Out of so many reasons behind world's becoming such a mess, I would highlight man's obsession towards claiming the Truth as its thickest bottom line. On one side, religions work their ass off in vain, selling God to people who have retired from buying unfalsifiable tenets. Next to this scheme, various ethnic groups seek for a sustainable recognition under the hope to win a race that never even existed. Huntington would wrap this notion as 'Clash of Civilizations' while Fukuyama in 'The End of History' insisted that liberalism have won and there's no need to further argue on anything.

This piece of writing, ladies and gentlemen, aims to question--not necessarily to answer--life's most profound mystery (and simultaneously the omphalos of my life): what, or I should say who, is Truth?

When I was a child, everything seemed to be a lot easier: my parents would provide a set of premises for me to embrace and accept as Truth. Eyang, a fundamentalist moslem herself, would offer me stories about how the Christians slaughtered my 'brothers and sisters' during The Crusades--hence it's okay to secretly hate them. My elementary school teacher (or should I put it in a plural form?) would make the Dutch sound like Earth's worst villains. In short, they forced me to see the world as a dichotomy of Truth: some deeds are right, and some others are unforgivably wrong. They labeled history with value-saturated meanings.

Today, however, being an abnormally inquisitive being, I can't help but to question these notions all over again: Why is something moral? Who decide if an action is right or wrong? What is behind everyone's action?

Religious Preachers: "Truth Is God, My Child"

God (the Creator, Allah, Jesus, Buddha, Yahweh, or other names people decide to call Him) is usually--unique to each case--man's either first or last attempt to find Truth. It's quite easy to understand why religions are so tempting: it offers you calming, dogmatic tenets that keep you off from the search for a bigger cause, of critical assessments towards the given principles. I don't have the capacity to claim anything big, but I believe that religions shall never be seen as black boxes of sacred, unquestionable teachings but rather a peaceful room for discussions where, under heaven's blessings, people contend ideas and get ready for counter-arguments.

So, in defense of Truth, one being is too small to comprehend God's big plans--hence the necessity for discourses inside any religion.

Romantic Poets: "Truth Is Love, My Darling"

I'm rather skeptical about mankind's ability to feel deep affection for someone unconditionally--but I can give you a list of people who would say something like, "Every individual completes his/herself after they find their destined love." (...and I would rebut with a straight face, "Dude, isn't every baby born complete with their own thoughts?") So instead of waving a white flag behind the pillars of a certain religion, these people find Truth in the face and words of their lover. Nothing else matters, really, because their whole world comes down to a single person, and with him/her around, they know Truth exists.

But then again, in defense of Truth, love is too subtle to be proven real. Sometimes it materializes into nice gestures, sometimes they disappear. Is Truth something that disappears every now and then? I don think so.

Johan: "Truth Is Pain"

Everytime I raise this question, he would state, confidently, "The only real thing in this world is pain, darling." To some extent, I find the urge to agree with this notion. I mean, feelings that are translated into man-invented words can deceive you, face expressions can be easily trained, but pain hurts when they visit. In defense of Truth, however, I wholeheartedly believe that Truth should depict an unbiased, balanced proposition. It shall not stand at the edge of eitherside of the spectrum (like 'pain') for it is too unfair to bestow the title upon one party.

Greek Philosophers: "Truth Is What You Make of It"

One of my Monday classes in Sekolah Tinggi Filsafat Drikayara actually taught us that Truth, in the end, might be as simple as a consensus. It is created by the society in order to halt potential conflicts and chaos that might emerge has there been no agreed Truth. This is what I'm currently holding on to. Alexander Wendt, the father of constructivism, would add a long list of arguments about how states create their Truth. Down in my subconscious, I know that this explanation serves best to what I myself have been thinking. Until now, however, I can't completely embrace this idea for it's too heartbreaking that Truth does not actually exist. It is invented, by humans, to serve their selfish interests, and thenceforth is re-inventable.

It is twice saddening because to me, the search for Truth--the journey--bodes be better than the destination itself, and it shall end immediately have I been illuminated by this way of thinking. I reject to stop, though. I created new journeys in the quest for Truth. I reject to, like other people, roll back into their worldly blankets and decide to ignore the neverending questions about life's fundamental puzzles and riddles.

In defense of Truth, I would end this post by saying that, if there's one relieving truth you can rely on, it's the fact that our planet has an infinite number of books.

Grab one before you sleep and good night!

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Having been aware of the possible accusation aimed at me being moonstruck over a particular guy stimulated by this post, I would say that (even ephemeral) fondness is an inseparable part of life--meaning, philosophers do not simply ignore the existence and elusiveness of this peculiar emotion.

They did--and still do--talk about it. In various parts of the world, students read books on the philosophy of love ('philo-' means love, by the way). No, seriously. They really do. Even if they don't, I know you're furtively intrigued by the title. HAHAHA.

Well.

To start, in one of those late-night braindances, my friend (an avid thinker himself) and I arrived to this conversation on mankind's most bewildering concept: soulmates.

Asked we: Do they really exist?

Aside from how much I admire Carl and Ellie's story, I remained skeptical--I doubted the possible chance of discovering one single male/female that was decided by God to be 'the one', especially with this whole mess of people fooling around with each other. Even if it was true, the risk of being exposed to getting hurt as a trade-off for wrong guesses is just too much of a burden.

That is not to mention these unanswered questions:

• At what point can we be assured that someone is our other half? I mean, if you would only marry your soulmate, how can you confirm such faith before the story even finishes?
• Is relationship/marriage the only tool to officialize this hypothesis? What about married 'soulmates' who get divorced?
• Does cheating negate the idea that he's your soulmate? Why so?
• Is death, then, the only validating mechanism to prove your notion?

As a social scientist, I firmly stand for a quantification of premises. When the society fails to produce these indicators, I must induce that it owns zero utility and shall not prevail.

My friend, however, thought otherwise. Soulmates do exist, said he. But today's culture has misinterpreted the claim. Soulmates are ought to always be plural--a man can have many soulmates, some of which might as well end up being his bestfriends. When you can perceive an established, subconscious connection, voila, he's your soulmate.

...wait, what?

That is indeed an intriguing way of portraying a new idea of soulmates, but it mercilessly violates the first rule of soulmate-ship: exclusiveness. I simply fail to see any point in possessing a public good soulmate who is cheaply accessible for everyone. A 'shared other-half' already sounds like an oxymoron.

Putting the bliblical tenets (and 'I created thou in pairs' ayat in Al-Qur'an) aside, the initial blame should go to Aristophanes (who had lived even before Muhammad and Jesus were born) for the crazy idea that he proposed:

...Humans originally had four arms, four legs, and a single head made of two faces, but Zeus feared their power and split them all in half, condemning them to spend their lives searching for the other half to complete them.

Thank you, Aris, for the inconvenient visualization. I mean it.
Assuming that he was true, though, my questions would still be justifiable.

As much as the symbolization of this concept sound effortlessly uncomplicated, the practicalities are far from easy. The society's derivative theses about soulmates, for example, distort our initial, honest judgment. Some of them say that opposites naturally attract--even when it leads to daily disputes--while Javanese tradition believes that you and your soulmate ought to share similar toughts or at least look physically alike.

Confusing, much? I wish God did not forget to drop a Guideline to Soulmate Discovery when He put Adam and Eve on Earth.

Anyway.

Plato, putting Aristophanes's thoughts into Symposium, added:

I believe that if our loves were perfectly accomplished, and each one returning to his primeval nature had his original true love, then our race would be happy. And if this would be best of all, the best in the next degree must in present circumstances be the nearest approach to such union; and that will be the attainment of a congenial love.

I have no idea what he specifically meant by 'congenial love', but if his postulation was true, then the reason why today's planet is filled with more and more unhappy people has been revealed: instead of tenaciously chasing their 'original true love' (with the inherent risk of getting hurt and deceived), we run after worldliness that provide us more control. In other words, we deny our genetic urge and hide in the safe haven called 'productivity'.

