I can't change, I can't change, I can't change,
but I'm here in my mold , I am here in my mold
But I'm a million different people from one day to the next
I can't change my mold, no, no, no, no, no
- The Verve - Bitter Sweet Symphony

Only 600 miles to the south, there's a vast city. And here you find civilized man. Civilized man refused to adapt himself to his environment; instead, he adapted his environment to suit him. So he built cities, roads, vehicles, machinery, and he put up power lines to run his labor-saving devices. But somehow he didn't know where to stop. The more he improved his surroundings to make life easier, the more complicated he made it. So now his children are sentenced to 10-15 years of school, just to learn how to survive in this complex and hazardous habitat they were born into. And civilized man, who refused to adapt to his surroundings, now finds he has to adapt and re-adapt every hour of the day to his self-created environment. For instance, if it's Monday and 7:30 comes up, you have to dis-adapt from your domestic surroundings and re-adapt yourself to an entirely different environment. 8:00 means everybody has to look busy. 10:30 means you can stop looking busy for 15 minutes. And then you have to look busy again. And so your day is chopped into pieces, and in each segment of time you adapt to a new set circumstances. No wonder some people go off the rails a bit...
- The Gods Must Be Crazy

The things Man does in life: being born, spending 30 years or so preparing to live in Man’s own construct, spending another 30 years or so establishing life in that construct, and finally spending the years left remembering the past and preparing for his demise.

Faced with such a revelation, it is only appropriate if Man asks this question,

“Where is freedom?”

And indeed such a question that is.
Where is freedom in all of these ‘shackles’ Man dares to call proper living?
Does it lie in Man’s release?

I once heard a man answered.
He said no.
Freedom does not lie in Man’s release.
It is not even about the shackles.
Rather, it is the realization upon the shackles’ existence.

I stopped and thought.
What issue was horizontal is now made vertical.
Because freedom is not an unconstrained state, it is a bird’s eye notion.
And every time Man connects with his true self, he’s free.

But I asked the man anyway.
Is it not just a sound gibberish?
Is it not called running away, fantasy of a drawn man defeated by the shackles?

The man said no.
Because in such freedom no Man cowers in his mind,
Man just lives his life differently.
Freedom alters Man’s way of being, his existence is now anew.
Stand tall to the skies Man does, on ground his feet still true.

I’ve never believed the man.
But I’ve never stopped wanting to.

Nietzsche and the WWE

2010-12-03T08:48:00.019+07:00

Friedrich Nietzsche

What do Friedrich Nietzsche, a famous 19th century philosopher, and the World Wrestling Entertainment have in common?

It’s the same preferred morality.

If you watch the WWE, you’ll see that it has a different standard about what’s good and bad compared to general perception. Its good guys aren’t exactly the most humble, pitiful, or sympathetic people. They are, in fact, evil and arrogant sons of a gun; literally no different than its bad guys on that matter.

So how do we tell them apart?

It’s by looking at what they’ve actually got. The good guys are the ones who have what it takes to back up their attitude. The bad guys are the cowards who don’t even stand a chance in a fair fight.

Or in other words, the WWE’s morality is about power.

In his work, On the Genealogy of Moral, Nietzsche mentions a similar morality. He divides morality into two, the master and the slave. The master sees things as good or bad. The good is the strong, courageous, and noble, while the bad is the weak, coward, and petty.

Unlike the master, the slave sees things as good or evil. The good is the humble, pitiful, and sympathetic, while the evil is actually the master’s good: the strong, courageous, and noble.

The strange pick for evilness can be explained by an account on how history really unfolds.

Long time ago, the world was ruled by the masters. They flourish through the means of the good: strength, courage, and nobility. The slaves envied them, and realizing they would never have what was considered good, they formed their own morality. It was the exact opposite with a twist. The master’s good was now not only considered bad, but, in fact, evil; making the slave morality about good and evil instead of good and bad.

At one point, the slaves managed to take control, and the masters were kicked out of their reign. The slave morality began to slowly spread. In the end, it even managed to cover the whole world (marked by the fall or Rome and the spread of Christianity which is actually the slave morality).

Nietzsche resented the morality shift. He preferred the master morality, which was about the will to power, rather than the slave one, which prevented the growth of man by teaching weakness, brutal equality, and prohibition to ingeniousness, or basically how to live like a herd.

Even now as we speak, we see that this kind of morality still dominates the world. Many times, in order to be good, we have to lower ourselves and cut our potentials, don’t we? If you don’t believe me, just try to stand out and see how much hammered you will get.

Well, unless of course you are a WWE wrestler.

In that case, people will absolutely cheer for you.

Bekasi Boys

2010-12-03T06:04:00.004+07:00

The most impossible computer generated internet ad...

Oh really?

The Search of Reason

2010-11-26T10:45:00.008+07:00

This article took weeks to reach its current state, which is only one-third (it still has a proper ending though).
To date, one of the hardest to write, perhaps due to it being somewhat holistic.
Don't know when it'll be finished. I've got a ton of papers to write.
One thing though, this whole 'writing a more serious philosophical-ish article' thing is not bad.

The Search of Reason

Reality

2010-10-19T03:15:00.000+07:00

Infinity times infinity.
No words suffice.

The Omen

2010-10-07T03:41:00.005+07:00

Rain has been pouring heavily for the past few days, putting my neighborhood in a constant threat of flood.

My friends' relationships crumble to dust, leaving a trace of broken hearts.

A friend of a friend's car had a short circuit that broke into a real fire and real smoke.

A series of random unrelated contained events?

Perhaps.
Or maybe it's something else entirely.

Sometimes, the bad things around us happen as a natural and logical consequence of another bad thing,

which is exactly what happens to my world right now.

Yep,

Mr. Frog has come back to town.

Lembang 10

2010-09-25T18:30:00.001+07:00

I took these in Lembang.
I should have taken pictures of natural landscape considering the spot, but my mood was going for objects.
I'm not a photographer (I don't think I can even be called an amateur one), that's why they're mediocre.
However, the experience made me realize how objects could be interesting.
Especially after a friend of mine bought a new camera and a very wide lens. It has a fixed aperture of 1/1.8 I think.
Blah.
This interest must wait.

A Series of Sketchshots

2010-09-25T17:17:00.001+07:00

This is the first time I ever put a sketch of a friend's face on my blog.

The reason for it is because I was planning to make it more than just a sketch.
I wanted to create a group of stills that would display a character's vivid moments, hence make it easier for people to relate even when they didn't know who the character was.
But that was, of course, just a wishful thinking.

Rather than a group of four rectangles, I should have used a group of nine squares.
It would certainly make the job harder (even with the four rectangles, the space to draw the faces became so small that I had to sharpen my pencil over and over again just to get the little details right - and even now, I still think people who know her won't recognize her immediately), BUT it can be solved by using a bigger paper (A3).
I think it would somewhat deliver the message better.

Some other time perhaps.

A BRAND NEW Reflection on Relationships

2010-09-22T22:11:00.015+07:00

I once wrote that a true relationship can only be reached when there is a common ground. The closer the common ground is to our hearts (beliefs, perspectives, what we love), the better it becomes.

In a way, I still believe that.

However, yesterday I found out an interesting take on a SIMILAR subject in a work.
In the work, the writer wanted to determine what really constituted a FRIENDSHIP.
He tried to do this by observing the ones around him.
From his observation, he noticed that people of different nature had good friendships. So, he concluded that differences between the persons involved were the ones that constituted a friendship.
In other words, differences make a relationship work.
Besides, differences give people a chance to complement each other, right?

However, as time went by, he found that people with more things in common also had good friendships, and even at occasions, better than some who didn’t.
This finding put the previous answer in shaky grounds.
Do differences really constitute a friendship? Or do things in common that really do the job?

He gave it another thought,
and finally he was able to reach a conclusion.

He said that what constituted a friendship was the IDEA of friendship.

Or, to recklessly make it easily comparable to what I once wrote, we can also say,

What makes a relationship work is the IDEA of relationship.

The persons involved may be alike, or very different in nature,
BUT as long as they direct themselves to the idea of relationship, it will turn out fine.

So, how does it differ from what we already know? Isn’t it just the same as saying that things in common are the ones that make a good relationship? Isn’t it just the same as saying people who have the SAME ideas of relationship will turn out fine?

Well, it’s not.
The thought has something more to it.
Saying that they have to direct themselves to the idea of relationship is NOT the same as saying they have to have the same ideas of what a good relationship is.

You may now think that I’m starting to talk gibberish here, so let me put it in another way.

In this thought, a relationship is much LESS about reciprocity between the persons involved than what is generally perceived.
A relationship is much MORE about the same state of direction of the persons involved towards the idea of relationship, which stands outside of the persons.

In other words,
In this view, a relationship is always a THREE-WAY connection between both parties involved and an idea of relationship that stands outside and beyond them.
A friendship is actually a condition where two persons (or more) direct themselves to an idea of friendship.
A marriage is actually a condition where two persons direct themselves to an idea of marriage.
As long as both parties keep directing themselves to such ideas and act accordingly, the relationship will turn out fine.
And as long as both parties do not direct themselves to the idea of relationship, their relationship will not work, REGARDLESS of what they have in common or the differences (which give them the chance to complement each other) that they have.

So we see, this single thought radically shifts our views on relationships.
What makes a relationship work is now LESS about the nature of the persons involved, but MORE about how they direct themselves to the idea of it.

It’s not about this…

It’s about this…

At this point, you may ask that, in spite of how interesting this thought is, we’re still left with the question of how much depth can such a relationship reach?
It seems that a good relationship is then all about a task to direct ourselves and not about an honest passion to make a connection.
Will such a relationship be a happy relationship?

I don’t know.
This thought only says about how to make a relationship work, not how we can gain happiness from it.

Again, you may then ask about the definition of a working relationship. Isn’t happiness a must have attribute for a relationship in order to be called working?

Well, all I can say is we must also take into account that how in reality, an idea of relationship is something much CLOSER to us than what the above thought implies. For example, most of us have a clear similar description of what constitutes a good friendship, or marriage. The idea isn’t a mere objective somewhere out there that we have to achieve.
In a way, we have a hint of it in ourselves as a passion that we believe will bring us happiness. As a consequence, the effort to direct ourselves to the idea of relationship is no more a duty than it is a personal passion for us.

Much nonsense?
Perhaps.
It depends on how you see it.

Anyway, this thought, among others, helped the writer to reach ANOTHER thought that shaped what is now known as philosophy and the ethical belief of universal truth, THE THOUGHT OF IDEAS.
The writer’s name is Plato.
Yep, THE Greek philosopher who lived 2,400 years ago, in an age of spears and pottery.
It's amazing how I still consider his visions to be somewhat whimsical, to the point like it's a brand new thing.

God, that makes me feel so stupid.

PS: the writing above is not about platonic love, it is a slightly different matter.

In Greater Sense

2010-09-03T13:31:00.014+07:00

Have you experienced something like this?

There's a well-known saying or sentence.
Somewhere along your life, you suddenly find a much deeper meaning in that sentence, and you begin to see why it is so popular in the first place.
You feel excited, ecstatic about this new understanding that has been revealed to you.
You call your friend, telling him/her about it, hoping he/she will get the excitement that you get.
But you're left disappointed, upset, and frustrated because your friend doesn't see your perspective. He/she is trapped in the popularity of the sentence, failing to see something valuable because it is heard too many times.
So in frustration you say, "No, there's a wholly deeper meaning to it. If you see it, you'll get fired up like I do."
"Okay," your friend says. "So tell me then."
You open your mouth, but lo and behold, you can't find any words to explain it.
And after a while of silence, you have no choice but saying that very same sentence again, no words added or subtracted, only with louder voice.
And your friend replies, "Of course. I know that. It's obvious, isn't it?

Aaargh!
I hate it when it happens.

A couple of days ago, I had it TWO times in a day! One's involving a philosophical idea (not gonna touch it), and one's about Indonesia.

This is what I said.

Indonesia is the largest archipelago nation in the world.

Err...
So? What's the big deal? I've heard it too many times in elementary school, you may say.
However, I've dug up a way to explain what I feel, or at least, an attempt to do it.

Taiwan

This is Taiwan (scale 1:31,250,000).

The Philippines

This is The Philippines (same scale).

New Zealand

This is New Zealand (same scale).

1/4 of Indonesia

And this is, roughly one fourth of Indonesia (same scale).
You can see how extensive the water is.

1/40 of Indonesia

Now, this is a 10 times magnification of the previous picture, so it's roughly 1/40 of Indonesia.

In the picture, you can see 11 visible islands.
Putting it into equation, we're supposed to have only 440 islands, counting off the big islands which will, of course, logically reduce the amount anyway.

However,
Indonesia does in fact, consist of 17,508 islands!
Can you imagine the amount of tiny islands that fill the gap between 440 and 17,508?
It will basically look like cookie crumbs!

Our land mass is like countless cookie crumbs sprinkled over a body of vast ocean.

Try to imagine how many sights like these we have.

Now, try hearing the sentence again.

Indonesia is the largest archipelago nation in the world.

Do you feel any difference?

PS: Happy belated birthday Indonesia. May you always glow with life. :)

Someone to Ignore Me

2010-09-02T10:15:00.026+07:00

I have this female friend.
We barely see each other, and even if we did, we would just drown ourselves in consuming what's on the table in front of us or watching our surroundings.
In a way, she's not a best friend to me, and neither am I to her (I think).
However, I always consider my relationship with her as... something unique.

Why?

Because she's close enough for me to share the deeper things, but not close enough to get me hurt if she doesn't listen at all, which she most likely will.
It's not that she completely ignores me, she hears me, in fact, she listens attentively, it's only that she just doesn't take it all by heart.
Or basically, she doesn't give a shit.

I know how bad it looks, but actually, it can be helpful sometimes.
Especially in times when I feel like my head is going to explode and I'm already jaded of going through every bit of the problem over and over again.
When I decided to talk to her, occasionally, her stance would get to my perspective.
I would come to realize that the once-larger-than-universe-problem was something that didn't deserve my full throttle attention and worries.
Cool, isn't it?

Yeah well, anyway, I don't recommend doing that to your friends who desperately need you though.
You can turn up gambling for your friends' life for all you know.