Even Walt, one of the most prominent International Relations scholars who is plausibly indifferent to the idea, cared about how realism would see relationships. A realist friend and I shared a similar sentiment, but we brought our discourse on its conceptualization beyond Walt's, especially on seeing relationships as a form of strategic alliances by state-actors. Basically, it's how vigilant calculations on involved parties' interest and the global structure are required to take place before a country decides to sign a pact.

Some people--having drunk too much Symposium--would romanticize that love is not the union of man and woman, it's rather a reunion of one unity. This actually belittles the significance of words and grammar rules--affection is a universal language, they would say.

Before we get anywhere else, there's a beautiful, comforting quote from Aomame in Haruki Murakami's 1Q84:

If you can love someone with your whole heart--even if he's a terrible person or he doesn't love you back--life is not a hell, at least.

To fall in love and get extremely happy but having to deal with the unknown future with its hazardous sadness, or to remain fairly 'okay' at the middle point by denying how you feel about the magical conversations you always have with that particular person.

The choice is all yours, darling.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Although flattering, compliments are tricky. They penetrate your subconscious and leave a nice message there: words that—when handled with care—can brighten your gloomy day and motivate you to move forward, but has the simultaneous potential to turn you into an annoying, proud, and conceited human being. That's why I hate—be it true or dishonest—appraisals in general. However, come to think of it, I twice hate people who deny compliments as an effort of producing fake humility.

"That's over-rating. I hardly study everyday."

"No, really, I'm still half-way from trying to lose kilos!"

"These shoes? They're Zara but seriously they're very cheap..."

Okay. Cross the last one.

My point is, negating nice things that people say to you will not make them feel any better. When people say you're a genius or good-looking or beautiful with the outfit you just bought, thank them. Stay humble not by lowering standards that would only lead to further—rather inconvenient—comparisons. Stay humble by being grateful and happy instead.

In some cases, openly admitting your strengths deserve even a greater round of applause, because (1) self-understanding is a very difficult task and (2) you dare to take the risk of being a public enemy. HAHAHA. No, really. Bear in mind, however, in order to play on the safe side, you must master the knowledge of your audience's background and unique characteristics, so that you won't sound like a pathetic seller in a free market. I mean, when you know that one of your peer friends is working hard on his/her paper, don't brag about your twenty-page early submission.

That, my friend, will lead us to my being confused. By the time I posted this, I swear to God that I'm still not sure about what I'm trying to say, but let's just give it a shot. (Yes this is a personal curhat that you might want to skip.)

In the past week, I was honored to have a number of acquaintances—that's a soft synonym for complete strangers, but really cordial ones—approaching me to tell that I should publish a book. Well, truth be told, having my name printed on mounting copies of commercial paperbacks does sound nice, despite all the non-mainstream idealism that I uphold. But beyond idealism, I have fears that hold me from even trying. A list of them.

To start, I'm lousy with bahasa Indonesia.

This is not an attempt to pretend that I was born from non-Indonesian parents or romantically raised with liberal values in the United States, but I helplessly sound like a cocky announcer in my mother language. To be fair, I do sound like a cocky announcer in daily conversations... All the more reason I think people would prefer to 'read' than 'listen' to me.

Second of all, as much as people say they will 'definitely buy' my book, I know there aren't as many people who would.

In addition to my poor language ability, I hardly write on popular topics. I'm not that much interested with pop culture, neither am I into traveling. Love story? Consider it non-existent. I mean, looking at the titles of my posts enable you to judge already. This leaves me no other option than being someone else, if I want to write books that actually 'sell'. I envy Alanda for being so fluent in the language of inspiration. (Oh and her book is out next week! Make sure you grab yourself a copy!)

Last but most profound, I just don't have that long-span of focus as well as time to develop hundreds of pages in a limited time.

This post is intended to be some sort of a self-reflection and expression of gratitude to people's kind, motivational compliments. Somebody told me that being a true writer means being able to put untold ideas into digestible words. Which is a big challenge. And which is why I respect (most) writers.

I hope you don't get the wrong message. Thanks for reading and good night!

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Repetition, according to Hegel, plays a crucial role in history:
"...when something happens once, it may be dismissed as an accident, something that might have been avoided if the situation had been handled differently; but when some event repeats itself, it is a sign that a deeper historical process is unfolding."

Cleopatra's beauty, for instance, wouldn't have gained as much acknowledgement had she not turn a queue of men with gallantries into falling for her. I would complement Hegel's point by saying that luck and success are separated by a span of repetition--and hardwork, probably. The following article is going to discuss about, basically, ideas that have been self-repeating in my head for the past, wait, 38 days of my blogging hiatus.

1. Why Not Head of Dragon?

I am pretty sure you're familiar with an old analogy which proclaims (if not 'assumes') that being the 'tail of a dragon' is much better than being the 'head of a snake'. People often relate this hypothesis with the options of struggling hard in a competitive community over playing it easy in an underdog team.

This morning, Iman came up with his usual confidence, inquiring upon, "Why not head of dragon?" Well because, I would rebut, not everyone knows what they're really good at and brave enough to test the water with the inherent risk of being horrendously defeated. Because some people--yours truly included--are just too coward.

Researches (I know this from Pak Kun--a head of dragon himself) show that only 0.0003% of the entire world is blessed enough to champion that prestigious title. These are CEOs of multinational corporations, world political leaders, globally accepted artists, and Nobel Prize winners. But then again, you'll never know if you're one of them unless you're ready to lose at some point.

Once you get there, Iman would say, don't forget to share your magic and help other snakes to grow into invincible dragons.

2. Leaving or Losing?

Being a free-thinker who's too proud to rely on religions also means losing your ground--it involves endless questions on what's gonna happen after we leave this ephemeral realm. Death, therefore, becomes scarier for its extreme level of uncertainty. Until today, I'm still (trying) to hold on to what Islam has been telling me: that good deeds will be rewarded and bad people will have to pay something off. But that is just a tiny part of what death is really about.

Two weeks ago, I finished both reading and watching Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close--a wonderful story about how a(n extremely incredible) boy named Oskar Schell had to deal with his father's death over 9/11. It took him months of investigation and discovery until he came to accept one bitter truth: that death is real--and it takes your beloved away. Now that, is what death is mostly about for me. Either leaving the people you love--or losing them in pain. The fear is twice as big on me because I've never lost any significant other in my life, which gets me used to take them for granted. I just hope that even if we have to part temporarily, we shall meet again in the Afterlife.

P.S. The story as a movie is as enjoyable as it is as a book, in their distinct way. It's a shame if you miss this five-star!

3. People Make Excuses Because They Love You

Some of you are probably checking out this blog to find a mood lifter after your great fight with someone whom you really care about--you hate them for having lied to you, for making excuses when all you need is an honest apology. Well, I would ask you to humbly forgive them, because maybe they did it all because they care about you, too.

The concept of any 'excuse', as I've been observing, roots back to necessary (not always hidden) motives or justification for things we should've (or should've not, in some cases) done. Excuses are heavily influenced by the kind of emotional and/or professional tie we share with the subject. A student makes excuse to his teacher because he still shows some respect. A husband makes up a story about traffic jam because he's sorry he has made his spouse wait for two hours.

People make excuses because they love you--otherwise they'll hurt or leave you directly. Of course some would argue that true love appreciates honesty yada yada yada, but at the point that the other party does not want to hurt you--I think it deserves some forgiveness and celebration.

4. Ideology Puts People in Boxes, Deal With It

Quick update: I've been (illegally) attending classes at one super awesome philosophy school, cordially abducted by a senior, to which I really am grateful for. In the past weeks, I've been enlightened by great Romos about quite a list of ethics' distinct proponents. They introduced me to a Christian version of Sartre, Levinas, and other distinguished thinkers.

Last Monday, Romo Magniz invited us to see the idea of 'ideology' differently: What is it? Why does it matter? Does Indonesia need one? Is Pancasila an ideology? If yes, is it the most appropriate one for our country? What about religions? Are they another form of ideology or--as Marx puts it--false consciousness? What does it have to do with ethics?

In the end of that long discussion, a new mystery evolves in my head: if ideology is a strong ground from which human thoughts can depart and develop, how can you be sure that it doesn't keep you from truths burried down under that ground? Simultaneously, when would you know that you should stop digging? What basis can one use to clarifies that freedom and liberty is a basic right? Why can't we debate on that cause?

This puts me in despair: if every consciousness is based on another constructed consciousness, then where is truth? My senior said that each of us need a set of glasses to look at the world--unfortunately, the factory is not capable of producing standardized, identical commodities. That's where constructivism fills in and try to explain everything--and compromise should hence take place.

If there's only one thing I know about truth-seekers, it's that they shall enjoy the most when proven wrong. But the sad thing is, they'll never know when they have to halt their efforts. Maybe truth-seekers should just keep looking...

5. There Is Such Thing as Historical Necessity

Yesterday, a friend came to me and consult if she should join this prestigious competition which at one side excites her very much, but at the same time forces her to face her own insecurities: meeting even greater candidates. I said if she really wants it, she should go for it.

Let's look around. You'll find that people regret more because of things they did not, rather than things they actually did. Melissa taught me this. Out of life's most terrifying failures, there will always, always be a lesson learned. Most of the time, it does not come in a singular form. Fiascos teach us humility and help us jump higher the next time.

Most devastating failures is a historical necessity. Edison would wholeheartedly support me on this. Rather than secretly cursing on people we conceitedly think we're better from without being able to prove so, I'd rather discover that I'm inferior to them, accept it in peace, and move on to the next opportunities with new hopes. In Rocky's words:

...Whether in front of our laptops making sense of the world, doing something for it out there, or both. We all have our places.

6. Why Self-Wander When You Have Friends?

I'm not anti-social, you see. I enjoy other people's company in a social setting, but I do have to admit that--most of the time--I draw my energy from solitary spaces. Some (self-proclaimed social) people might see this as a problem, but I argue otherwise. Quoting Tintin's post, being alone and lonely are two different affairs.

In a more specific scale, I enjoy wandering off alone. If I can add to Tintin's list of why solo traveling, I would come up with this:

• When it comes to difficult options, you don't have to suffer from knowing that you're wrong, because there's no second opinion. (Familiar with "Tuh kan, udah gue bilang!" phrase?)
• You don't have to deal with people rejecting and/or proposing crazy ideas under the name of normalcy and/or fun. (I once randomly approached a girl in Citos offering her a discount coupon because I failed to find an urge to buy anything and it expired the next day.)
• You can laugh by yourself because someone's joke suddenly pops up in your head and you don't have to care if anyone is curious enough to find out why because you're just 'some stranger'.
• You can pretend that you're a tourist from China and see if Jakartian people are smart enough to not get fooled.

Last and least, not that much of compromise is needed. Well, I enjoy hanging out in groups, too, but I a balanced portion of both sounds nicer.

7. Iconoclasm Is Depressing

Are you one of those hipsters who enjoy doing something before it was cool? Well, I am. It does feel good when you think you're the only person doing something, right? But let's wake up: we never are. Bearing in mind that Earth today is filled with over 9 billion people, somewhere in another part of the world, someone else might have the same idea with you.

That's why iconoclasm or, as Dictionary.com defines it, attacking or ignoring cherished beliefs and long-held traditions become more and more depressing today. With social media and such, new values can be easily spread and voila, in a mere week your 'hipster-ness' will be part of the mainstream. Sad, huh?

One can indeed contend that iconoclasm is a stupid and narrow way of life because, looking at the bigger picture, one should not become different just for the sake of being different. But then again, is that not mankind's natural instinct? To be recognized as a unique self?

8. Songs with Good Lyrics Are The Best

Girls have different resons to fall in love, you see: some of them will stick with the guy who's always there for them. Some others can handle minimum amount of interaction for various illogical reasons. Some others fall in love with the kind of endless disputes they have on a daily basis. In the case of songs, I fall in love with the ones with good lyrics. (A big leap of logical fallacy, much. HAHAHA.)

Jason Mraz (in addition to Jason Reitman--my so far favorite script writer) has been my sole favorite lyric-producer (throw a listen to A Beautiful Mess and Love for a Child) until I met Ingrid Michaelson's You and I. Its simple yet very meaningful lines instantly stick in my head since the first time I listen to it.

With that, I would end this lengthy--but hopefully not pointless--post. Download the song, and have a good, long (and religious, for Christians) weekend!

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I've always thought that if there is a dichotomy of where people would live, they would be compartmentalized into those who prefer either Manhattan or London. The former being lively, vibrant individuals with ideas and hopes while the latter being blokes and ladies who are fond of timeless, classic lifestyle. Until last year, I was quite confident that I belong to the second box. Having experienced New York myself, however, I should say that I might have made a huge mistake.

This is my post-conference article about world's most beautiful city. As Frank Sinatra puts it, "If you can make it here, you'll make it anywhere."

1. The People

For one thing, people here talk and walk fast. They take subway, grab a portable meal and phone on their way to work. Time seems to be an extremely rare commodity, and one shall do whatever it takes to use it very wisely. This can hardly be found in Jakarta--let alone Depok--whose citizens should bear with traffic jams and belated trains. In the Big Apple, you simply can't survive without pushing yourself off the limit and keep up with everyone's pace. Even beggars and street singers need to be creative lest they want to make money.

Quick fact: almost 250.000 people test their luck by moving in (and out) every year, but only really, really determined ones get to the top. New York is like the ace card: one needs to know what game they enter to make the most use of it. Otherwise, it's almost definite that you'll fail.

Anyway. What I like the most about New Yorkers is their inherent individualism--some people mistranslate that as ignorance, though--that allows you to be your complete self. I can shout amidst a flow of humans (a simpler experiment would be wearing an annoying, orange shirt) on the street and nobody would care enough to judge and talk about me in more than an hour. This behavior welcomes the wildest form of dream and, with a little extra hard work, it might actually come true.

2. Books, Books, More Books

Strand Bookstore (its slogan being "where books are loved" and "18 miles of books"), is so far one of the main reasons why I think I would love to stay here forever. This is not to mention the other 9 independent bookstores and Union Square's Barnes and Noble. Yes, people usually go to New York to enjoy its bars and restaurants, but one (read: I) needs to read before they can hit anything else. Here's why:

Imagine one shelf of good books. Does visualizing it make you happy? If yes, now imagine there is one big room full of sectionalized shelves of good books. And if that's not enough, imagine there are four floors of them. FOUR EFFING FLOORS! Now that I have visited the bookstore myself, I can die peacefully. Wait--I still need to make a lot of money to buy the whole building before I can really rest in peace. HAHAHA.

Anyway. It's not actually about the fact that their stores are huge. It's the basic reality that the books are good. Let's admit it: Indonesian books offer you less worth-discussing ideas, but rather mainstream books that people would buy. American bookstores, on the other hand, were made in such way that you could hardly see books as mere economic commodity. Books are rather very appreciated. The Harvard Bookstore in Boston even printed their own custom cover with a card saying, "The great story inside might be undermined for its horrible cover."

Here in our country, the publishers dare not to take unorthodox titles that would barely be popular for domestic readers. Shall we sigh in unison now?

These reasons being said, I think you would understand why the United States is such a perfect place to breed and feed thoughts.

3. Breathtaking Spots

One does not simply walk and fall in love with a city--but such statement might need further justification for New York. One simply stops at the 42nd street station and walk up through Times Square to comprehend why people can't stop romanticizing Manhattan. History also contributes a lot in shaping today's United States former capital city. Go to Top of the Rock, sail to the Liberty Island, throw its museums a visit, or simply stop at Chelsea Market and you'll understand what I mean. Alicia Keys did not lie when she says that the city is a concrete jungle whose lights will inspire you. No exceptions exist for that statement, methinks.

I tweeted this but I'll say it again: if Boston is the City of Academia and D.C. is the City of Power, then New York is the City of Dreams. With all humility, I wholeheartedly wish I can spend a significant amount of my life there--an amen from you might mean a lot.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Nobody enjoys being left alone...or so the society thinks.