**V*

2010-09-01T14:04:00.006+07:00

You asked me if I did.

Yes Doll, I do.

I can't find better words.

Miss Indonesia Qory Sandioriva’s Interview in Miss Universe 2010

2010-08-26T01:03:00.043+07:00

Being a woman, what piece of advice would you give to a man?

I think that when you downed the women can make you up and(s) I think that women can be said they I have advice for you that (em) if you way up you have to be nice to people (ex) (e) include women so when you downed women can be [clap] nice with you.

What is the best gift you have ever received?

The best gift somebody ever given to me is the one(d) box but (e) the character is is not a good or beautiful but it’s it it have a sounds a beautiful sounds that makes me love music.
I love music now and (um) now I’m a singer and I’m study at a singer for jazz (um) for classical and of course for pop.
That is (e) makes me know what I want to do.
That makes me know what I love it what that makes me know (um) what jobs or what kind (e) activity that I love it. [clap]

What is the worst date you have ever been on?

In one restaurant and that is the day is that I know she (eh) he is a playboy so (eh) he he have a three girlfriend like (e) include me. But before that I know that they have (e) more than one one hundred girlfriend [small laugh].
It’s very bad but I know but it’s the good is now he always care for me care not be a best friend for me and he always protect me don’t please Qory don’t like me, don’t don’t don’t same like me, you you are a nice girl, you are-
So he never touch me like a you know like a playboy but (um) he always (um) make comfortable in beside her and (um) yeah it’s very bad bad [small laugh] bad day but (um) he inspiring me to be a tough woman.

-transcribed by hub-

I'll post a note later.

UPDATE

(due to certain developments, I am obliged to add something blue to my previously planned writing)

From the above paragraphs, what do you see?

If you see a beautiful dumb girl speaking in broken English humiliating our beloved country, then I suggest you bear these things in mind:

- Qory Sandioriva is barely 19 years old. I can’t remember of achieving something special now when I am in my 27th year, let alone when I was in the same age, which I believe is also the case with A LOT of people.

- Miss Universe is the largest beauty pageant in the world. You can imagine how intensely nerve-wrecking it is, being judged from every possible angle and at every second without a break. I doubt anyone can handle that.

So if you’re going to say something pointless, baseless, and unnecessarily harsh, please think it over. It’s just drop dead idiotic and rude.

Now, let’s get on with it.

First, language problems.

The first thing that came to mind when I first saw the video on Youtube was of course, her broken English. I thought it was bad.
From the comments, however, I could see that some people still tried to defend her by supporting bahasa Indonesia and regarding English as not that big of a deal.

I can see the logic behind their defense. Besides, English is only a language among tens of thousands of languages in the world, right?

Well, actually no. I deeply believe that English IS the language of the world, or at least, world affairs. It is the language most used internationally.
So, on a world stage, I think that a proper use of English is appropriate.
I don’t know what caused Qory Sandioriva to fall to such a disaster (she basically spoke bahasa Indonesia using English words). I can only assume, considering she is after all the winner of Putri Indonesia 2009 and supposed to be fluent in English, she was deeply stressed and nervous.

So if that was the case, why hadn’t she used an interpreter?

Now that remains a mystery to me. The organization that sent her had to know the competition’s suffocating atmosphere and how it could break anyone, and Miss Mexico won even though she used one. So why not using an interpreter?
I guess we may never know.

But, the thing that I find more interesting is the rude comments posted on Youtube by fellow Indonesians themselves. Some of them were written in English, and, as you may have guessed, most of which were equally troubled.
So now basically, you’ve got someone with broken English on one side, and her own countrymen with the exact same problem insulting her mercilessly on the other side.

Now, isn’t that just plainly… sad?

Especially when you’re considering the fact that Qory Sandioriva was on the face of recording cameras and intimidating judges at the time, while the commenting people were on the safe protection of their quarters.

But I guess that’s just how Indonesians are. We insult easy targets to make us feel better.

Second, her very answers.

Some people think that had she used an interpreter, her answers would have been better.
I think they probably would, but not much. To tell you the truth, the ideas behind her answers were not that good.

On the first question (being a woman, what piece of advice would you give to a man?), she basically answered, “Please treat us (women) kindly, because when you feel down we can comfort you, and if you don’t, we won’t.”

Now, what kind of an answer is that? She implied that women’s role were only to comfort men, and that they should be respected according to the sad role. I sense a lot of feminists will be offended by this statement. The fact that the competition was held in a country that supported feminism only made it worse.

On the third question (what is the worst date you have ever been on?), she mentioned a relationship with a man who had had 100 girlfriends before her and how he was basically a nice guy who always supported her. I can’t say anything other than her answer was politically incorrect. Again, in a competition which is held in a country that tried to support women, you can’t say good things about such a degenerate man. It will be more tactical to show that you are a tough woman regardless of what any man has done to you.

So, I totally get the people who cried for a better representative for Indonesia, someone who has better ideas that will fit nicely to how westerners think, someone who has a real chance of winning.
Even though, after giving it another thought, Qory Sandioriva was actually the perfect representative for Indonesia. Based on my personal experience, the ideas she shared through her answers correspond nicely with the ideas people have right here, especially surrounding feminism, don’t they?

Well, in the end I just want to say that despite everything, she has tried her best to stand for Indonesia in a suffocating nerve-wrecking environment, a feat that I believe not many of us ever did.
So be gentle and keep that in my mind when you put out your own criticism.

Perpetuum Jazzile!

2010-08-24T00:42:00.001+07:00

This is a performance by Perpetuum Jazzile.
It's a Slovenian jazz and pop choir. They often do a Capella, such as in this cover of Toto's Africa.
Watch out for some 'rains in Africa'! It blew my mind away. :)

The Fasting I Believe

2010-08-19T21:44:00.026+07:00

I believe fasting is a free chosen act of soul searching, in which you deliberately place yourself in a deprived situation, which usually revolves around meals and sex, in hope of finding new insights about pain, self-limits, willpower, or even something of a spiritual origin, whether you believe it's something God puts you to do or not.

I believe fasting is something very private and personal, of which you are truly alone, connecting with your true self and the spiritual world.

I believe fasting is a matter that resides in your heart, where the planes of physical, mental, and spiritual realms collide in a harmonious chaos that is YOU.

I believe fasting is not an act caused by fear for all punishing and wrathful God, so much that you always feel threatened and ask everyone else to help you accomplish the task by limiting themselves according to your desire.

I believe fasting is not something you can take your pride from, and in arrogance empowered by the masses, used to go rampage in violent destruction, forcing anyone into closing their businesses and bowing down to your restrictions, even when they don’t share the same faith, which is easily described by a popular-seemingly-harmless-actually-troubling-saying, ‘respect the people who are fasting’.

(this does not say that I don’t respect anyone who is in the middle of a fast, it’s just they don’t get to ask me that, let alone command it)

I believe fasting is not a matter of changing the outside world to match your inner child’s spoiled desires; a thing that is apparent in situations such as the annual increasing amount of delicious food types for sale, ironically right at the time of fast, and the rise of appeals to the local government to close all food joints during fasting hours.

in short,

I believe fasting is an act of seeing inside,

and not of judging outside.

May the fasting we all do, bring us nothing but good things.

Cyn Says

2010-08-17T18:20:00.019+07:00

Cyn is one of my closest friends.
She is this cheerful innocent sprite of a girl and you can see no evil in her.

A couple of days ago, I called her and we talked a lot.
At one moment I explained my opinions surrounding feminism to her.
I said that women, especially in this country, had their heads imprinted with an idea that they could not become a real woman without getting married, thus making their true existence only to become a wife.
“Feminism tries to free women from this false idea,” I said. “It basically says women have the options to pursuit more dreams. They too can change the world instead of just trying to get married.”
Upon hearing this, Cyn said with her signature spritely childish voice, “I am a feminist!”
“Oh, really?” I replied. “And what kind of big goals you have other than getting married?”
“I want to finish reading Madame Wu!” (It is a book she was reading then)
“Uh-huh? What’s so big about that?”
“Of course it’s big,” she said. “It’s something only myself can do. Nobody else can do it for me.”

I remember that her answer silenced me for a while.
It reminded me of the very-private-very-personal-actions.
You know, the actions we do specially for ourselves and influence us firstly and mostly.
Things that nobody else can do for us.
Learning, understanding, experiencing, reading, everything first hand…,
or basically...
the very subjective things,
the opportunities to realize, see everything, and incorporate them profoundly in our souls,
and the only moments when we can truly grow.

Yeah, Cyn was right.
It’s REALLY...

big.

I Will Read Your Mind!

2010-08-16T04:22:00.010+07:00

Yes, you got me right.

Through this ordinary blog, I will scan your thoughts and see the depths of your soul.

All you have to do is look closely at the screen and focus.

Don’t try to transfer your mind to me, that’s my job.

Just simply open it, and let me in.

OK, are you ready?

Focus...

Relax...

Breathe...

And let me in...

...

Mm.. yes I can definitely see it.

...

Yes, it’s so vivid.

...

And STOP!

I’m done.

You want to see what I’ve got?
Here it is.

You have a great need for other people to like and admire you.
You have a tendency to be critical of yourself.
You have a great deal of unused capacity which you have not turned to your advantage.
While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them.
Disciplined and self-controlled outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure inside.
At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing.
You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations.
You pride yourself as an independent thinker and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof.
You have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others.
At times you are extroverted, affable, sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, reserved.
Some of your aspirations tend to be pretty unrealistic.
Security is one of your major goals in life.

Am I close?

If you find this fascinating, then you are experiencing what is called a Forer Effect.
It is basically a situation where a person feels a personality reading is accurate, while in fact it is vague and apply to a wide range of people.

The observer is Bertram Forer, a psychologist, who in 1948 gave his students a personality test. After the test, he handed everyone their results separately and asked them to score it on a scale of 0 (worst) to 5 (best). None of the students knew that their results were actually the same. The average score turned out to be 4.26, confirming its ‘accuracy’.

Do you want to know what the students read?
You’ve read it.
It is the statements above.

Pretty twisted, eh? :)

This technique is popular among mentalists, fortune tellers, mediums, con artists, etc.
I don’t know if there are real psychics, but certainly fakers exist.

If you still want another example, here’s another one.

You have a box of old unsorted photographs in your house.

Is it close?

Language = Insights

2010-08-16T03:10:00.015+07:00

I’m just starting to learn German by bits.
I had only known three languages before, Indonesian, English, and Javanese (passive).
So here's what I've got so far.

None of them are alike! (mm... yeah, of course they aren't)

First, English.
Two words to define it, short and accurate.
The words are short but accurate. You can always fill a sentence with a lot of words to explain your thoughts, and it will still look simple. The language is a great balance between the two poles, 'hard to master-complex-idea frenzy' and 'easy-simple-ignorance'. It’s good enough for sophisticated talks, and still easy to comprehend.

The difference it has with German (in my humble opinion) is that English emphasizes on verbs and temporal aspects, while German emphasizes on nouns or identity.
Every noun in German belongs to one gender of three (masculine, feminine, and neuter). Keep in mind that I said nouns, not only physical things. So even words like ‘insanity’ has its own gender (which is male by the way). You have to memorize them all.
But that’s the least of your problem.
Nouns in German change a lot. They change according to number, position in a sentence, possession, even level. You’ll know for sure who’s doing what with/to whom and their conceptual positions.
So German is indeed great for ideas, although the inflections are quite a handful.
Is that why so many philosophers come from Germany?

Anyway, Javanese. Yeah, I have to include this one. Hey, you know what they say, “Every Javanese is a chauvinist.”
It is a language of 'rasa' (I can’t find a proper translation, perhaps ‘sense with a taste of depth’). Javanese has a very wide vocabulary regarding senses. It plays with how you feel.
Unlike the English and German, a Javanese word does not bring you to comprehension of the rational ideas, but to participation of a situation. You will feel like you’re actually living the word, experiencing the full sensory input. That’s why it is sometimes hard to translate. And that’s also why, the best way to study Javanese is not through conversation or studying a list of definitions, but through accessing Javanese art works (especially plays).

Here’s an example.
Regemeng.
It basically translates as ‘to sneak around’.
But actually, its full meaning contains these aspects:
- darkness, so much that the proprietor only appears as an uneven black figure
- gigantic form, the proprietor must be incredibly large, and
- suspense and silence, the surrounding nature has to be eerily quite
Can you feel it now?
There’s also renggunuk (gargantuan creature’s gigantic stomps seen from below its belly while it crosses over you), or even ngger (a special-loving-calling word for offspring, different than kulup, nduk, putra, anak, lare, yoga).
So you see, there's a lot of senses in the words.
But I’ll stop being a chauvinist now.

Well, how about Indonesian?
Err…
I have to think more about it.
But for now, I think it’s pretty simple, affixes aside.
So at least it’s quite powerful to unite this multicultural nation.

Anyway, what I’m trying to say is that to know a language is to know its people.
Do you know that there are 21 words for snow in Eskimo?
Yeah, it’s a stupid and superficial example, but it certainly hints a chance to learn the people’s perspective, values, character, and much more, doesn’t it?
When you study a new language, new ideas and perspective will surely barge in.
Mm.. Perhaps that’s what interests a lot of people in the first place.

Am I Gay?

2010-08-13T18:59:00.003+07:00

So pretty…
Damn sexy…

Since she’s very famous, I figure you already know who she is.

Yep, you’re right.
She’s the popular Nong Poy.

Born a male 23 years ago by the name Saknarin Marnyaporn, she underwent sex reassignment surgery at the age of 17.
By the time she was 19, she had won Miss Tiffany's 2004 and Miss International Queen 2004.
Since then, she has appeared in various television gigs.

Keep in mind that beside the sex reassignment, she did not have any other surgery.
So, her looks is completely natural (of course if you put hormonal therapy into the equation).

Anyway, the hypothetical question is,
“If you were in a post-apocalyptic world where there were only you, a real but dead-skunk-ugly woman, and her, and you could only pick one as your mate, who would you pick?”

Err…

NOSTRA AETATE

2010-08-12T15:46:00.005+07:00

A friend of mine once told me why he stayed Catholic. He said that for one, the Church allowed him to freely search for the truth.

He’s got some point.

The Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican (or popularly known as the Second Vatican Council) passed a declaration on 'the relation of the Church with non-Christian religions' in 1965. It is known as Nostra Aetate (Latin, translated as ‘In Our Age’).

What does it say?

Well, you can decide it for yourself.

Below, I’ve included the full document.
If you have the time, read all of it, because it has so many beautiful statements.
If you don’t, just read the highlighted statements, which are the most popularly quoted.

And before you do, I just want to say something.
The Church may have her flaws, but she always tries to grow.
You’ve got to love her for that.

DECLARATION ON
THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
NOSTRA AETATE
PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON OCTOBER 28, 1965

1. In our time, when day by day mankind is being drawn closer together, and the ties between different peoples are becoming stronger, the Church examines more closely her relationship to non-Christian religions. In her task of promoting unity and love among men, indeed among nations, she considers above all in this declaration what men have in common and what draws them to fellowship.

One is the community of all peoples, one their origin, for God made the whole human race to live over the face of the earth.(1) One also is their final goal, God. His providence, His manifestations of goodness, His saving design extend to all men,(2) until that time when the elect will be united in the Holy City, the city ablaze with the glory of God, where the nations will walk in His light.(3)

Men expect from the various religions answers to the unsolved riddles of the human condition, which today, even as in former times, deeply stir the hearts of men: What is man? What is the meaning, the aim of our life? What is moral good, what sin? Whence suffering and what purpose does it serve? Which is the road to true happiness? What are death, judgment and retribution after death? What, finally, is that ultimate inexpressible mystery which encompasses our existence: whence do we come, and where are we going?

2. From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history; at times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even of a Father. This perception and recognition penetrates their lives with a profound religious sense.

Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language. Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.(4)

The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.

3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.

4. As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham's stock.

Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God's saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in Christ-Abraham's sons according to faith (6)-are included in the same Patriarch's call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people's exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles.(7) Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles. making both one in Himself.(8)

The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: "theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church's main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ's Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people.

As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation,(9) nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading.(10) Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle.(11) In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and "serve him shoulder to shoulder" (Soph. 3:9).(12)

Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues.

True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ;(13) still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.

Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.

Besides, as the Church has always held and holds now, Christ underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation. It is, therefore, the burden of the Church's preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God's all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows.

5. We cannot truly call on God, the Father of all, if we refuse to treat in a brotherly way any man, created as he is in the image of God. Man's relation to God the Father and his relation to men his brothers are so linked together that Scripture says: "He who does not love does not know God" (1 John 4:8).

No foundation therefore remains for any theory or practice that leads to discrimination between man and man or people and people, so far as their human dignity and the rights flowing from it are concerned.

The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion. On the contrary, following in the footsteps of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, this sacred synod ardently implores the Christian faithful to "maintain good fellowship among the nations" (1 Peter 2:12), and, if possible, to live for their part in peace with all men,(14) so that they may truly be sons of the Father who is in heaven.(15)
________________________________________
NOTES
1. Cf. Acts 17:26
2. Cf. Wis. 8:1; Acts 14:17; Rom. 2:6-7; 1 Tim. 2:4
3. Cf. Apoc. 21:23f.
4. Cf 2 Cor. 5:18-19
5. Cf St. Gregory VII, letter XXI to Anzir (Nacir), King of Mauritania (Pl. 148, col. 450f.)
6. Cf. Gal. 3:7
7. Cf. Rom. 11:17-24
8. Cf. Eph. 2:14-16
9. Cf. Lk. 19:44
10. Cf. Rom. 11:28
11. Cf. Rom. 11:28-29; cf. dogmatic Constitution, Lumen Gentium (Light of nations) AAS, 57 (1965) pag. 20
12. Cf. Is. 66:23; Ps. 65:4; Rom. 11:11-32
13. Cf. John. 19:6
14. Cf. Rom. 12:18
15. Cf. Matt. 5:45

Epic Fail Videos

2010-08-10T22:02:00.002+07:00

These videos made me want to piss and cry.
Make sure you have your speakers out loud.
Enjoy. :)

You are What You Love: A Reflection on Dreams

2010-08-10T21:24:00.015+07:00

“You are what you love.”

- Donald Kauffman in Adaptation

This is the last time I’ll abuse this quote, and if you still want to read this, you'll have to read the first post first.

In my first post, I describe that you are what you love, and the world plays some part in defining what you love at the very least.

Well, last Sunday I watched this talk show called Kick Andy. There were a couple of guests, all of them accomplished something despite their disabilities.

I’m only going to talk about two of them.

- One man had so small limbs that he couldn’t support himself. He had spent his entire life on a wheelchair without friends. When he had been young, he would have spent all day by himself, listening to the radio. After a lot of hard work and determination, he had his own radio station.

- One woman had been struck by cancer not once, but twice. She had survived both of them. She was a medical doctor, specializing in nuclear medicine.

They are all great fighters, we all know that, and I’m not going to say otherwise.
I just find it interesting that their deepest dreams and desires correlate perfectly with their past emotional wounds.

- The man who was desperate for communications is now the owner of a communications hub – a radio station.

- The woman who was beaten by cancer is now someone who destroys cancers – a nuclear medicine doctor.

It’s amazing how people take the biggest trauma in their lives and make it their purpose to be a 'powerful someone' exactly in that very field, isn't it?
The world DOES shape what we love.

I wonder what trauma I had that gave me this unspecific drive.

You are What You Love: A Reflection on Relationships

2010-08-10T19:56:00.024+07:00

This was meant to be included in the previous post (it’s best if you read it first), but since I felt it was talking about a different thing, I decided to make it a separate post.

Anyway,

“You are what you love.”

- Donald Kauffman in Adaptation

The quote has got me thinking about relationships, and I was finally left with a conclusion.

Your relationship can only work (as in having reached an interpersonal level, and not just basic functional level) if your partner loves what you love.

I’ve heard someone said about her relationship, “We love different things, and it works”, and ‘opposites attract’, but somehow I don’t buy that, well at least not right away.
Why?
Because simply and recklessly, just like what the quote said, if you are what you love, and your partner loves what you love, then he/she basically loves you,
and the other way around.

Let’s take one example.
If you love art, then basically your perception, values, responses, nature, reflexes, even subtle actions are aimed toward art.
If your partner loves art too, not only will he/she share those things I mentioned above, your partner will love them.
Now, aren’t all of them basically and brutally, your true existence, or basically and cautiously, the deeper aspects of YOU?
In other words, doesn’t that mean if your partner loves what you love, then he/she basically loves you?
Why not?
You are brutally the embodiment of what your partner values most, or cautiously, a being that’s aimed to what he/she values most.

And the best thing about that kind of relationship is NOT that you will both have the same exact goals, or the rest of your relationship will be problem free, or even there will be no differing opinions (after all, Man are not one sided).
No.
The best thing about it is that you will always have a true friend.
Both of you will sincerely appreciate each other’s work.
Both of you will share each other’s enthusiasm.
Both of you will know what makes the other party love a particular thing.
And in gloomier times,
no matter how much you hurt each other, you will eventually forget about it, because everyone is able to see what the other party sees.

Without it, it’s likely that both of you will consider each other’s actions, responses, and lives to be a complete nonsense.
You don’t know what's inside your partner's head, and the other way around.
Loneliness is inevitable.

I made it sound like a guaranteed recipe for a successful relationship, didn’t I?
Seek for a partner that loves what you love and everything will turn out just fine.
Well, the fate of a relationship is determined by a lot of factors.
So no, even when you have that, there’s always a possibility that everything doesn’t work out.

But I can guarantee this, you will not lose your friendship.
And isn’t that the most important thing in a relationship?
The ability to share, recognize each other, totally see what makes the other party tick?
The chance to find a friend in the lonely path of life?

Now, what about the different people who have it worked out?
Again, I don’t buy it.
No, I don’t mean the last part (‘work out’), I mean the first part (‘different’).
If what they have REALLY work, then I don’t believe they’re different.

Sure, perhaps the man looks strong, hard, and tough, while the woman is weak, soft, and fragile. He may like everything that is masculine, and she may like everything that is feminine. Perhaps, they don’t even seem to appreciate each other’s favorite things. But they must have a common ground.

For example, they may have a thing for drama.

Perhaps both of them basically see the world as a place filled with dramatic situations and romantic projections. So now, the man who loves the masculine stuff turns into a hero, and the woman who loves the feminine stuff changes into a damsel in distress. They don’t look so different anymore, don’t they? Both of them have become suitable characters in their own romantic story.

Of course, in order to keep their relationship flourished, they must maintain the characters. The woman must be at all time weak, and desperately in need for help, while the man must always be strong and prepared to save the woman. Why not? It’s what brought them together, isn’t it?

This kind of thinking proposes new questions for me.
Is that why troubled couple often feel better when they are with friends, because only then are they both in the same ground, as each other’s partner in the eyes of their friends?
Is that why it is sometimes hard to maintain a relationship, because in life a person can change, and the end result is someone that doesn’t always fit his/her partner’s idea of life?

I don’t know, and I’m not going to talk about it.

Anyway, all that I have said only applies when you look for an interpersonal relationship. If you’re satisfied with basic functions of a relationship, the matter is far less complicated (mm… of course, shallowness is also a common ground).

In the end, I just want to say that the world can sometimes be a dark place, and it is only natural to want someone who is REALLY on your side;
and I don't mean that just in a physical sense.

You are What You Love: A Reflection on Self

2010-07-30T03:03:00.036+07:00

"You are what you love."

- Donald Kauffman in Adaptation

The quote is powerful, isn’t it? I got it from a blog I found the other day. In just five words, it is able to describe how you see (your perspective upon the world), what you value (everything that matters to you), and why you do (your tendencies, drives, actions); the things that are basically and brutally, your true existence, or basically and cautiously, the deeper aspects of YOU.

Let’s take one example.
A man who loves art is basically an artist.
Why wouldn’t he be?
He sees like artists do, he values what they value, he even does what they do.

Now, you may disagree with me here.
I mean, not everyone who loves art can create a work of art, right?

Well, I never consider the ‘do’ part as merely churning out masterpieces, but as something more intangible, the way he responses to beauty, how he naturally brings himself, his reflexes, and subtle actions. He may not be able to paint well, sing, or whatever a fine artist does, but he stays longer from anyone else in front of a beautiful view, he stares at paintings, he listens to music deeply, he appreciates beauty.
The same can be said upon other things. A person who loves to teach is basically a teacher, they who love to seek are basically seekers, and so on.

So if what we love defines who we are, what actually defines what we love?
I don’t know.
God, maybe? Perhaps we’re just born with it.
Or perhaps it’s the world and our life in it, which I deeply believe to be playing some role at the very least.

You may perceive all of this as a no-brainer, something that is too obvious, but you have to understand that it’s not that easy for me.

In all of these years, I have come to believe that the world is nothing but an illusion, a construct of the mind.
Man, to me, is a kind of creature with Godly potentials. They have the chance to become the Absolute itself. The only thing that keeps them from it is their attachments to things that aren’t actually real. So if you ask me who we are, I will say 'we are great beings who forget who we really are', rather than simply 'we are what we love'. Most people are trapped in things that look real but don’t really last.

What is wealth if not a way to acquire things you mostly don’t need?

What is success? An achievement? Well, what do we achieve? Financial security? A chance to prove ourselves? For what?

Why helping people out of their problems? Is it a must? We don’t even have a clue. Maybe their problems are exactly what they need in the first place. Maybe all we would do is adding more damage.

What is a friendship? Isn’t it just a contract to do what the other party expects in exchange for love?

And what is love if not an ancient process still embedded in the parts of our brain that have yet to evolve, originated from our state of sexual beings, and filled with dramatizations to conceal its true form? I mean, come on. The one? Love at first sight? The best thing we can get is a good friend who’s open to sex and willing to make a contract of mutual limitations. Will it be a one time thing? No. Will you be attracted to someone else? Yes. Will there be hardships? Hell yes. The problem with romantic movies is that they don’t usually display the boredom that accompanies day to day relationships.

I can go on and on talking about how I tend to see things as illusions, but I believe you’ve got my point. So now you know why saying that the world defines who we are is something big for me. How can this illusion defines the true essence of me? If there’s anything to it, it will be discarding the illusion and find my true form.

Nevertheless, here I am.

I guess it’s because in time I begin to learn more and more that the world is not merely an illusion. Sure, what we perceive of the world is basically constructs of the mind, but there is some reality in it. The constructions, whether they’re social or personal, may not be real, but the process beneath them is.

This world may be a dream, but the fact that I’m dreaming is not.

Maybe the mountain I see is not real, but the process of me thinking that I see it, is real.
Moreover, the thing, whatever it is, that provokes me into thinking that I see what I see is real too, because the change (which is me) is real.

It sounds a bit like jumping to conclusions, I know, but the bottom line is the world is real. Our constructions may not be, but the world is. The world has some value. Our life in it does. They are relevant.
That’s why it’s no wonder the world has some part in defining who we are. We are indeed shaped to be what we are in this reality.

Furthermore, if you’re being and doing what you love, won’t by then your being and your doing be free from interests, gains, or anything that will corrupt them? You’re being it because you are it, you’re doing it because you do it, the prime reason of all, a cause for itself. Isn’t it an act of true living? Isn’t it the deepest dive into reality?
And maybe, just maybe, in that state of purity and innocence, you will find God. Perhaps only by embracing who you are in this reality (instead of discarding it all together), no matter how ridiculous it maybe (lover, fighter, idea sharer, etc.), can you achieve your potentials and find God.
And regarding the question of who we are above, perhaps only by being and doing what we love devotedly, will we remember the great beings we are.

You are what you love. It’s more than just a statement of identity, at least to me. It’s a statement about truly embracing the world, our life, and who we are in it as a reality, to bring ourselves to God.

No Need for That

2010-07-25T23:07:00.002+07:00

Sometimes I think the reason I don't put too much effort to comfort myself is because I love myself too much to put myself in any kind of trouble that comes from trying to provide comforts for me.

Confusing?
In other words,
me: I'm gonna find something to make you comfortable.
me: Don't bother. I love you even if you don't.
me: Okay.

Pretty weird, eh?