Individuals who hide behind the walls of isolation are just a bunch of cowards who don't possess enough bravery to face the imperfection of human beings that has disturbed them to an intolerable level...or so the society thinks.

I believe otherwise: it is our nature to live all by ourselves.

Yes, Aristotle's concept of zoon politicon puts people as social animals, political animals, who would not survive without the help of others. I'm not sure if I understand the argument behind his notion, but his empirical observation might be surprisingly wronged.

We were born from a mother, that is a factual truth. However, being part of a family is not even a choice we make. Some of us are, indeed, lucky enough to receive love from our given parents (whom we don't pick from a market's display window, by the way), but some others are less fortunate in a way that they have to build their own kit-to-survive-childhood institution named orphanage. Some others fail to even understand why they were born when they're unwanted. Okay that went a little bit off the main line. My point is, there is no unfalsifiable justification to a subjective view that we are all born social. Although, you can always argue the other way around.

My main, semi-physical evidence to prove the case to you, ladies and gentlemen, is the existence of our thoughts--subsonscious, undermind, or other alternative nouns that English is kind enough to provide us with.

No one, I repeat, no one can ever understand another person's idea completely.

Not even Plato towards Socrates. Our brain, sometimes stimulated by rationality or faith, produces insights that are solid enough to require extra efforts for one to break in. Everyone has the right to compose a thorough explanation in order to assist a second party to enter your room of thoughts, but there will always be a shadowy section of which they would not comprehend completely. The same framework can also be utilized to shed some light upon analyzing our dreams--one of our most personal belongings.

So I contend, as long as human still owns the attribute of private properties--a wholly different realm whose entrance is not accessible by another person even when the owner wishes so, we are pretty much secluded creatures.

Another bad news, even love might have been designed to put us into a state of extreme alienation. Peek into Jeffrey Eugenides, in The Marriage Plot:

Madeleine fully understood how the lover's discourse is of an extreme solitude. The solitude was extreme because it wasn't physical. It was extreme because you felt it in the company of the person you loved. It was extreme because it was in your head, the most solitary of all places.

In the end, I don't necessarily expect you to understand such a saturated theory, because I know you wouldn't. I comprehend that we were all born as unique individuals, not as groups of people, with our incomprehensible minds as a valid distinction.

You should not, however, misperceive me as a skeptic to social or even romantic interaction between human beings. I always admire, as a matter of fact, how people are able to create some kind of connection with others--whom of which was once a complete stranger to their own being.

Most blessed of all are people who believe in, and find, their true love--despite the solitudeness they were naturally born with. Have a blissful week!

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I blame Iman for having lured me into composing this personal kaleidoscope which most of you might not even be interested in. But with or without your permission, I am going to brag (I know 'share' is a hypothetical verb) about the best things that happened to me last year (and prove to you that happiness might come in a form of simple, everyday lessons and first-times):

January: Has It Been A Year?

February: Boston, New York, and D.C.

March: I Don't Swim...but I Snorkle!

When I was informed that I was selected to attend the faculty's talent scouting program in Kepulauan Seribu, I did not realize that I'd end up in such gratefulness: that Earth owns gorgeous creatures under the sea, and that there are honest people living by the coast. This picture was taken before we dipped ourselves into Laut Jawa.

April: There's Always the First Time for Everything

May: A Tweet Just Happened

June: New Batch, New Energy!

Meet Indonesian Future Leaders' (IFL) new board of executives, framed right after our hilarious 2-day Camp. Energized by 'IFL Initiates', this team is (supposedly) ready to aim for greater youth development this (and next) year!

July: A Slap of "You're Not A Freshman Anymore!"

That's the beloved batch of International Relations Universitas Indonesia 2011, a new family which reminded us--batch 2009--that we're not a first-year student anymore. In fact, it's almost our 4th year... You guys rocked and we did our best, so let's not thank each other but make us proud!

August: First (Visionary and Yet Paid) Formal Work

September: Two Weeks of Being 'Young' Again

Thanks to Iman and Alanda, I was able to join a Volunteer Program Development and Management Course (VPDM) arranged by VSO Bahaginan in Antipolo, Philippines. Apparently being surrounded by old people (the youngest one was a 29 year-old Chinese bloke!) reminds you of how being young and spiritful is indeed a privilege. I learned a lot of new things.

September: Having My Baby's 2nd Anniversary

Sometimes what you thought a fling could turn into a lifetime affection. I remember a quote saying that, "If you have a good idea, lead. If you heard a good idea, follow. If you don't have or hear a good idea, don't let yourself bother the others." We had the good idea, tried to lead, and now we're struggling to grow the organization bigger. Wish us luck!

October: The Future of Libya?

I was plain honored to be part of Security Council in Indonesia Model United Nations (IMUN) last year. It was not an easy work but I was happy, having directed a fruitful discussion upon the future of Libya after Gaddafi's death. (For the record, he was not dead when we had the conference--and that's probably why the news about his death immediately made me shiver.)

November: Can Indonesia Raise Social Scientists?

Who says Indonesia can't have their youngsters analyze social issues? Social Science Olympiads (OIS) is a valid evidence that WE DO HAVE ALL THE POTENTIAL WE NEED! This extraordinary event has taken so much of my time and energy this year--but it was totally worth it. I can visualize perfectly how we cried in one another's hug right after the grand champions were announced.

November: First Touchdown in Purwokerto!

December: I Knew Knowledge-Sharing Would Feel Great

Ari knows best how we did not intend to create anything big, but School of Diplomacy (SOD) just managed to betray our expectations--in a good way! Started as a simple fundraising idea at Burger and Grill, we had  more than 200 students on board, each of them is enthusiastic to learn in our chambers. Hats off to the facilitators, too!

December: A Thesis Topic?

Isn't it ironic that my first post in 2012 is about 2011? Regardless all the bad luck that was kind enough to have visited me several times (in a row) last year, I am happy. I was not that sure about that before, but reading this post...I guess I am. (Supported by the fact that I learned shuffling, several billiard trick shots and--most important of all--cha cha cha dance in the last day of 2011, HAHAHA.)

Have a blessed year ahead, everyone. We deserve it.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Some of you might disagree: since thousands of years ago, the most difficult quest of human being is to solve the never-ending riddle of our own complex sets of brain cells.

It is hard, my dear friends, because there is no such thing as a finish line which we can visualize in the end of the road--ergo, it would take perpetual endeavours to do so. Let's admit it once and for all: our mind evolves. What used to be a 'truth' is now a 'lie' (Remember when church was the only omnipotent institution?) and, to add an external problem which makes the game even more intriguing, the shape of our world is constantly altering.

Having known that the possibility of discovering a completely satisfactory answer to the mystery of human's elusive mind is near zero, most of the people fleed to the study of secondary questions: natural science. These people try to explain how atoms react to each other, how numbers have a certain pattern that amaze us all, as well as how carbons are processed in our body. Natural scientists are blessed to experience a temporary happiness of being able to produce knowledge and mastery through experiments--but deep inside, I believe that we all keep that drop of curiosity to find out how mankind produce thoughts.

Social scientists are therefore, brave intellectuals who dare themselves to shed some light on the primary inquiry: how does a person think? What can be the raison d'etre behind one's action? Why not the other way around?

Some of them are labeled as psychologist, communication expert, theologist, anthropologist, sociologist, and--top of all--philosophers. One tries to explain what comprises fondness, another elucidates the idea behind one community's political preference, while the rest analyzes our society's consumptive behavior. If they're stubborn enough, they might as well go to the extend of explaining why human needs a God--and religion.

Within the past fortnight of not posting here, my brain has been producing quite a list of points to discuss about. Most of them involve human's idealistic notion of romance, but I also spare enough space for daily observations:

1. In a ladder of fondness, admiration stays at the bottom.

Fahmi and I once debated on whether admiration comprises tinier particles of love or is it admiration that contributes to the bigger building of love. He confidently suggested that love is just 1% of admiration (I'm pretty sure he had Real Madrid in mind when he said 'admiration'!), while I contended elseways. Unlike admiration which focuses you on one's fine traits, love helps you see perfection in their flaws.