Not a Criminal

2010-07-25T15:02:00.002+07:00

Picture description
- I made this to be used in a poster.
- It's the first time I ever used conte. So now you know why the picture's a f*cking mess.
- When I finished it, and saw that there's nothing I could do to improve it (conte is hard to erase), I found that due to my lack of care, my hands are all black, the floor is black, and even my previous sketches had black stains on them (thank God I've scanned them all).
- Nevertheless, it actually felt good... I don't know why really.
- I'm gonna do better next time.

John the Coward

2010-07-20T00:15:00.005+07:00

John the Coward

Picture description
It's basically an illustration for a short story I made. It's in Indonesian, though.

The First Asian Team to Participate in the World Cup

2010-07-07T08:00:00.002+07:00

Yep, it's Indonesia!!!

Although at the time, it's still under the name of Dutch East Indies (the year was 1938),

Achmad Nawir - Dutch East Indies Football Team Captain

The Game

The Team

and it also got knocked off on the first game 0-6 by Hungary.
But hey, Hungary was a strong team back then and it eventually became the finalist, so the loss is understandable.

I wonder when we can experience that again.

Female Buddha

2010-06-30T09:42:00.006+07:00

This is a sketch I just made.
It's special because it's the first time I draw solely on memory.
(and some guidance from my mother)
Woo hoo!!!

Female Buddha

Picture description
Mm..
It's a female Buddha.

Why did I draw it?
Because I've been thinking about the feminine and the Truth.

That's pretty much it I guess.
If it doesn't look good, try zooming it until it does.
Hehehe...

UPDATE
I made some improvements after Mr. Eagle's input and also added some details on the neck.

My Name is Hubertus!

2010-06-28T01:15:00.003+07:00

Yes, I have quite an uncommon name in Indonesia.
Somehow, people always have a hard time getting it right, and it gets even worse when I say it on the phone.
I’ve been called Robertus, Albertus, or even Petrus.

The best I’ve got so far is Rubertus.

The worst?
Try changing the first letter to ‘P’.

Yeah.
Great.
Pubertus.

Now who the f*ck in their right mind would name their child ‘Pubertus’?!
It's so disgustingly hormonal!
And It didn’t get any better when the woman on the phone who had kindly blessed me with the name kept repeating it like it’s a normal name or something.

Geez..
Some friends of mine call me Hube.
Does it mean if she ever becomes my friend, I’ll be called Pube?

Leaving Your Sins: A Horrible Sunday Mass Sermon

2010-06-28T01:00:00.014+07:00

Luke 9:57-62 (New International Version)

The Cost of Following Jesus

57As they were walking along the road, a man said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go."
58Jesus replied, "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."
59He said to another man, "Follow me."
But the man replied, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father."
60Jesus said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God."
61 Still another said, "I will follow you, Lord; but first let me go back and say good-by to my family."
62Jesus replied, "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God."

In today’s mass the passage was about… well, you can read it yourself. Most sermons I’ve heard about this passage were helplessly chaotic. That’s why I decided to write the sermon I heard today. Guess what? It took on a wholly chaotic way, no different than before or even worse.

I’m not going to drag myself in telling what it was about, for even though it was long, it can only be broken down to these points:
- Jesus asked us to LEAVE OUR SINS behind in order to follow Him
- and if the poor guy who said he wanted to say goodbye to his family first had asked Jesus more politely, Jesus wouldn’t have reacted so hard on him.

So, this mind-opening and strong passage about the dreadful cost of a true search for the Truth (including leaving all attachments to sweet and warm ideas behind) said by one of the brutal-est teacher ever has been reduced to nothing more than a joke about leaving your sins.

And if I may quote something from Shusaku Endo’s most important work, Silence (he actually used it in a slightly different term, but I find it appropriate to use now),

Christ "is like a butterfly caught in a spider's web. At first it is certainly a butterfly, but the next day only the externals, the wings and the trunk, are those of a butterfly; it has lost its true reality and has become a skeleton."

A skeleton...

I hate religions.

The Beauty in Christianity

2010-06-14T01:58:00.018+07:00

One fundamental thing in Christianity is the thought of 'God gives Himself to Man'.

A common interpretation involves Jesus, who is 'God giving Himself to Man', sacrificing Himself to erase the sins of Man and buy them back from evil with His blood.

This thought, as expected, becomes the source of joy for most Christians, because it is considered that even though we are flawed beings, God is willing to go through all the trouble to save us.

Unfortunately, this very thought also tragically destroys the value of creations, especially Man as God’s image,
because creations, in the end, have flaws. We are flawed.
Despite the act of redemption that proves how we are so loved, we are STILL flawed.
We are nothing more than sinful creatures, upon whom God has mercy.
That is our nature.
It cannot change.
We are confined in this tragic destiny.

NOW, the next interpretation comes from a few theologians. Two of them are Karl Rahner (a Jesuit priest), and Thomas Aquinas (a saint), a fact that proves such thought exists and acknowledged within the Church.
I have to point this out because their interpretation empowers the nature of Man, life, and the world.
A thing of usually Eastern spiritualism.

The thought takes the idea of 'God gives Himself to Man' to a deeper level.
By giving Himself, God does not only give Himself just like a husband gives himself to his wife, but He also gives something from His nature.
He gives Man His image.
He gives Man one thing (among others) that constitutes Him as God.
He gives Man the power of being subjects. (see here for further reading)
That's why it is said that 'He gives Himself to Man',
because He TRULY gives HIMSELF.

Or in other words, He gives Himself the way my father 'gives' his nose to me.
There is nothing truly passed between him and I (he doesn't take his nose off and hands it to me).
What he gives is much more subtle than a thing (or even a service, an action, etc.).
He gives his essence, the one that makes him, well, him.
He gives me a part of his identity.
He gives me his image.
And so does God.
That is why Man are always in some way connected to Him, whether they realize it or not.
At all times they have the characteristic of recognizing themselves and their environments.
The subjectivity is always there.
It never vanishes, even though there are degrees of its depth.
We always have His image.

The interpretation still goes further in the form of Jesus.
Through Jesus, God gives Himself more than before by participating in life and the world.
He endured what we endure and He went through what we go through.
God gives Himself in our reality.

So what do we see from this interpretation?
For one thing, the nature of Man is no longer considered doomed.
By giving His image, the nature of Man is certainly exalted.
And if I may quote from the Pastoral Community Bible when it talks about how God created Man in His own image (Gen 1:27),

we are not hopelessly confined to the world of our fantasies and illusions,
we are not prisoners of our own categories and structures, and
we are not condemned to doubt forever.

Our nature is destined for greatness as subjects.

LIKE THAT'S NOT ENOUGH, our reality (life and the world) is also uplifted.
Why not?
God Himself participated in it.
He certainly values it.
Our reality is perfect as it is.
God created the universe and saw that it was good, right?
Our reality (life and the world) must serve some divine purpose.

So, it is no surprise that people who truly see the interpretation above are full of love.
Why shouldn’t they?
All they see are appreciations of Man, life, and the world, as God Himself appreciates them.
There’s no room left for anything else except awe, respect, and love.

We are indeed full of grace,
right from start to end,
top to bottom,
left to right,
filling every corner and gap,
without a spot missed even one.

Come to Think of It...

2010-06-12T04:07:00.005+07:00

The only cooking show on TV which is able to fill its interlude with clips of the chef swimming around aimlessly.
...
And we have no complaints against it also.

Ala Chef - Farah Quinn

Keep it up! :)

Why Kneeling When Praying?

2010-06-11T17:57:00.025+07:00

Karl Rahner, SJ

Yes, it’s a very stupid question.
Most people will just answer, “Does it matter?”

But do you know that the answer of this very question helped Karl Rahner (a respected theologian) explain his solution to one of the hardest problems in theology, the connection between sacraments and grace?

The Catholic Church recognizes seven sacraments (baptism, confirmation, eucharist, penance and reconciliation, anointing of the sick, holy orders, and matrimony). Sacraments are defined as (skip it if you like) "efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us; the visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament; they bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions."
This definition, however, lead to a problem.

- If sacraments are something that make present the grace of God, then they are nothing more than spells or mantras.
The thought considers God’s grace only as something that can be attained in a mechanical way. Go through the rituals and you’ll have the grace; while other people who don’t undergo them don’t.

- But, if sacraments are merely signs of God’s grace that has always been with us the whole time, why bother doing them? We already have it anyway.

The questions contradicted each other, and there seemed to be no answer.
However, Rahner proposed a solution. He said that if we had thought the sacraments as SYMBOLS, the questions would not have sounded too impossible.

Symbols according to Rahner are more than mere signs. We usually define symbol as just something that represents another thing, something that is entirely different than the thing it represents.
According to Rahner, not only do symbols represent something, but they go all the way around and redefine, recreate, and also enable that very something.
He explained it with a few examples.

- A kiss is a symbol for love, but is it only a sign of love that exists between a couple?
No. It is much more than that.
It goes all the way around and redefines, recreates, and also enables the love doesn’t it?
It adds a sense of reality and existence.
It makes present the love.

- Kneeling in a prayer is a symbol for the state of mind and heart, but is it only a sign?
No. It is much more than that.
It enables the state of mind doesn’t it?
It helps the state.
It makes present the state.

So according to Rahner, the questions do not contradict each other after all. If sacraments are symbols of God’s grace, then they are signs of the grace that’s always been there and, at the same time, make present the grace.

It may seem like a kind of theological acrobat or a sort of mind game, I know. I don’t usually believe that theology or philosophy will lead you to the ultimate truth. I think the only way they can do that is by overcrowding someone’s mind until he finds out the meaning of silence. However, I still believe that they have something to offer.
Such as the intriguing idea Rahner used.
No, I’m not saying that you should kneel or stand while you pray, it’s totally up to you.
It’s the idea that something can be a sign and at the same time enables, makes present, or empowers the thing it represents.
The idea made me reflect on things in various aspects.

Is Jesus a symbol of God’s love?
Is that why expressing your love is important?
Are good deeds symbols of an aware love?
Is that why when I'm not really angry but over-express it, the feeling becomes much worse?
Is that why I write? Are my writings signs of what I think and at the same time helps me to truly realize it so that I can understand it better?
Is that what life and living all about? The symbol of 'I'?

Because in a symbol, the thing it represents is presented and declared brutally right in front of our eyes.
Nothing really changes actually, for everything has always been there.
One thing that does change, is our awareness towards it. We truly understand it now.
Or as DeMello once wrote,

"Have you ever heard of a way that brings you to how you already are?"

The chances for soul searching are limitless I guess.
Just as long as we’re careful enough.

Please Farhat Abbas...

2010-06-08T11:02:00.007+07:00

Polisikan Luna Maya, Farhat Abbas Cuek Dihujat
Adhie Ichsan - detikhot

Jakarta Pengacara Farhat Abbas lewat Lembaga yang dipimpinnya, LSM Hajar Indonesia, melaporkan Luna Maya dan Ariel ke polisi atas video mirip mereka yang beredar di internet. Lelaki yang mencalonkan diri sebagai ketua KPK itu pun cuek saja meski dihujat atas tindakannya.

"Kan yang melaporkan atas nama LSM, biar aja kalau ada respon negatif," ucap Farhat saat berbincang dengan detikhot via telepon, Senin (7/6/2010) malam.

Suami dari Nia Daniati itu melapor ke polisi karena mengaku peduli terhadap masa depan generasi muda. Makanya ia tetap melaporkan pelaku serta penyebar video porno yang dirasanya sudah meresahkan masyarakat. Farhat juga tidak peduli jika tindakannya dianggap hanya menumpang tenar.

"Ini bukan tentang numpang tenar, tetapi bentuk kepedulian," tambahnya. Pengacara yang pernah menangani artis Manohara itu juga tidak takut jika sewaktu-waktu dilaporkan balik oleh Luna Maya maupun Ariel.

Sebelumnya, LSM Hajar Indonesia bersama Perhimpunan Mahasiswa Hukum Indonesia (Permahi) melaporkan Luna dan Ariel tentang tindak pidana pornografi dengan pasal 27 ayat 1, UU No. 11 tahun 2008, tentang informasi transaksi elektronik (ITE), junto pasal 282 KUHP. (ich/yla)

Another example that proves education doesn't mean shit here.

- Even though I personally believe the persons in the tape are indeed Luna Maya and Ariel, is it right to report them even though it's still not confirmed that way?
- If it has been confirmed that they are the ones in tape, is it right to punish them? I thought they were the victims? I wonder how Farhat Abbas would react if someone took a picture of him naked in the bathroom, posted it on the net, and had him reported for displaying nudity in public.

Publicity stunt? Overblown self-righteous ego? Morality retardation? Or just plain old raw stupidity?

The Great Scribbles

2010-06-04T03:48:00.020+07:00

Everyone who knows me well can tell right away how’s my attitude towards religion. The word ‘careful’ will be the least powerful term to describe my stance; for most of the time I either hate it, or pay no attention to it.

Yeah, I know that for some people religion is:
- the only way to live life
- the only way to salvation
- the only way to God

Well, I used to think the same way.

But then I started to think that religion is NOT the only way, but rather A way among many other ways.

And now, as I get older, I think religion is NOT the way.

Yep.

Religion along with its scriptures is NOT the way at all.

Why?
I don’t know exactly how to explain myself.

Let me just start with this unfinished-story.

One Zen master went through years of life experience, spiritual learning, and character development before he understood what Buddha was.
When a student of him asked about what he thought of Buddha, he answered,
“Ping Ting went to war.”
(Ping Ting was a war god)

This unfinished-story is flawed, but I hope it can help me explain what I think about religion.
The great founders of religion, just like the Zen master from the story, had gone through various life events and spiritual growth before they found the THING, or you can say the ANSWER, that came to us as religion.
Most of us study what they’ve written or what’s been written about them in an effort to find the answer they had found.
Now, isn’t that, if I may say, misguided?

It’s like toddlers who read a calculus book without the slightest clue of what numbers really are. They will only interpret as funny pictures what the writer of the book meant to be limits, functions, and integrals.

The words “Ping Ting went to war” may be a spot-on remark to describe what Buddha is, but it is as cryptic as it can be for the young minds who haven't experienced what the Zen master had.