So, here goes my proposal.

There are at least 3 distinct verbs to express different levels of fondness: admire, like, and love. Of course, English is generous enough to leave us quite a collection of alternatives: adore, care, appreciate, adulate, worship, and the list goes on--but for now, we'll just stick with the trio.

At the lowest floor of the pyramid, is when you admire a person because you find them attractive. The popular word for it might be--to have a crush? You just seem to notice a certain trait, degree of cleverness, or physical appearance that interest you--thus captivate your attention at some level or another.

The next step is when you like them, triggered by further interaction with this individual. It is, however, a bit tricky, because there comes the two-prone possibility of either losing the interest completely because he/she doesn't meet your expectations, or falling even deeper into their charm. To 'like' does not, however, provide the quintessential tolerance for weaknesses. You simply live in your nice imagination of him being the perfect prince--or her being the most beautiful lady.

The bad news? They're not. They are, as a matter of fact, just human beings with flaws. There goes the key to get to the next, final level: acceptance.

Have you managed to take these imperfections--be it false tunes, covered wound, or stained habits--as an inseparable aspect of your beloved, you are ready to love them. Indeed, the wind blows tighter up there: every event just seems to reveal itself as a potential threat for your feelings. You will, by then, get familiar with anger and jealousy which are, surprisingly, the validating properties of your fondness.

2. A true leader climbs their ladder.

After a long, midnight discussion with Jessica (while recalling lessons from my Management Principles course a year ago), I realized that a leader is just a person who is foolish enough to admit that he/she is.

You see, being a leader is just a role that human chooses to take from time to time. Some of us needs it to achieve a vision, some of us wants it for money, but it doesn't matter, really, as long as we understand that being trusted as the leader is never a means to prove that we're better than anyone else in the team.

It rather means that the rest of the people in the team are better than you in preparing the events, in fundraising, and in doing the publication--but in the end, you get some of the credits because it's you who decides to stay there, stick them together, stand up and motivate when everybody's down, and take the blame when a decent coordination does not take place.

We further agreed that a true leader climbs their ladder in order to have a first-hand experience of being a follower. This idea has also been approved theoretically, where leaders are ought to be a staff at their first years so that they can understand the grassroot situation before getting to lead anyone else.

3. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

...including uncertainty. My English teacher once said that in order to survive, human needed a fair, balanced amount of certaintly and uncertainty. A man, for example, needs to be assured that he can eat in the next morning, but at the same time life would be too boring for him if he knows exactly what food he'll be eating everyday. This has been a very interesting concept to me, and I've been trying to find other examples ever since. I take 'job' as certainty and 'projects' as uncertainty--or 'marriage' as certainty and 'love' as uncertainty. In this regards, surprises at birthdays still make sense despite the fact that they are very predictable, because the time and place will always remain as uncertainty.

4. Books are sentient beings. Period.

A friend shared me a link to Mortimer J. Adler's prose on How to Mark a Book. To quote his exact words:

I contend, quite bluntly, that marking up a book is not an act of mutilation but love.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait in there, Mr Adler, did you just say that smearing books with symbols all over its pages is an act of love? I think I have to stand against that idea. He did make a valid point when he says that:

...But the soul of a book can be separated from its body. A book is more like the score of a piece of music than it is like a painting. No great musician confuses a symphony with the printed sheets of music. Arturo Toscanini reveres Brahms, but Toscanini's score of the C-minor Symphony is so thoroughly marked up that no one but the maestro himself can read it.

Then again, music scores are nothing like idea-condensed books. (When I said 'books', you understand that I refer to thoughtful ones, not some market-based sets of words, right?) No matter how much you love--or hate--a book, it is a sentient being who deserves to be treated well for it is a physical manifestation of thoughts. Great conductors do not make notations on lines of magnificent sentences--they compse new symphony through marking scores.

I say, if you fail to appreciate the body, you can hardly understand the soul. Although in the end, people might express love through different ways,
tee-hee!

5. God must be hiding a happy-ending scenario behind the existence of these conflict-triggering religions.

As much as I have this tendency to invent confusing questions about--and for--God, I apparently am still the very conservative girl back then who has an auto-pilot that drives herself into possitive assumptions about Him.

Rumor has it, God closes certain people's heart from receiving the light for particular religions. My brain has it, it would be a too shallow, and poor, description for Him.

You see, I possess this preposterous habit of watching people walking down the street from the window of my room. One day, it just came up to my mind that each of them--destined for a different story and religion--must play their unique role in God's master plan. As quoted from Cin(T)a:

Why would God create us different, if He only wants to be worshiped in a single way?

I once said to a friend over coffee that I would feel awfully betrayed if God does not own any happy-ending scenario behind this diversity of religions He has created on Earth. At the status quo, I can say that I still am very much disappointed to the existing conflicts it triggered.

My most favorite story line would be Dwinta's concept of 'destination', while the second-best alternative would be this: God's actually playing a trick by designing us with a limited container for faith but endless curiosity for truth so that we would ask one another, share ideas, and basically, interact. Because otherwise we'll just stay at our safe houses of unitary religion.

6. Movie is not a character-killing product.

Instead, it's a character-producing one.

I wholeheartedly believe that there are many of us who have been let down by novel-based movies, and I'm not proud to say that I used to be one of those furious audience. Harry Potter, Sense and Sensibility, One Day--you name it--true readers don't really fancy movies.

Of course, I truly understand that movies are intended to please our audio-visual and not mere imagination, and thus are challenged to be eye-and-ear-catching, which are still very tolerable, until I met (the movie) Sherlock Holmes (last year) and Professor Moriarty (yesterday).

Here is all I need to say: my handsomely smart English man has turned into a laughing stock while the brilliant antagonist does not have the fierce expression I expected. So no, people, I won't take it anymore. I decided to reach out for acceptance through seeing Sherlock (the movie) and Sherlock (Doyle's) as two different persons.

And with that, ladies and gentlemen, I rest my last case in 2011. I don't even know what point I was trying to make back there, but always remember that getting lost in a bookstore might still be the best bliss that we can get so far.

Oh and for 2012, let's keep my friend's idea in mind: dreams are not genetic and self-driven, thus--before it's too late--let's revisit our old dreams and see if we can make them come true (like having http://afutami.foreignpolicy.com--HAHA). Happy new year!

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Meet Rocky, my self-proclaimed lost Chinese brother. Like me, he aspires to be an international relations scholar. Yet--unlike me--he still cares how he can directly contribute to the society. If you think you have an answer, please spare some time to comment on this post, thank you!

Rocky: So Fu...I’ve been pondering lately. What can we do as an IR scholar to society? Will we be able to do much for its betterment? Passion memang lah ya, tapi terpanggil juga nggak sih untuk society? Terutama yang sekitar kita. Hahaha aduh maaf tiba-tiba random gini.

Me: First of all, think we need to agree on the degree of ‘scholarship’ that we’re aiming ourselves to get to. Would it simply stop at being a regular lecturer, or would it last until we produce our own IR theory?

Me: Well, jadi dua-duanya bisa tetep kontribusi ke masyarakat sih…in a different way. Kalau gue mimpinya jadi dosen-slash-profesor (amin) yang bisa bikin bibit-bibit pemikir juga. In a way, itu bentuk kontribusi yang pengen gue kasih ke Indonesia (as a state) supaya pembuat kebijakan luar negeri-nya lebih aware dan bertujuan…gitu. Tapi kalo pertanyaan lo gimana kontribusi langsung ke masyarakat sekitar susah juga dijawab sama profesi scholar itu. Gue mah percayanya kita akan selalu punya waktu luang buat bikin projek/kegiatan lain kalau emang mau give back langsung.

Rocky: Memang sih pertanyaan gue mungkin lebih ke fungsi dari scholar sendiri. Apa keuntungan langsung dari masyarakat Indonesia misalnya, kalo ada pencetus teori HI yang menjelaskan politik internasional lebih komprehensif. Gw sendiri awalnya mau jadi scholar karena murni fun bidangnya sih. I’m too much of a philosophical bastard to be an entrepreneur. Oh wait I’m Chinese! HAHAHA.

Me: Me too. There’s no way I’ll prefer entrepreneurship before IR theories (or other theories in general). Semisal nggak ada manfaatnya pun somehow gue rela-rela aja baca buku teori berjam-jam asal diri sendiri senang :))

Rocky: Yak, 100! I had dreams of working for the UN. But then I realized my passion lies in academic studies. Tapi mungkin my Chinese part kicks in here. I long for a profession that directly helps those in need.

Me: Unyu. I always love when Chinese people define themselves.

Rocky: Well, Chinese people love practical and simple things. Jadi ya you see. In my case of being in social studies. I also have a passion in teaching, but I still don’t know how strong it is.

Me: Well find out then!

At one of our World History classes, Diku once pointed out how the Chinese classic philosophers always had this preference of observing 'what's on the ground', instead of 'what's in the sky' like the Western thinkers. This means that they cared about solving problems (Are we identifying existentialism's tenets here?) more than finding out the reason behind humans' existence and what life is all about. That premise, apparently, is proven correct through the instance I presented above.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Hi. This is Afu writing, right from the central gravity of a massive organizational chunk that she used to be trapped in. She's now found the exit door and thus proclaimed herself free (not as a bird, more as a human who's lost in an unfamiliar jungle—regardless, it feels great). Somehow she does not want the suffer to be tossed into a wastebin, so she agreed to share some stories that might (hopefully) be useful for whoever ends up reading this post.

Her exhausting half-year journey comes down to a single sentence: professional teamwork has a different nature, compared to the usual kinship that you develop with your friends. Thus, your perspective upon life's don't(s) might have to shift to a list of significant do(s) under organizational justifications.

[Disclaimer: These notions will not really prevail unless your team comprises complete strangers at the first place.]

1. Do talk about people behind their back.

Well, contextually. You see, organization is not simply about about taking the best people in. It's more about putting the right people in the right posts. A person's weakness as a subordinate might be the strength that a leader needs--and vice versa. So yes, if you're cursed to be a policy-maker, do talk about your candidate staff very carefully with your board. Pay attention to your people's SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, as well as Threats), their past track record, and put each of them in the best position plausible.

Important: The only benefit of a biased--or stereotyped--judgment is time discount. Other than that, prior subjective information about a particular person will only hold you from seeing the quality of that person completely. I myself have experienced a number of persuaded decisions which, although we managed to get through it, create problematic conditions along the timeline. Do remind and be reminded that, as Ekky puts it, "Sometimes we just need to be a supporting actor, yet we can still get the Oscar."

2. Do push people off their limit.

In the Dictionary of Organizations, it's called 'taking the extra-miles'. Sometimes, people--especially those who take too much on their plate--will stop achieving just because they feel that the limit is there. That they've done enough, and they deserve a break for it. What you need to do is telling them it's just their illusion. If in the real life you're prohibited to push people off the edge of a cliff, in an organization you're pretty much encouraged to do so. There's never, never such thing as a limit for any kind of hardwork. Do take the extra-mile, it's never crowded there.

3. Do tell people that they're doing it wrong.

The thing about being Indonesian is that we often feel 'nggak enak' to tell people (especially strangers) that they're doing a certain mistake--or that they can change a bit of their habit for the greater betterment of the whole organization. What I would suggest: forget your nationality. Scrutinize people's behavior if you need to. However, you need to do it right--understand the rules. First of all, never do criticism publicly. Spare your time for a private conversation, but at the same time never make it sound personal. Let this person know that you're saying it on a professional basis. Second of all, follow the Sandwich Theory. It was first introduced to me by Guinandra and later elaborated by Gesa: 1) start with compliments on the good deeds he/she's done, 2) continue with things that are troublesome--those he/she needs to catch up with, and then 3) wrap it up with what you appreciate from him/her. Might look hard at the beginning, but you'll get used to it.

4. Do utilize artificial smiles.

No matter how under-pressure you feel, no matter how upset you're getting, smile, honey. Even if you have to fake it--thus 'artificial'. Especially when you're the leader. You are allowed to be uptight at some points, but remember that people lean on you. If you're not strong enough, how would they survive? Stop blaming, take that chin up, and then start thanking, remind people what to be grateful of. Working together in a committee means living in a village where everything becomes contagious--and so are negative remarks, bad mood, as well as (especially) crankiness. Contain your anger and be that awesome self you always are. In other words, keep calm and carry on.

5. Do reject affection in any form.

Bear in mind that any kind of romantic projection with the person you're working with, no matter how mature or capable you are in handling yourself, will only slower your work down. Slap to wake yourself up, and repeat this in your mind: You need to focus. If you'll ever end up marrying that certain person, the time will eventually come, but that's definitely not when there are a lot of work in your to-do-list. I might sound a bit masochistic, but seriously. Take one thing at a time. Remember this saying: "You can have it all--just not at the same time."

Some might see this article as a stupid and pretentious attempt of an indoctrination of Machiavelli's tenets in The Prince, but again she never forces you to follow them all. Do understand that consciously doing something with a certain intention does not automatically mean that you're not doing it from your heart. The question is then to either miserably succeed, or to be happily mediocre. You choose.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Social scientists are delusional people who think that they're not part of the society and thus are justified to draw and analyze societal patterns.

The bad news is, they are part of the society that they address in their own papers, they are the subject of their own academic frameworks contended in thorough discourses, and thenceforth--most of the times--it makes their efforts in explaining social phenomena an ironic paradox.

One interesting case study for this issue would be campus' politics, i.e. General Election of the Head of Students' Executive Body (read: Ketua Badan Eksekutif Mahasiswa). Being a student who belongs to the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences of Universitas Indonesia means having an in-depth comprehension towards the tenets of 'political communication' and 'meme inducing' theoretically, but then having to be the subject of your own study, being part of the community that their campaigns target.

In other words, you're like a god who knows exactly what's going on but chooses to play in the game he creates himself.

Well, of course, I always say that social science(s) matters because it explicates what is going right or wrong with the society, but then it also has inherent sprag that retains them from being completely--in natural science's terminology--'scientific', ergo, objective.

We, naive, aspiring scholars of international relations, are often disturbed by the fact that states (even as a unitary actor) still include individuals in which we're sadly a part of it too. The way I deal with the same paradox in international relations study is through intellectual acceptance. We might be more fortunate because, in a way, our conceptual tools of analysis are set on the level that we don't have to deal with social scientists' common anxiety. Still, the 'objectivity' issue can not be entirely resolved.

Regardless how apathetic I might appear in all of this long process of 'democracy', I am an avid admirer of the fundamental philosophy of social contract (all hail Hobbes and Locke!), in which politics is a mean to--using my favorite verb--'organize' power and alleviate chaos that might be yielded by the anarchic system of the society.

So good night, and good luck for all contesting candidates!

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Last week has been one of the most amazing ones in my entire life. Hosting more than 150 people from the westest to the eastest part of Indonesia as well as the Philippines was indeed a wonderful experience, and I was blessed to have an invincible team to undergo it altogether.

Ah. In case you haven't heard, I was talking about Social Science Olympiads, a collective attempt by BEM FISIP UI to introduce highschool students to what social science really is and why it matters, as opposed to the current presumption of 'natural science is way more appreciation-deserving'.

After having survived such pressure on a 24/7 basis, I finally had the time to sit back and engage in one of those pointless discussions I usually conduct with Johan. This time on our country's education system. (Kindly help yourself with Google Translate for I'm preserving the conversation in its original language, although not in its exact wordings.)