So let me ask these questions:
If religions were built after the founder had spent years of searching through whole areas of life, how can we see their point and understand religion instantly while all we have are these young, inexperienced, naive eyes?
How can we possibly see what they saw?

The answer is we can’t.
It is impossible.
THE THING cannot be taught that way.

Of course unless...
we have experienced the same experience they had.

Sometimes I think the true founders never wrote the scriptures to teach us about THE THING (because it is impossible anyway), but merely because they feel like it.
Sometimes I think the scriptures can’t be used to understand, they are just notes that only people who have understood can read correctly.
Religion and its scriptures are not text books that will teach you how to reach enlightenment.
They’re merely scribbles and reminders for the people who have ALREADY got there.

So, if it’s not the way to understand THE THING, then what is?

Well... life.

THE THING can’t be deciphered from what the founders wrote.
THE THING can’t be found by analyzing what they said.
THE THING can only be found through living life first hand.
(I can’t stress out more the importance of this sentence)

In a way, the connection between religion along with its cryptic scriptures and life is like this:
You went through various experiences in life and suddenly...
“Wait a minute, now I know what the sentence in that text means!!!”

The focus is life.
It’s never been religion.
Religion is only a bunch of messy ramblings of people about life.
If life is wine, then religion is a text describing the wine.
Study the source instead.
Focus on life.

I think religion is great, but only as great as a post-it note can be.
That’s why studying it without a prepared mind and heart is VERY VERY dangerous.
There’s an infinite number of traps.
You can’t possibly expect a toddler who doesn’t even understand the concept of numbers to explain limits after lending him a calculus book, right?

Oh, and can you imagine if the one who studies religion is a dumb and violent fanatic? He will surely kill or die for something he doesn’t even understand.
It’s horrible.

So, at last I will end this awfully long post with the last half of the Zen Master story.

The student didn’t understand what the master meant with the words, so he analyzed it.
One day, he had a new teacher.
To this new teacher, he asked the same question.
“What is Buddha?”
The new teacher didn’t give him any answer.
Instead he asked him back.
“What did your previous master said?”
The student answered, “He said ‘Ping Ting went to war’."
The new teacher replied, “That’s a very good answer. But I fear you understand it wrong. Explain it to me.”
So the student explained his analysis (Ping Ting was a war god, there was a paradox in the sentence, and so on).
The new teacher laughed hearing his answer.
“As I thought, you understand it wrong,” he said.
The student looked at him in bewilderment.
“So explain it to me Teacher,” he said. “What is Buddha?”
The new teacher said, “Ping Ting went to war.”

Do you see the complexity in religion?

-the Zen master story was taken from the Prayer of the Frog-

Kalimantan Timur 10

2010-05-31T12:00:00.001+07:00

Pictures pictures pictures.
No stories this time.

O My Dear DHF

2010-05-03T07:01:00.001+07:00

I just got back from hospital stay. Seven days straight for DHF. Great.
I didn't know it could be a LOT of pain; or bloodier.

Anyway, I planned lots of writings including commentaries before I left. Now, they're just gone. I'm still trying to remember all of them.

So... if the next topics seem like out of date, please bear with me.

A Bit of ASCII Art… and Before Sunrise

2010-04-21T23:58:00.009+07:00

Do you know those pictures who are made simply of letters, numbers, or any other keyboard characters? Yep, like the ones you see in program cracks.

It is called ASCII art.
ASCII art is a graphic design technique that consists of pictures pieced together from printable characters; or basically, a text based art.
I just found out about it the other day while browsing for letters.

This is another example of ASCII art. The Yin Yang on the right is actually made of the words ‘yin yang’. You can zoom in to see it.

There are two forms or ASCII art. The black and white, and the colored one.
The black and white is harder to build, while the colored one takes more time. This is of course if you use the traditional way. The traditional way involves inserting a picture in a word document, putting a transparent text box on top of it, meticulously placing characters inside, and changing the colors (if you want to build a colored one).
Nowadays, there are programs to easily do that. One of them is the ASCII Art Generator. The program is quite good. It has various output options, and even provides a tool to manually draw an ASCII art sketch. [you can try searching it at http://www.dl4all.com/. Just beware of viruses or spywares]

Anyway, this is a picture I made using the program. Yep, it’s once again a scene from my-favorite-movie-of-all-time-nothing-comes-close-Before-Sunrise. If you look at it closely, you’ll find that it is actually made of the words ‘before sunrise’. Beautiful, isn’t it?

bX-q0tcxb OR gadget broken

2010-04-17T23:41:00.002+07:00

My layout is broken.
I can't add any gadgets.
This really blows.
I'm stuck with this template for a while.
Hope everything gets back to normal soon.

UPDATE
There.
Everything's pretty much back to normal now.
I guess I'll keep this ever-wide template after all.

Jens Lekman's Your Arms Around Me

2010-04-17T05:19:00.018+07:00

Jens Lekman is a Swedish indie musician currently residing in Australia. His sound uses a lot of samples, but I find them comforting. Especially the odd lyrics.

This is a song from his second album. It is also used in the movie Whip It.
He is known to change his lyrics every time he sings live, so I use the lyrics taken straightly from the album.

I was slicing up an avocado
When you came up behind me
With your silent brand new sneakers
Your reflection I did not see

It was the hottest day in August
And we were heading for the sea
For a second my mind started drifting
You put your arms around me
You put your arms around me
You put your arms around

Blood spraying on the kitchen sink
What's this I had time to think
I see the tip of my index finger
My mind is slowly creating a link

From your mouth speaks your lovely voice
The softest words ever spoken
What's broken can always be fixed;
What's fixed will always be broken
You put your arms around me
You put your arms around me
You put your arms around me
You put your arms around

I must have passed out on the porch
Dreamt I was carried in a kangaroo's pouch
When I wake up I'm in the waiting room
On a dirty hospital couch

My hand is wrapped in toilet paper
And my body's wrapped in debris
Sitting next to me reading the paper
I put your arm around me

Who the Hell is Clara Adelin Supit?

2010-04-17T03:09:00.023+07:00

About a week ago, Dewi Sartika or Clara Adelin Supit (23), a student in Jakarta, reported to the police about her allegedly nude pictures that spread on the web.

She said the pictures were made at her friend's request.

Misly, the friend, said she needed them to cure her ex-boyfriend who was under a hex.

Dewi reluctantly agreed after making it clear to Misly that she wanted the pictures to be well-kept.

So she was surprised to finally find them on Facebook.

The police have questioned Misly, who accused her ex-boyfriend as the one who put them online.

The paragraphs above pretty much sum out the popular news filling out most headlines on the net.

It seemed pretty simple, right?

Well, in the next days, twists have come to make the matter worse.

1. Clara Adelin Supit is not Dewi Sartika. The pictures were indeed found in Clara's Facebook account, but the account was not Dewi's. She has her own account by her name. The real Clara is unknown.
Because of this, a lot of people simply consider them to be the same person, while they are actually not.

2. The woman in the pictures with clothes on turns out not to be Dewi Sartika. She is Jesika Dhanies who doesn't have a clue about what's going on and has reported to the police yesterday.

3. And lastly, the biggest twist. The nude pictures are actually photos of a Japanese model taken by Richard Kern, a professional photographer whose work revolves around eroticism. He took it back in 2006.

So let's see if I can get this straight.
The girl who owns the account is not actually the girl, the girl in the pictures is also not the girl, and the nude girl is not any of them.
Pretty screwed up, eh?
I mean, is there still a case? And who is Clara Adelin Supit anyway?

Pageblug, the Deathly Plague

2010-04-15T19:59:00.007+07:00

Pageblug is a Javanese term meaning 'deathly plague'.
I use the word 'deathly' instead of 'deadly' because the plague isn't just deadly (capable of producing death), it is deathly (suggestive of death, deaths are certain).
The plague itself means a lot more than a widespread disease, it means affliction.

In 1972, Pageblug descended upon three adjacent areas in Yogyakarta. The areas, Patangpuluhan, Sindurjan, and Bugisan, had a series of numerous deaths. For 6 months, death occurred once a week. The cause was varied. Some died of old age, some died of illness, and some died for no apparent reason at all.

Death ceremonies were held more often than the locals could bear. People waited in terror for the sound of kentongan (a hollow large piece of wood, used to alarm people for danger or death by beating it). Especially when reports of paranormal sightings surfaced. Some people claimed they had seen four apparitions walking pass the areas holding a keranda (metal frame used to carry corpses) above their heads.

People prayed. They even asked Keraton (the royalties) for help. But nothing changed.

After 6 months, as it came without warning, it went silently.

By the time Pageblug ended, the death toll had reached well over 30.
It is now remembered as a horrid moment in Yogyakarta's long history.

The Early Years of Gay, Queer, and Faggot

2010-04-15T17:16:00.015+07:00

Just everybody knows what the words gay, queer, and faggot mean these days.

Well, in the early years of their origin, they had a wholly different meaning.
Gay actually meant happily excited; queer simply meant odd, or eccentric; and faggot meant a bundle of sticks, a knitting technique, or a kind of meatball.
Sometimes they're still used like that in literature, but hardly.

It's interesting how paragraphs like these would be seen nowadays.

The lady stopped faggoting her piece of cloth and offered him some faggots.
"I apologize for the food," she said. "My husband is a hunter. This is the only thing I can offer."
Flambeau kindly refused. "What do you do anyway?" he asked.
She looked at him and said with a warm smile, "I gather faggots in the woods and sell them."
She then fell into silence as she continued knitting.
Flambeau watched her work closely. It wasn't done yet, but it had already shown its beauty. He found himself amazed. Everything in his sight was so queer, that he became gay.

A Bit About Anarchism

2010-04-11T21:43:00.023+07:00

Symbol of Anarchy

Every time I heard about anarchy or anarchism, the first picture that came to mind was people throwing rocks to the police in some kind of riot. In my ignorance, anarchy and anarchism were something of a retarded-violent-childish mind. So when I read somewhere that the character V from the novel ‘V for Vendetta’ was actually an anarchist, rather than a romantic freedom fighter, it intrigued me. The character was described as educated and civilized. What an educated-civilized person would have to do with anarchy?

I finally decided to look it up (sadly, in Wikipedia for the time), and this is a bit of what I came up.

Anarchy means absence of any form of political authority. It also means a stateless society.

Anarchy is a desired condition in anarchism. Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful.

Anarchism has a deep root in history, but the modern one came from the secular or religious thought of the Enlightenment, particularly Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s arguments for the moral centrality of freedom.

The first expression of modern anarchist thought was developed by William Goodwin.

Goodwin stated that the State lacked moral legitimacy, that there was no individual obligation or duty to obey the State, and that the State had no right to command individuals.

However, Goodwin did not advocate revolution to eliminate the state. He opposed revolutionary action and saw a minimal state as a present “necessary evil” that would become increasingly irrelevant and powerless by the gradual spread of knowledge.

Since then, the thought of anarchism has continued to develop. By now, there are so many diverse thoughts of anarchism, they hardly share a common idea. The only thing that unites them is the belief that the government is both harmful and unnecessary. In practice, the thoughts are divided into two large categories, individual and social anarchism.

From the above paragraphs, we see that contrary to popular belief (at least for the first thought), anarchism believes in Man.
It sees individuals as supreme beings, capable to decide what’s wrong and right for them.
The state is just a non-existent body, something that does not have a reality or fundamental value on its own.
Those are the reasons why there is no obligation to obey it.
However, it is realized that such condition requires an ideal society, in which each constituent has achieved his/her deepest actualization; something of a utopia, if I may say. That’s why it considers the state as a necessary lesser evil, a temporary mean until Man has reached its full potentials.

It turns out much better than the image of people throwing rocks, doesn’t it? Let’s just hope it is able to maintain its pure form. Such ideas in unprepared minds will only result in chaos. Just like handling nuclear weapons to monkeys.

Doubts in Faith: A Beautiful Sunday Mass Sermon

2010-04-11T17:29:00.022+07:00

John 20:24-31 (New International Version)
Jesus Appears to Thomas
24Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"
But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
26A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
30Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may[a] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

In today’s mass, the passage was about Thomas. Most sermons I’ve heard about this passage took on Thomas as the antagonist. His doubt was despised and considered a sin. That’s why I decided to write the sermon I heard today. It took on a wholly different take.

The priest started the sermon by mentioning Mother Theresa.
A few months back, a book about her came out. The book contained her personal letters sent to her spiritual guide. They showed that despite her image as a holy-spiritual person, she felt detached from God. God was nowhere to be found. She had doubts.
The matter sparked a controversy which ended in a public debate.
Was she really a holy person? Was she even spiritual?

The priest said that during the whole debacle, he was ‘asleep’. He didn’t care. He didn’t know what the fuss was about.

He explained his statements in an analogy.
The priest liked to hike on mountains. In every hiking, he could see how from a distance, the mountain looked beautiful. The sight was clear, the shapes were all well-defined.
But, the moment he got on it, he couldn’t see what he had seen before. The shapes disappeared, and the mountain was nowhere to be seen. Its beauty was gone.

That's also what happened with Mother Theresa, he said. She was so close to Him, that she couldn’t see Him.

He continued by saying these beautiful words.

“The deeper the faith, the more it has doubts.

Because in the end, a faith without doubts is a faith without a fight.”

He then told the congregation that how as a priest, a lot of people consulted him on a specific problem. They too had doubts, and they were in pain.
They asked him, “What should we do?”
To this, the priest replied, “Be free to doubt. Doubt everything. Does God really exist? Who is Jesus? Is there any point in any of this?”
So they said again, "But because of it, we can’t even pray in church anymore.”
“Who asked you to pray? Just sit there and listen.”
He went on with a question. “Do you long for God? Do you miss Him?”
“Yes, we do,” they answered.
“Then keep the longing. Doubt Him and love Him by keeping the longing. Love Him by longing Him in the darkness and pain of doubts. In the end, I pray you may be granted with what Thomas was granted; the ability to say, ‘AHA.. My Lord and my God..’.”

I almost cried during the sermon.

After that, I went through the rest of the procession in a different feeling. It turned out it was OK to doubt. Even all the pain that came with it was acknowledged. It was a spiritual warmth for me.
And suddenly out of nowhere, God is felt and not just believed.

Gabor Arkangyal

2010-04-10T19:25:00.003+07:00

Gabor Arkangyal

Picture description
Gabor Arkangyal means archangel Gabriel. I don't know much about him other than God favors him the most. He is surprisingly the leader of the favored four, not archangel Michael as a lot of people believed.
A friend of mine knows him a lot more than I do. Maybe he'll write about it sometimes.

The picture is based on a statue of him in the center of Budapest.

2010-04-10T19:14:00.002+07:00

"I don't want to talk about God. I'd rather talk about Man."

"God is found by searching something else entirely."

"If you want someone to see an apple, give him oranges and tell them they're not it."

"To understand silence, one should first understand noise."

2010-04-10T19:12:00.002+07:00

"Even when I apologize for my ego, I did it for my ego."

2010-04-10T19:11:00.002+07:00

"I've come to learn that there is nothing need to be learned."

Old Post: Starry Sky - A New Perspective

2010-04-10T18:46:00.007+07:00

I found these old posts from my no-longer-existing-blog when I was cleaning my hard drive. I thought it would be interesting to post them again and add some commentaries.

I love to watch a starry sky. I often consider it as a window of different time options. Maybe just like a time machine display.

Stars are so far away that it took several, tens, hundreds of years for their light to reach earth. The star we see is the star at a moment of the past.
When you see the stars, you may see the light that was generated at the time you were born. Or the time your father was born.
When you see the stars, you may see 1973, 1987, 1964, or whatever years the light originate. You see the stars of those years.
The sky is like a vast beautiful black blue screen filled with images from the past.

I think there is nothing more VIVID in terms of "looking back at the past" than watching the stars.

COMMENT
No comment...

Old Post: Just How Late I am

2010-04-10T18:43:00.004+07:00

I found these old posts from my no-longer-existing-blog when I was cleaning my hard drive. I thought it would be interesting to post them again and add some commentaries.

I've been breathing for 24 years, 9 months, and 22 days.
I've only been living for less than 3 years.
Just how late I am.
Better late than never.

COMMENT
I get the feeling I'll be writing something similar in the next months.

Old Post: I Hate Religious Fanatics!

2010-04-10T18:40:00.003+07:00

I found these old posts from my no-longer-existing-blog when I was cleaning my hard drive. I thought it would be interesting to post them again and add some commentaries.

God, I hate religious fanatics! especially those who always put a smile on their faces when they listen or talk to people. I feel like smacking their heads off just to wipe off those smirks. They think they're better than everyone else while their thoughts are super-shallow and stupid. I may not know everything, but at least I don't consider myself better than anyone else. Let alone accepting appraisals like some holy men.

God, I really hate religious fanatics!

COMMENT
I still do.

Old Post: Why I Don't Want to Learn Playing Musical Instruments

2010-04-10T18:37:00.008+07:00

I found these old posts from my no-longer-existing-blog when I was cleaning my hard drive. I thought it would be interesting to post them again and add some commentaries.

Playing music has always been interesting for me. I like watching people generate beautiful sounds. But I've never been too keen on learning how to do it.

Because I believe if I did, I would destroy its beauty.

Learning to play music means you have to go through different stages until you master it. And I fear if I do that, I will be all used to the sound of my instrument. So fed up with it, that when I hear a nice song, I will only hear the instrument I've mastered. Not only that, instead of simply listening to it, I will imagine how the instrument is played. Turning something beautiful to something technical.

Ridiculous? May be.
I have two analogies though.

First time I heard the song "If I Am" by Nine Days, I loved it. I could hear all the instruments played in the background.
But, after I studied the lyrics, all I could hear was the vocalist. My mind kept following the words, verses after verses. All the musical instruments played in the background that made the song beautiful was just gone. Sometimes I wished I had never studied the lyrics.

And the second analogy involves my neighbor. I have a neighbor who can't read at all, and he's about 60 years old. I wonder what he sees in a writing. If there is something beautiful in it, I bet he will see it better and faster from all of us. If I see a writing, I will just, simply, read it. I don't care too much about its shape, color, or whatever. But, for a person who can't read, perhaps it's like a painting. Maybe a boulevard filled with ads and offers looks like a big parade of colorful shapes.

I believe sometimes the less you know about something, the more beautiful it becomes.

And that's why I don't want to learn playing musical instruments.

COMMENT
The second sentence from the bottom has a different meaning to me now.

A Woman of My Dreams

2010-03-22T15:03:00.008+07:00

She would have to be:

1. kind
   - has a strong sense in moral values
2. smart
   - able to understand things, opinionated, cultured with a wide sense of art
3. deep
   - has a relevant perspective, able to feel beauty in a non-aesthetic way

1. has a physical appearance resembling the next girls.

Brains or balls, gentlemen. Brains or balls.

Cyclopes and Us

2010-03-22T11:40:00.014+07:00

Some say that Cyclopes, the one eyed creatures from Greek mythology, are cursed because they know the time of their death.

When I thought about it, I used to ask myself.

Is it a curse, or is it, in fact, liberating?

Then again, I thought about myself, and how I didn't have the slightest clue about my time.

Is it a curse, or is it, in fact, liberating?

I don't know. It may as well be a matter of choice.

Mm.. It's so easy to say it when they're just words.

100th Post

2010-02-14T18:09:00.014+07:00

Celebrating the 100th crap I've written so far!!!

I've read somewhere that it's a custom to write 100 things people don't know about you in your 100th post.
I don't think I have 100 things to say.
Even if I did, I wouldn't want to bore anyone.
So here's just one.

1. Hair barely grows on my right armpit.

There it is.
I think that's humiliating enough to cover the other 99, or even other celebrations, so to speak.

Anyway,
happy 100th post everyone! :)
Thanks so much for everything.

Take Me Out Indonesia, a Zoological Perspective

2010-02-10T23:38:00.014+07:00

I used to watch Take Me Out Indonesia on Indosiar. Yeah, it’s a guilty pleasure. I loved to see the happy good looking people (and Yuanita Christiani, of course). Although, I must admit that most of the time I thought the people involved were complete morons.

Anyway, the other day I was so fed up with the show. Most of what the contestants were after was a quick marriage without a glimpse of anything profound. No better than animals. The men proudly showed up their houses (or should I say nests?), and the women kept asking if the men already had a house to start breeding as soon as possible.

Bah.

Well, to prove my point, here’s something I quickly made up with a little bit of searching in the notorious Wikipedia.

I rest my case.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall: Hopeful Joy

2010-02-10T13:24:00.009+07:00

I've watched this movie five times, and still counting. Not to mention some particular scenes I watched over and over again.

This movie is great.
- Downright funny (subtle, realistic, intelligent comedy which is great + not so subtle, over the top comedy which is also great).
- Great interesting memorable characters and quotations.
- Acting is convincing (adds to the funny). Apatow (the producer) has some of the greatest talents under his wing. I love his movies.
- Plot is great (not quite using the same formula Hollywood has, of course, Jason Segel wrote it), close to life (well sometimes it's not, but even when it doesn't, it gives joy).
- Directing, editing, cinematography (the setting being in Oahu helps) are good.

I'm starting to write some gibberish nonsense, so just watch it. You won't be sorry.

The Great Darn Thing

2010-02-10T13:09:00.012+07:00

Three days ago my father had this seminar about marriage in church. He had told me to come because I asked a question earlier, and he was interested to hear the answer. I didn’t go, but that’s not what I’m about to talk about.

This question is.

“Why the hell does the Church have to have anything to do with marriage?”

If you don’t see the problem it proposed, let me tell you a bit about myself.
I have always seen man-woman-love (from this on will only be referred as ‘love’) as something that doesn’t have anything to do with divinity.

It’s even worse.
It hinders it.

The reasons? I’ll go as brief as I can.

- It’s something primal; it only comes because in terms of reproduction, we’re sexual beings. Ever wonder what would happen if we were all asexual beings (not even a spark of attraction to start with)?

- It usually comes from insecurity. If I had a dime every time someone answered ‘because he/she loves me’ to the question ‘why do you love him/her?’ I’d be awfully rich by now.
‘Love’ is less about adoration, and more about attachment to a person who can give us what we need. He/she is not a subject we adore. They’re simply a tool to fulfill our own insecurities about ourselves.
‘I love him because he loves me.’
That sounds bloody awful doesn’t it? Just how insecure is it to love someone simply because they love us?

- It’s the most egoistic thing. It’s about owning someone. Yep, not just someTHING, it’s about owning someONE, a person, a real human being. I’ve heard crap about unbinding, unconditional love, but that’s just bullshit. ‘Love’ is always sexual, which means that it will always try to own someone. You can try not to own him/her, but the desire will always be there. Unconditional or unbinding love does exist, but it is certainly not this kind of love. Let’s not pretend something that is not.

- It doesn’t even last. It appears and vanishes. It doesn’t even go beyond our time in this world (till death do us part). Most of us believe that in the afterlife, this kind of love is not even relevant anymore, for we will be shimmered in greatness beyond our understanding, and our sexes stop being an attribute anymore.

- It’s not that special. It can happen to more than one person. It’s not necessarily a one time thing. In years, it even becomes no more than a contract. ‘I’ll cut myself from any prospect with someone else as long as you do the same.’

So what is ‘love’ in the end, an illusion?

No wonder in many spiritual searches, this ‘thing’ is deliberately left behind. The last thing we need to become a higher being is something that has primal roots, comes from insecurity, is self-centered, doesn’t even last, and isn’t special, right?
Anything comes from our lower self must be let go (do you know that Kwam Im used to be a man? He transformed to be a woman just to show how irrelevant sex was).

So, why does the Church who’s all about becoming a higher being and getting closer to God have this sacrament about wedding? Why does it care for this illusion? What does it see from it?

The usual answer is that because a man’s love for his wife represents the love Christ has for His church.
Yeah.
I don’t know about you, but I think that’s a load of crap.
I really apologize.
But hey, it’s not even understandable. What the hell is that supposed to mean? It’s vague, it’s unrealistic, and it doesn’t touch anything in life.

I prefer real answers as stupid as they may be.

- Yep, this kind of love may not have any relevance in eternity but it still feels great. I mean, really wanting someone and knowing that someone wants you back feel awesome. Reciprocity gives a powerful feeling don’t you think? It’s what sexuality all about. And the friendship isn't bad also.

- Sexual relationship is just as great. Sexual pleasure is something very private and personal. To let someone satisfy you while you satisfy that someone is one of the most personal ways of communication I know. No secrets, no barriers, just the naked truth (pun intended). That’s why the concept of fooling around is foreign to me.

- And finally, a choice of limiting oneself from the prospect of building relationships with others for the sake of one’s spouse is a gigantic choice. And if in history humans have incorporated God in their less important decisions, why not incorporate Him in this life altering event.

I don’t know if ‘love’ is the right thing.
All I know is that I still want it (especially if the one across the aisle is Mila Kunis… mm… God on high, hear your people’s cry).
And finally yeah, I have some ideas now why the Church gives wedding sacrament.

Ice Cold Bento

2010-02-04T20:11:00.002+07:00

Bento was my dog.
The guy was ice cold, just like James Bond. Hehehe...
He’s incredibly loyal though.

Anyway, I’ve got two pictures of him.
This is the first one.

As you can see, he’s got the whole ice-in-my-veins-attitude.
It’s hard to take a picture of his different side.

But wait.
This is what I've got after incorporating some tricks.

He’s better in this picture, don’t you think? He’s almost smiling, very adorable.
Keep in mind that they were all taken with the same camera.

So, I guess the pictures prove the theory “the man behind the gun”.

Mm...

Or actually in this case, “the man-holding-a-fried-chicken behind the gun.”
Hehehe...

Why Superman Can Fly

2010-02-04T20:01:00.009+07:00

The son of Krypton is no doubt the most prominent superhero of all time.
One of his special traits is that he is able to fly!
Not many superheroes can do that, especially the earlier ones.

Well, it turns out that he hasn’t been able to fly all the time. There was a moment when all he could do was jumping over buildings. And no, I’m not talking about the time when he hasn’t worn his costume (being the young Clark Kent). I’m talking about the time he HAS worn it and been called Superman.

In the earliest comics, Superman was not all that powerful. He was only faster than a train, as strong as all you need to lift a car, and he couldn’t fly.
All he did was jumping over distant buildings.
When the comic was going to be made into a cartoon film, his jumping ability proved to be a problem.
There was too much production cost to draw a man jumping over different buildings all the time.
So, naturally…
He was made able to fly.

Regardless of the actual reason, I still love the idea that he can fly. It would be un-cool to see a man with a large piece of cloth on his back jumping around mercilessly.

The End of What??

2010-02-04T19:55:00.002+07:00

2012 EQUALS the end of the world.

Everybody knows that.

So it’s not strange to overhear a conversation about it in a bus on my way home.
It was between two working women.
The conversation went like this (I’m sorry it’s in bahasa).

1: “Lo serem gak nanti 2012?”

2: “Iya. Katanya bakal kiamat ya? Emang gara-gara apa sih?”

1: “Gak tau ya. Gue denger sih gara-gara radiasi matahari naik besar-besaran. Jadinya semua kena. Cuaca bakal gak jelas, banyak bencana, penyakit aneh-aneh, banyak orang yang mati, sampe komunikasi aja, internet, HP gitu semua bakal mati.”

2: “Hah! Jadi gak bisa facebook-an lagi dong?!!”

1: …

Mm…

There’s something terribly wrong about this.

A Student of Everything

2010-02-04T18:56:00.005+07:00

Do you know the kind of people who say, “I study all religions”, sometimes with a cocky smile on their face?

I used to hate that kind of people.

Maybe in part because I thought they’re snobbish bastards who considered themselves better than anyone else, while in fact they had no clear, exact, true-to-your-heart-religion. I figured they had to have no understanding whatsoever regarding religions they studied (because the more you have, the bigger the chance you don’t understand one bit of them correctly, right?). I even sometimes thought that the only reason they did it was because they couldn’t commit themselves to one, that it was all a big fat excuse to free themselves from routine religious obligations (mass every week, fasting, etc).

So, it kind of startled me at first when I realized I was becoming more and more like them.
Well, about it, all I can say is this.
I can’t help it.