Johan: "Menurutku ada yang salah sama silabusnya HIUI..."
Me: "Ohya? Apa?"
Johan: "Tapi aku udah tau Kak Afu bakal jawab apa: mestinya kan itu dipelajari sendiri..."
Me: "Emang pertanyaannya?"
Johan: "Aktor. Kita nggak belajar aktor hubungan internasional. Misalnya negara, ada negara apa aja di dunia aku belum tau."
Me: "Well, jawaban gue persis yang lo bilang tadi."
Johan: "Tuh kan."
Me: "Gini bukannya. Dari 12 taun SD sampai SMA, kita di-expect buat nyerep informasi yang given sebanyak-banyaknya. Tanpa boleh nge-scrutinize, tanpa boleh opinionated. Nah, barulah waktu lo kuliah, you are allowed to analyze and make your own conclusions."
Johan: "Tapi menurutku harusnya itu tetep jadi bagian dari tanggung jawab institusi. Sistem kuliah kita ini terlalu liberal, gitu loh. Kita boleh milih ilmu apa aja, bilang apa aja, tapi nggak di-equip sama informasi yang dibutuhin."
Me: "Iya sih, apa ya bahasanya... Waktu SD sampai SMA itu kita disuruh bego, dicekokin ilmu tanpa boleh protes... Eh, tiba-tiba waktu kuliah disuruh bebas. Jadi kaget."
Johan: "Iya, itu kayak nyuruh kita terbang padahal nggak dikasih sayap!"
Me: "Persis. Selama 12 taun sistem ilmu-nya sosialis..."
Johan: "...komunistik?"
Me: "Iya! Itu bahasanya! SD, SMP, SMA komunistik, mendadak kuliah disuruh liberal. Makanya jadi ngaco. Kalau mau liberal, ya liberal dari awal. Kalau mau komunistik, ya lanjutin terus sampai kuliah beres, sampai kerja."
Johan: "Iya kan..." 

In short, we came to a realization that Indonesian education system uses two distinct bases (namely 'communistic' and liberal ones), which sadly cut the continuation of our learning process. Since the inception of school--back in the elementary--we were used to indoctrination of ideas and knowledge while, all of a sudden, our universities set us free, unequipped with any skill to join value-free academic discourses, and pick the beliefs of our own. This, we argue, might disturb the acceleration to students' information assembling process and is not the best strategy to opt at the status quo.

Me: "Kalau gue nanti jadi rektor, gue ubah semua sistem kuliahnya jadi lanjut komunistik aja."
Johan: "Lah, nggak yang SD aja dijadiin liberal?"
Me: "Itu kalo gue jadi Menteri Pendidikan, which is less likely to happen."

Well, this afternoon I suggested this piece of thought to Kiki and she argued that highschool was therefore the transitional phase where the students could have their choice on natural or social science as their focus of study. Yet again, such 'freedom' was served under the constructed superiority of natural science, which leave these students clueless about what they're ought to opt for. Dear young social scientists, let's meet up and find a way to promote this beautiful branch of study, shall we?

P.S.1: As you might have recognized, I--like Plato--am a supporter of dialogue-based posts/books. I believe that the best knowledge is produced through the Socratic method of inquiry and debates between individuals, and thus the process, i.e. dialogues, is too valuable to be abandoned and unrecorded. Plato himself had worked on as many as 36 dialogues, most of which depicted Socrates' philosophical conversations.

P.S.2: It is very interesting that Sundanese, the language of the tribe to which I belong to, happens to not possess a word for 'hungry'. This might show their humbleness--or better yet, how rich their land is.

P.S.3: My friend Tama has a beautiful concept of scientists' social responsibility in comparison to corporate's social responsibility. The idea is, simply put, you owe the society a contribution in return of the knowledge you gain or the intelligence you develop. Because, you see, those complex sets of information attached in your formerly empty brain is a result of intergenerational endeavors. Ergo, you can't just have them all without giving back to the society.

Good night!

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

By 'Roosevelt' I mean the great president of United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt and by 'Meyer' I refer to that lady who wrote Twilight Saga, Stephenie Meyer. Let me commence a series of tweets I posted yesterday:

1. Today over a lunch, @aswinprasetyo enlightened me on Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights which was exactly what I've been suggesting to @rizkiyuniarini:
2. Instead of giving the 'right to create, freedom of speech, etc.' under the spirit of liberalist capitalism, the government needs to take the responsibility...
3. ...to let their people have the 'right to employment with a living wage, freedom from unfair competition and monopolies, housing, medical care, education, and social security.' In other words, it echoes the spirit of socialism.
4. Kiki believes that socialism isn't the answer for you'll only turn people counter-productive and 'not happy at all'. But then...
5. One thing liberalism doesn't realize is that not everyone stands on the same starting line and thus has limited access to sources of wealth.
6. Seeing the 'Bapak-Tukang-Bakpau-Yang-Jam-9-Dagangannya-Masih-Sisa' or 'Adek-Jam-7-Koran-Masih-Segepok', I'd rather be unhappy in unison :(
7. If Roosevelt was still alive by now, I would definitely be his Second Bill of Rights' biggest supporter. Change should start from the U.S.
8. I'm not a fan of Stephenie Meyer's, but 'The Host' really has an interesting concept of a 'mature society'. A utopianic idea, really.
9. 1) Get the concept of 'money' and 'wealth' completely erased from the society. 2) Let everyone take a job they please and produce goods.
10. 3) Now that everyone's assigned to a certain role, take things you need and leave those you don't. 4) Voila, peaceful equality for everyone.
11. Still hard to imagine? Visualize yourself getting into a store after 8 normal hours of work and take a roll of tissue, don't pay, get home.
12. Why can't people stop being so pretentiously obsessed with money and wealth? Why do we create gaps we don't want?
13. And yet here I am, one powerless girl giving up to what the society offers me. Guess I'm no Karl Marx or Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Will be beyond glad to have this discussed with you over a glass of blended green tea with cream. Until then, have a great day.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

One day he came into the class and mysteriously wrote on the whiteboard:

"Does a gate function without a wall?"

Which left the class--at least me--fallen into a minute of silence. And, as he assembled his lecture tools (i.e. a Mac and its projecting LCD), his eyes swept the entire room, searching for answers.

(Disclaimer: some parts of this dialogue might be overmade to get the dramatic impression.)

PM: "Anyone?"
FU: "It doesn't. A wall is required to protect what's inside it."
DK: "I think it still does, because people get in and out from the gate anyway."
PM: "Well, a realist would say it doesn't, a liberalist would say it definitely does, and a constructivist would rather say that it might function without a wall."
[With that, he began a class on Fukuyama versus Huntington.]

Plato and Aristotle--just walking around.

Plato's mighty master of mind, Socrates he used to be called, was a great philosopher of his time who--simply put--ask questions to make his audience think, which is a humble way of messing with people's minds. That rare trait, as it turns out, has (re)appeared in one of my favorite lecturers this semester. A brilliant guy who undoubtedly has done his readings, the kind of a nice person who inquires for your opinion in order to put out his own agenda from your answers.

In addition to this exceptional characteristic, I finally found another human being who, like me, approved the idea that bahasa Indonesia is such a mess.

PM: "So in English, we have breakfast, lunch, and dinner--each of which to determine a certain time-framed meal. While in Bahasa, we have makan pagi, makan siang, and makan malam--you can translate that as eat morning, eat noon, and eat night."
Class: [laughed]
PM: "This reflects how Indonesian people basically eat whatever they can get their hands on, at whatever period of the day they can actually manage to find it. On the other hand, European languages show their superiority as a civilization. We weren't prepared for complicated syntax for any coherent cultures."
FU: [silently nodding way too much]

Just when I thought that was all, he continued.

PM: "My discussions with Mas Edi were mostly around the notion that language was a perfect tool to gain resources. In Russian, for instance, one can not say that this glass is 'mine'. Right, Afu?"
FU: "Well, I'm convinced they have different pronouns to describe possessions..."
PM: "Exactly. This is a way the government put a control over Russian people under their system, where private property becomes a scarce privilege that you can hardly have."

The course has been pretty much revolving around intersubjectivity and the (supposedly threatening) absence of truth upon identities. It is therefore unfortunate that we don't have that many people in the class to contribute their own pieces of mind and arguments to enrich our weekly discussion.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I'm one of those weird people who put too much attention on the first sentence of every writing piece, because I always believe that first sentences determine everything that follows. People might quickly decide not to go on to your second sentence, for example, or they might get twice excited just because of your first sentence. That is possibly why, most of the time I spend on typing down a post is wasted on its mere first sentence.