I know, some people may think of me as unfaithful, un-loyal, un-devoted, someone who serves more than one master.
But again,
I can’t help it.

I can assure you, I’m as loyal as I can be.
But the problem is, He who I’m loyal to, is found in all that places.
Not just in religions, but EVERYWHERE!
Even in the beaches, some lame fiction, a poem by an atheist, or real people.
There are signs of Him everywhere.

I do love my religion, but only because I happen to see Him a lot in it; just like I see a lot of Him in other places.

The DANGEROUS Group

2010-02-04T03:02:00.014+07:00

Can you guess what group it is?
It has the following characteristics:

The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
‪Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
‪Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
‪The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
‪The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
‪The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
‪The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).
‪The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
‪The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
‪Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.
‪The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
‪The group is preoccupied with making money.
‪Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.
‪Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

Sounds vaguely familiar?
Why of course.
The group is called...
...
...
a cult.

As a matter of fact, Janja Lalich, Ph.D. & Michael D. Langone, Ph.D. made this list of social-structural, social-psychological, and interpersonal behavioral patterns commonly found in cultic environments as a help in assessing a particular group or relationship.
In short, they made this to help us determine if there is a cause for concern.

A cult.
Mm...
Interesting, isn't it?

Times When God Hits Too Hard

2010-02-04T00:53:00.018+07:00

I think God hits us in our lives every once in a while.
And I know, His hits can be very painful.
The pain they create helps us to flourish, though.

By holding against it, we become stronger.
By localizing it, we know what part of us still needs corrections.
By acknowledging it, we’re in our way of becoming mystic.

Jesus is one great example of a mostly successful story about pain.
He endured lots of it, and hardly lost His grip.
It makes you wonder what enabled Him to do so.
Was it faith, hope, or a unique way of seeing the world?

But anyway, this post is not about Jesus.
This post is not even about a success story.
Quite the contrary, this post is about those who failed badly.

Those like Dracula.

Yes, I’ve written about and even sketched him (they can all be found here), so I’ll go brief.

Dracula was a man of God whose wife got killed during his time in the Crusade.
He was so hurt that he left anything reminding him of God and his wife.
He became a fallen hero and went into the darkness.
God did nothing.
Centuries later, he was gravely wounded by other men of God.
Dracula, the man who had used to be a man of God himself, was slaughtered as a monster.
As tears come out from his badly wounded monster face, he cried,

“Where is my God? He has forsaken me. It is finished.”

Fortunately, this time God decided to do something.
He stretched His hand and gave him peace.
Dracula died with a peaceful smile, in his human face.

The second story is about the book of Exodus.
The book has been filmed nicely in an animated movie called ‘The Prince of Egypt’.
I just watched it again this morning.
It reminded me how I loved so many scenes from the movie.
One among them is the opening scene.
In the scene, we see how The Hebrews were enslaved by The Egyptians.
They were building pyramids and statues without rest while being whipped all the time.
In the midst of all the suffering, they sang the next moving song.

With the sting
of the whip
On my shoulder
With the salt of my sweat
On my brow

Elohim, God on high
Can You hear
Your people cry
Help us now
This dark hour

Deliver us
Hear our call
Deliver us
Lord of all
remember us
Here in this burning sand

Deliver us
There's a land
You promised us
Deliver us
to the Promised Land

As we know, God finally sent Moses to set them free and lead them to the Promised Land.

Dracula and The Hebrews are examples of failures.
Their stories are the stories about failures.
Unlike Jesus, they failed hard in dealing with pain.
But I couldn’t help myself from feeling for them.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t care for wimps.
I don’t care for people who never try to stand and overcome any pain, people who immediately shout out to God in a glimpse of the first wave of trouble.
I don’t care even more for people who deliberately seek pain just to scream and romanticize themselves as victims.

I DO care, however, for people whose shouts were simply desperate outbursts from an honest tired human heart; people who have fought their best.

I STILL believe that every pain that comes into our life can be overcome.
But, I will not judge or consider people who still lose after giving their best as losers.

I know that my examples may not be 100% right. I mean, there ought to be wimps among The Hebrews, and the first example is not even a real person. But, I’m pretty sure there are a lot of people out there who are just like the examples. If I were God, I would stretch my hand immediately to help them. But I don’t see as well as Him, so I can only hope every pain they have will be over soon.

PS:
You probably don’t understand a bit of what I’m saying in this post. And if you do, you probably think that this post is stupid.

Well, I admit that I wrote this based on emotions.

It’s just in the past years I’ve never had any sense of care or sweet emotions.
I’ve become numb.
So to have myself crying over one stupid opening song from an animated movie is just something very special to me.

Stieg Larsson’s The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo: A Thriller Perfection

2010-01-29T02:24:00.018+07:00

I very rarely say the word 'perfection', but I have never read anything like this book before.
It’s by far the best thriller and one of the best books I’ve ever read.

I will not ruin the plot for you.
The plot is so complex that a few irresponsible words will just be unfair.
I will only say that the book is part of a trilogy.

The author wrote the books for fun, not for them to be published.
So it still amazes me how such a piece of work that was done only for fun can be so great.

Too bad he passed away too soon, though.
Especially considering that he was actually going to write a series of ten, not just three.

Anyway, on with the review:

Plot
Griping, intelligent, complex, MULTI-DIMENSIONAL, full of twists, just about everything you could hope for and more.

Characters
Memorable, deep, believable, lovably dysfunctional. They feel so real that you become lost in the universe.

Writing
Wonderfully done. It's easy to follow and keeps you reading in an honorable way, not in a cheap way like Dan Brown's.
And by cheap I mean something like,

Sato pointed to an empty docking station on the desk. “He uses a laptop. He took it with him.”
Simkins didn’t follow. “Does he have information you want to see?”
“No,” Sato replied, her tone grave. “He has information I want nobody to see.

We do finally get to see what the secret information is... in no less than 70 chapters later.
In Dan Brown's works, this formula is used repeatedly, even for the same secret.
It's frustrating and insulting.

This formula doesn't exist in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Larsson never holds back information. Everything is revealed through the eyes of the protagonists.
The mystery is not built by deliberately holding out facts and giving innuendos.
The mystery is within the plot itself.
It's satisfying.

Ow, and one more thing. This book gave me goosebumps, something I haven't had for a long time. It's spine chilling.

Conclusion
Go buy it!

Can't wait to get my hands on the second and third book.

Pigs of the Future

2010-01-26T19:49:00.024+07:00

Two days ago, a friend of mine told me about another friend of mine who just did her mandatory service in Papua (a mostly untouched region).
She told him about how the natives there valued their pigs highly.
They cared for them, nurtured them, and even sometimes breastfed the piglets, so it’s not strange to have a tribal war because of the pigs.

She then commented about how she thought of it all as primitive, the idea of valuing pigs, and thought that it had to be left behind.
Upon hearing this, my friend gave his disapproval.
His disapproval would have been the same as mine, had I heard the story.

What really differentiates us from the tribes?
Sure, they value pigs, and we don’t.
Most of us value houses, cars, assets, etc.
But, do they make a difference?
We are just as attached to them as the tribes to the pigs.
They are pigs in other form.
They are the pigs of the future.

I once wrote about how humans, being the only kind of creature who knows it’s going to end, are propelled by fear to search for meaning or something to ease the pain.

Or in other words, humans know that their time won’t last, so they frantically search for meaning, salvation, painkillers, happiness, security, wealth, etc. to make the fear go away.

Isn’t that what we all experience?
So, what really makes us stand out or better than the tribes?

But hold on for a second.
Let me tell you one more story.

Another friend of mine once sent me an article about consumerism in the Great Britain.
The article disclosed how the country wrongfully measured the rate of its citizens’ happiness from the number of products sold. The countrymen believed that the more a community buys products, the happier the community becomes.
But it didn’t turn out to be that way.
And then the article explained about consumerism and how it was actually a sign of fear.

Now, after reading the paragraphs above, is there really a difference between the Papua tribes, the British, and us?
Aren’t we all just a bunch of scared creatures?
Scared creatures who try to wipe their fears off by attaching themselves to things?

In the past thousands of years, we don’t really move anywhere.
Anthony DeMello once said something like,

"After a few thousand years, we are so advanced that we bar our doors and windows at night, while the less developed people sleep in open huts."

Where is the difference, actually?

Edward’s Special Lines

2010-01-26T19:47:00.024+07:00

Beautiful people have more privileges than the un-beautiful ones.

One is that they get to say the ‘special’ lines.

What are they? What makes them so special?

Well, they are the lines reserved to the beautiful, and they’re special because only the beautiful ones can say them without any harmful effects.
If an average person (let alone an ugly one) tries as much as say half the lines, the effect will not only be un-beneficial, it will be disastrous.

As an example, I will use the lines from the girls-favorite-heartbreaking-character of Twilight, Edward Cullen.
REMEMBER that these lines were said by Edward Cullen to the protagonist chick, Bella, before they hooked up.
Just take a look at the lines and imagine if they were said by Edward Cullen (picture on the left, of course) and by an anonymous average Joe (picture on the right).

You’d probably think that this is not fair.
Well, relax.
Because I’m pretty sure there are advantages of being average or even ugly.

...

I haven’t got one though. I will have to get back to you later.

Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight: So Dull, It’s Suspicious

2010-01-26T19:44:00.020+07:00

I’ve finally finished Twilight after quite a while.
I have even watched the movie!
So I guess it’s safe for me to say my opinion.

I don’t like the book or the movie, but the movie was better.

I need to remind you that I had no prejudice whatsoever before reading it.

The book actually started promising. It was very light, in a way like those unreal, predictable, and yet entertaining stories.

However, after that, it was pretty much a drag.

I can’t believe that an idea like ‘I love you-but stay away from me-I’m dangerous’ can be stretched to well over 400 pages; and in a pretty much the same way.
Not to mention, the use of words like handsome, perfect, beautiful, Adonis, etc. to describe Edward Cullen (the protagonist vampire) that might have been just about 100 times too many.

SPOILER ALERT!!!

*************************** SPOILER STARTS ***************************

The last 100 pages were better. There was suddenly a threat to the protagonists; an evil vampire that wanted to suck Bella (the female protagonist)’s blood.
But again, I was disappointed by how it turned out.
Just when the final battle between the good and evil was about to happen, Bella collapsed and passed out.
And since the whole book was written by her perspective, I didn’t have the slightest clue about what had happened in the battle! All I got were a few short sentences by Edward afterward about what had transpired, while staying with Bella in the hospital.
It was so frustrating.

*************************** SPOILER ENDS ***************************

So, no, I don’t like it.

But then, I caught a bunch of reviews which stated that Stephenie Meyer was an expert in playing with her readers’ emotions.

So maybe that’s why I don’t like it, because simply, I don’t get it.
Maybe the book has very specific target readers.
I can only guess that for the people who do get it and have their emotions caught in the play, the best part of the book must be in the first 400-something pages.
And that would also explain why what I thought was the climax didn’t feel like a climax at all; because it was never intended to be one.

I don’t really know. I’m just guessing.
I will most likely not strangle anyone who likes it though.

A Helping Condom

2010-01-21T19:28:00.011+07:00

Free Sex!

(Pre-marital sex included)

Some people want it.
Some people don’t want to have anything to do with it.

The dispute is ages long.

And it also happens here, in Indonesia.

However, not so long ago, right in the middle of the dispute, another issue came out.

- Some people had shared condoms in nightclubs for free

- The emergence of a plan to build condom vending machines

In short: actions that will provide easier access to condoms

And just like before, there are “yay!”s and “nay!”s.

I used to support the “yay!”s.
But, I don’t anymore.

If you look at it closely, there is something interesting about the groups of the second issue.
The second issue’s “yay!”s and “nay!”s DO NOT correspond with the first issue’s “yay!”s and “nay!”s.
The second issue’s “yay!” group is not a part of the first issue’s “yay!” group; it belongs to the first issue’s “nay!”s.

What I’m trying to say is that, most Indonesian people who support for easier condom access DO NOT believe in free sex. They are actually against it. They are just concerned about people who may catch on the disease.

As much as I respect these kind-hearted people, I have to disagree with their reason.

I think, if you want to support easier condom access, you have to do it FIRSTLY because you believe in free sex.
If you don’t believe in it, don’t support it to prevent the doers from catching sexually transmitted diseases. You can help them by other means, but not by giving them easier access to condoms.

THERE IS A LIMIT IN THE AMOUNT OF HELP YOU CAN GIVE.
There is a time when a help is not helpful anymore.
There is a point that if you decide to go over and give more help than you should, the problem will only become much worse.
Believe me, I know this by heart.
The last thing you want to do is taking away their chance to learn, grow, and see for themselves.
You don’t want to take away their chance to become a responsible, complete, mature person, right?

You can give them help by providing grounds to decide (in this particular problem, complete information about the risks). After that, it’s totally up to them to decide.

Sometimes, the last thing a person needs is a well-intentioned-interference.

The Stages of Religion and Being Religious

2010-01-21T19:25:00.006+07:00

I divide religion and being religious into two stages:

Conceptual ------------ Beyond Conceptual

Furthermore, I divide the conceptual stage into two more stages, Early and Late, changing the description above to become:

Early Conceptual --- Late Conceptual ------------ Beyond Conceptual

Now, how do they differ from each other?
I have made a table to answer that.

These categories are not exclusive. People don’t have to fall in one category. In fact, people usually fall in more than one category at the same time.
However, it is very unlikely to be a part of three different categories at once.

Anyway, as you can see, the higher the stage, the more mystic a religion becomes.
The more mystic a religion becomes, the LESS it talks about CONCEPTS and the MORE it talks about SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE.

I guess that’s why people who have achieved the state are hard to understand UNLESS you have experienced what they have.

Karl Rahner once said that a religion that’s not evolving to become mystic is doomed to perish.
I couldn’t agree more, because I think people will never truly be content with something lesser than a mystic experience.

Hm... well, at least the ones who care.

* based on a talk with a friend of mine after having a flat tire

I Love You, But...

2010-01-19T00:21:00.009+07:00

I stumbled upon this when I checked out a video in my friend's blog.
All I've got to say is that this kid is on to something. :))

"I love you, but I don't like you all the time."

Glasvegas' Flowers and Football Tops: The Murder of Kriss Donald

2010-01-19T00:14:00.025+07:00

About a week ago, I caught a music video, Flowers and Football Tops by the Scottish band Glasvegas. It was one of the best I've ever seen. The mood was all gloomy, gray, haunting even, but it still has a feeling of beauty in it.

Little did I know, the song had a very dark background behind it.
It is based on the murder of Kriss Donald.

Kriss Donald was a white 15-year-old Scottish whose murder lead to a controversy in the Great Britain. On March 15th 2004, a Pakistani gang snatched Kriss from the road as an act of vengeance for a previous attack by a local white gang. The problem was Kriss didn't have any gang affiliation. He was picked because he was white.

The kidnappers brought him 200 miles to Dundee and back because they couldn't find a house to take him. Finally they decided to stop at a walkway near Celtic Football Club's training ground. There, they held his arms, stabbed him 13 times, castrated him and cut his tongue, doused him with gasoline, set him on fire, and left him to die.

His brutal death and the capture of his murderers sparked a racial controversy in the country.

It also inspired James Allan, the band's vocalist and guitarist who wrote the song from the perspective of Kriss Donald's father.
"Sometimes when you read things or see things on TV, you can't help but put yourself in the position of people's misfortune. That was on my mind when I heard about the murder of Kriss Donald. It's about a kid who never made it home," he said in an interview.

Anyway, don't miss the end which contains a segment of the song "You Are My Sunshine".

Why Humans are Destined for Greatness

2010-01-15T20:21:00.015+07:00

I wanted to write it with my own words, just like a friend of mine suggested.

But I'm just too lazy.

Besides, an old book by Dr. Nico Syukur Dister OFM. that belongs to my father says it quite nicely already.
It's in bahasa though.

"Manusia dijadikan Tuhan Allah Pencipta sebagai 'mahkota ciptaan', sebab hanya dialah yang diciptakan 'menurut gambar dan rupa Allah sendiri' (Kej 1:26-27).

Manusia itu lebih ajaib dan lebih kaya daripada bintang-bintang di langit dengan panas teriknya yang menyala-nyala.

Pandanglah seorang anak kecil yang lagi main di pekarangan rumahnya: bukankah dia itu kesatuan yang penuh rahasia? Rupa-rupanya dia lebih biasa daripada matahari, akan tetapi ia dapat mengenal matahari dan bergembira karenanya, sedangkan matahari tak pernah dapat mengenal anak itu atau bergembira karenanya.

Sebab anak itu hidup dan berbudi dan merasa, sedangkan matahari tidak.

Surya dibuat dari emas karena anak mempunyai mata. Surya itu indah karena manusia mempunyai hati yang merasa. Seorang anak dapat menangis karena tidak mendapat kasih sayang, tetapi sebuah benda langit tidak tahu menahu mengenai kasih sayang.

Kenyataan manusia itu lebih kaya, bahkan lebih nyata, daripada ledakan-ledakan api di angkasa raya."

Even a great natural phenomenon such as a supernova is far less greater than the smile of a baby that sees it.
Because there's a SUBJECT in that simple smile,
something that is AWARE.

And if I may add something to the already beautiful words in the book:

"After all that great awareness to their surroundings, humans STILL have something much even greater.

A SELF-AWARENESS."

Maybe that's why I believe God is found within oneself.

We are truly destined for greatness.

Not Just Any Bond Girl

2010-01-13T00:58:00.005+07:00

Feeling aroused already?
Wait till you hear the whole story.

This is Caroline Cossey.
She played in 007's For Your Eyes Only.

The real gig is that,
she wasn't born a girl.
She was a boy the first 20 years of her life.

So it's remarkable she got a part in a Bond movie.

But that's not the only thing she's done.
She also managed to attain numerous modeling achievements, including a pose for Playboy in 1991.
Wow.
She is now married and live near Atlanta.

PS: She only appeared briefly for the Bond movie, and did not have any sexual scenes with at-the-time-Bond-Roger-Moore. It would be such a scandal though.

Semen Battle Royale

2010-01-13T00:18:00.017+07:00

No, it’s not some gay porn title.
If you look below, you’ll actually see that this post is labeled culture.
This post is about how to settle scores.

As a teenager, I loved Egyptian mythologies, especially the battles between two gods, Horus and Set.
They fought because Horus wanted to claim control over all Egypt...
And also because Set killed Horus’ father and fed his penis to the fish (wow, talk about repressed anger).
Eventually, through brawl and wit, Horus finally won against the evil Set and rule Egypt.

It was a nice story,
until I found just exactly how he won.

It turned out, in one of their final battles, Set tried to prove his dominance over Horus to the other gods, showing them he was the worthy one to rule Egypt. And by dominance, I mean injecting his semen to Horus’ dump hole.
Thus, the fight of the ages ensued, as both sides started to rape each other and penis-jab rigorously.
Finally, Set was able to shoot his gravy at a perfect direction to the hole.
Feeling he had already won, he then walked away.

However, it turned out that Horus was able to catch Set's semen with his hand in time.
So, he went to a river, cut his hand (a very understandable amputation), and threw the thing away. Then, he went to a lettuce garden (Set loved lettuces) and had himself a jerk-off. It was not long until Set came and ate the lettuce.

At judgment day, when the other gods called Set’s semen, it answered from the river, while Horus’ answered from inside Set, proving Horus’ dominance over him.
He won and became the ruler of Egypt.

The end.

Needless to say, it is such a brutal and traumatic story for a teenager.
It managed to transform something as cool as this

to this...

I guess that’s why the solution didn’t survive the ages. I can only imagine at this time, a guy approaches his friends and says,
“Hey guys, about the two trips we planned, I know a way to decide which one we should pick...”

Just for Me: A Reminder

2010-01-12T10:47:00.002+07:00

I refuse to become the thing I hate the most.

I refuse to deliberately hurt people with my own uncertainty.

I refuse to become a monster.

To those of you who know what I mean,
I am truly sorry.

Aw… The Irony (a note about Gus Dur and St. Albertus church)

2010-01-04T22:11:00.018+07:00

Gus Dur’s death on December 30th 2009 raised much of public appraisal frenzy. Everyone just went on and on about how he had been such a devoted pluralist, naming him The Father of Pluralism, and even went as far as campaigning him for national hero and December 30th for pluralism day.

All of this people-suddenly-get-interested-in-pluralism never seized to amaze me.

WOW.

I didn’t know you all considered pluralism to be a good thing.
I didn’t know you loved pluralism so much.
Hell, I thought you condemned it, thinking it as a bane in a utopia society you’ve always dreamed of.

Besides, a church in Bekasi was burned down on December 15th and you just forgot about it, right?
It's just not worthy enough to address, right?
So I guess it’s “let us all devote ourselves to pluralism but neglect burning down a church an issue”, right?

And to have it just for wacky reasons such as "the statue of Mary was so big, the taste of Christianity was considered too much to handle" is just overwhelming...
It's a church! What did you expect to be inside, a big statue of SpongeBob?
Surely, you can't keep silent about this!!

Pluralism my ass, please stop desecrating the memory of God-bless-him-renaissance-man-Gus-Dur with your mumbo jumbo.
Besides, he wouldn't be a hero if you all loved pluralism just as he did.

A Heart for Luna Maya, A Finger for Infotainment Reporters

2009-12-19T19:12:00.026+07:00

Since my last attempt to write a satire about the-whole-Luna-Maya-thing went haywire, I will now write in plain language.
First, my stand point.
1.    I think anything related to gossipy infotainment shows should go to mm... somewhere (I'm not allowed to say the H word, ssh...).
2.    Oh, and the rest of the celebrities who didn’t stand up for her could go with them too.
After we’re clear about that, now let’s get down to business.

***

Infotainment reporter – what kind of a job is that anyway?
Well, infotainment reporters are people who make a living by reporting the same thing all the time. Gossip.
Yep, all those information about someone famous’ private life that the public doesn’t need to know.

Sometimes it’s hard for me to even call them REAL reporters.
You know, the ones that give REAL news.
Compare these headlines,

“Cici is finally a Divorcee!” and “The Climate Conference Comes Out a No-Brainer”.

How someone could consider the first one to be some kind of news bewilders me.
That’s why I don’t think they have the same privilege the other kinds of reporters have.

For instance, they don’t get to say, “The public needs to know!”
I’m saying this because infotainment reporters sometimes use these magic words to justify their violent means to create their stories.
Well, my comment is, “Really?”
Does the public need to know if Caca is finally in a relationship, or if Cucu did have a break-up?
The public needs to know things that CONCERN them only.
Issues about humanity, war, economics, politics, the environment, and many other things are for the public to concern.
I don’t think someone’s private matters are among those issues.
So please don’t say because the public needs to know. It proves how a bunch of idiots you really are.
It’s basically like raping girls you like because “if you have a dream, you have to reach it no matter what”.
Don’t blow it out of context.

I also don’t like how infotainment reporters say that the celebrities get their success solely because of them.
I don’t know, but I always think that their OWN work also counts for their success.
It's just the natural process: they work their asses off, people like to see them so they want to see them more, their demands increasing, and so on.
Sure, publicity helps, but it’s far from “a sole cause to their success” like some idiot infotainment show hosts claim.
And it bugs me more when they say it like it is some form of a selfless act.
“It seems that Luna Maya has forgotten the reason she was so successful. Without the effort of the infotainment reporters, there won’t even be..,” and so on.
For God’s sake, infotainment reporters only do it because it will earn them their living! Besides, it's not like they always say good things about celebrities they cover.
It’s definitely not at all a selfless act. It's parasitic. They only publish celebrities that already gain some popularity on their own. I mean, will they publish me? Of course not. Who would want to read or watch something about me?
They are leeches, sucking the blood of celebrities.
Hm..
Come again, they are far worse than that. At least leeches do not think they are doing a selfless favor for their host.

To have the media controlled by this idiotic people has made me lost my hope to Man.
An uneducated community, sadly to say, just like what we have here in Indonesia, will certainly eat something like this up and let the media decide what to think and believe.
It’s a new form of fascism,
that is run by idiots.
God, can there be worse things?

And one other thing, the fact that the other celebrities fail to stand up for Luna Maya for God knows what reason (ass kissing? cowardice?) has started to taken its toll through these events:
-    Some infotainment reporters felt UNDERMINED recently because of the habit of a singer, Ello, who always ditched his show the second it was over, depriving the interviews infotainment reporters hope for. They didn’t just say their feelings out loud, they even threw away Ello’s pre-given CDs in an act of protest.
-    The emergence of some stupid comments by infotainment reporters like,
o    “It’s the risk of being a celebrity, live with it.” (Yeah, I agree. But I don’t think it liberates them to do just about ANYTHING to get their stories)
o    or countless other derogatory remarks aimed to Luna Maya that are very out of place, unfair, and plainly evil (such as the one that accuses her of faking her motherly reaction to Ariel’s daughter just to win the heart of his father)

Who do they think they are anyway?

- removed by author -

2009-12-18T20:11:00.012+07:00

This post has been removed due to the author's apparent inability to express his true opinion and intention, resulting in misunderstanding and damage unforeseeable.

In short, this post was a metaphor taken much too literally, a fail attempt of writing a comedic satire.

In shorter, this post was an example of irony not understood.

In shortest, this post was a fuck up.

I'll try to do better the next time I write about satires so people won't get me wrong.

I truly apologize for everyone wrongly offended.

PS: I've always hated and will always hate those pesky gossip reporters. Gossip reporter is a kind of profession which sucks on the wounds of others to earn money. No better than a leech, and certainly deserves everything Luna Maya has said about it.
All my heart goes to Luna Maya and Mieke Amalia.

Screwed Up English Test

2009-10-22T19:45:00.004+07:00

Just had an English proficiency test from LIA.
I can't believe how hard the listening part is.
It was filled with problems like this.

Man: How about our plan for Saturday?
Woman: The weather report says it will be rainy on Saturday, but Sunday will be sunny.

QUESTION: what is the woman saying?
a. [can't remember]
b. Sunday will be sunny
c. They have to postpone their plan until Sunday
d. [can't remember]

What the f***?!!! Which one should I pick?!!!

UPDATE
It's 611 and 84 for speaking! Thank God for the structure part!

UPDATE
It's 652 and 87.
I had some sleep.

The Reason I Usually Prefer Western Songs

2009-10-22T19:40:00.007+07:00

Here are some lyrics from a western and a local song.
I hope it explains everything.

How to Avoid Being Called a Nutcase

2009-10-22T19:03:00.002+07:00

I’ve just undergone a psychology test a couple of days ago for my neurology application.
Needless to say, the test went haywire.
In the end, the psychologist seemed to think that I had some mental defects.

Anyway, here are some don’ts to get you through such test safely.

When asked to draw something out of a dot, don’t draw the solar system.
When asked to draw something out of a square, don’t draw a giant hot air balloon flying through the fields AND entitle it ‘an adventure of exploration’.
When asked to draw something out of a cup, don’t draw a giant telescope directed to the skies with a man underneath AND entitle it ‘peeking through the giant telescope’.
When asked to draw something out of two connected lines, don’t draw a gigantic machine with its thruster glowing towards you AND entitle it ‘behind an ion engine’.
When asked to draw something out of two parallel lines, don’t draw a staircase with a winged man on top, facing the clouds, ready to jump, AND entitle it ‘on the brink of enlightenment’.
When asked to draw something out of a curve, don’t draw the earth with a figure standing behind it, trying to embrace it, AND entitle it ‘God is watching’.
When asked ‘must good people who do nothing but good things receive good things also?’, don’t answer ‘yes, although I won’t be surprised if they don’t’.
When asked why we have to keep our promises, don’t answer ‘because in this already uncertain world, the last thing we need is another uncertain thing’.
When asked why we have to respect our parents and teachers, don’t answer ‘because they know better’.

If you choose to do all the above anyway, expect to have a follow-up interview filled with questions such as ‘what do you think of rationalization?’, ‘how’s your relationship with God?’, ‘what things in this life that you consider relevant?’, ‘do your parents let you think freely?’ INSTEAD OF normal questions like ‘have you worked before?’, ‘what kind of job do you like?’ that everyone but me got.