However, the same tenets are not evident in the case of Indonesian Future Leaders. Our first sentence--first step--I should say, was not convincing, it was rather pragmatic, naive, and stupid. We, the 7 co-founders, were simply college students at their young age of 16-17(ish) who seized the opportunity to take part in a movement--any movement would not matter at that time. Looking back, it looks like (quoting Steve Jobs in his commencement speech) now the dots start to connect and the patterns seem like they were there all this time. We are what we are now. We made mistakes, we learned, and we tried to be the men of our own words. We are bigger than we expected we might have been.

I would not care to go with the statistics (number beneficiaries and bla bla bla you can simply download the annual report here), but I severely need the world to know about several sweet paradoxes that this amazing organization has:

1. It is a workplace, yet a home.

More than a half of what we've been doing for the last two years was white-collar kind of job. We sat in front of our laptops, created documents on this and that, printed this and that, visited school A, B, and C, taught a number of less privileged kids, phoned many important stakeholders, as well as traveled here and there, constantly on a 24/7 professional pressure kind of atmosphere.That's unmistakably true. But then again, I never really feel like I'm working. These people, we share some sort of similar frequency--laughed at the same jokes, shouted the same joy, and cheered on the same dreams--what more can you ask from a family? That is perfectly why, it is simply hard for me to picture a future without Indonesian Future Leaders in it. That is also why, despite the fact that I've been trying to mitigate the number of masochistic organizations I'm having on my plate, it will never be an option. It is a fate, one of the best decisions I've ever made in life.

2. It is tiring (more of exhausting), yet a source of happiness.

I wouldn't want to lie, saying say that it's completely fun to be a staff of Indonesian Future Leaders. Nobody would dare to be that mean to you, I suppose. So at this point, I have to say that the organization is not a place for those who seek for pretentious titles or acknowledgements and have cool namecards. It is a place for those who seek for knowledge and one-of-a-kind experience, who seek for field-based skills and contagious spirit from one another, in return of contributing most of your energy. It is tiring, yet it is a source of happiness indeed, a melting pot where desperation somehow can't beat you in any kind of battle, because in the end you will have endless supply of energy from these people.

3. It started with a hypocrisy, yet ended with the most sincere smile I've ever seen.

Some people say, repeat a lie, it will become a truth one day. I think that's what happened to this exceptional youth community. In a very positive manner, of course. (Though Iman would insist that: "It's never a lie, Fu, never, it was an intention!") I think we constructed our very own, personal, subjective truth--which was an 'intended lie'--but now, to some extent, we actually did it. We professed in pride that 'it all starts from us', and come to think of it today, it plausibly did! Come to think of it... we might actually have initiated several great projects, acted and engaged an exceptional number of youth, shared numerous stories, and inspired quite a number of youth movements along the way! The huge, abstract lie, ladies and gentlemen, is on its way, coming to a shape. An objective, accountable shape, hopefully.

Of course, we still have a very, very long way to go. I might have repeated this over and over in my tweets, but seriously: Indonesian Future Leaders is a home to which I can honestly say that I belong to. To which I can effortlessly come back when the world stands against me, saying that things are impossible. It always remains there, as a comforting home. To which I can look for heartwarming people with their own, unique ideas and limitless spirit. To which we can one day proclaim that it really, really all starts from us.

Happy 2nd anniversary, Indonesian Future Leaders dear.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

These are the slides that I shared to BEM Muda kids at Institut Pertanian Bogor today. Might be useful!

Event_Organizing_101.pdf Download this file

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Within the past weeks, I've been forbidding myself from blogging inasmuch as it forced me to bear the guilt of 'wasting', if not 'sparing' extra time to open Posterous and type some crap down while there's a quite long to-do-list on my wall. However, there was a big flaw in the whole concept: I did not realize that blogging per se is a therapy that helps me get through all the mess. So if you don't mind, let me pop all these bubbles of thoughts in my head so that I can get back on feet immediately. You can just skip this post if you feel that personal ramblings is immature and does not benefit you at any point.

For the record, I cut my surprisingly long, boring hair. It was Dan Brown who inspired me. Not through his fictional character Robert Langdon, but a simple sentence in one of his thrilling novels (I practically forgot which--and what were the exact words):

"A spiritual transformation is best begun with a physical one."

I guess I needed a spiritual change, a more balanced chakra. I thought that the hair, in a way, held me back from looking forward, or simply moving on. Hence, I cut it. Yet I was wrong.

As it turned out, I failed to really see such a reckless decision as an achievement. Worse, I'm currently mourning over what I've done. I needed the hair. I loved it. Come to think of it, she--the hair--was one of the tiny bits that form my pride. The hair made me feel that I am female. I could perceive myself as one of those uncanny women who, regardless of how severely workaholic they are, managed to grow such a beautiful feature. Now that she's gone, I have nothing left--nothing physical, to be happy of. The feeling is similar to what a queen might feel as she lost her crown. She's still completely the same person, but there's a part of her that's not there.

I keep telling myself that it doesn't matter, nobody really cares about it anyway, but apparently it does. I'm so devastated that if a time machine really exists, I would sacrifice meeting Socrates in return of 5 minutes to stop myself from going to have a haircut that day. Err. Wait. Not really.

My next minor announcement is, as you might have got fed up of me mentioning it on Twitter over and over again: I lost my voice. (Or should I put it as: I've been losing my voice?) Literally. No, well, hyperbolically. I can still speak, the kind of speak that normal crowd would consider as 'whisper', but yes people can still get my points in a discussion. On the bright side, I started to realize that human is over-blessed with many alternative means of communication: email, messengers, you name it.

Now if you allow me to get to the main chunk, you might want to know that THIS SEMESTER IS SERIOUSLY BRAINGASMIC! I mean, we actually learn on the phylosophical level on how identity shaped the world, or how those great strategists' thoughts evolve from time to time. To put additional exciting themes to the pile, we'll be having clashes of ideas (read: debates) on United States' foreign policies, textual studies on ASEAN legal documents, site visits to established non-governmental organizations, and I simply can not stop.

I wish everyone a very nice academic semester, too!

P.S. I think one of the biggest issues in bahasa Indonesia is the presumption of wisdom in 'policy', i.e. 'kebijakan'. I think the government, especially in this far-from-accomplishing country, makes mistakes just as much as their people do.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

In the end, what I'm going to elaborate in the following paragraphs will come down to a single sentence: if you read (buy) more than 23 books per year, ebook reader is a more environmentally-responsible option.
So grab one.

[Disclaimer: 'e-book' is the appropriate spelling at the status quo while 'ebook' (without dash) is just my own attempt to make people accept it as an intact word and not an abbreviated phrase (from electronic book).]

As most of you might have realized, these days there's a plethora of choices when it comes to ebook readers: Nook, The Kindle and iPad are several examples. Ebook readers are sexy, sleek, and they serve tremendous environmental benefit through a global surge of paperless reading. Let's start with a couple of dazzling facts before you argue about how printed books are more convinient:

1. The U.S. publishing industry consumes 16 million tons of paper to produce 2 billion books and it results in 32 million fallen trees annually.
2. For every printed book you have on your shelf, you've produced
   4 kg of CO2 during its production process. In total, publishing companies emit over 44 million tons of CO2/year (that's like 7,3 million cars)!
3. Throughout Amazon and iTunes ebook sales, lives of
   1,267,200 trees were saved in 2010.
4. Reading printed New York Times everyday means triggering the production of 700 kg CO2/year. On the average reading speed, having it online/on ebook readers will reduce the evil number to 10 kg.
5. Directly comparing, printed books consume 3x more raw materials and 7x more water for production than paperless books.
6. If every book bought in U.S. and Canada was digital, 49,6 million trees, 1,2 million tons of CO2, and emission from 193,000 cars
   could be saved each year.
7. Other than trees, adopting paperless reading as a lifestyle also means saving energy during paper production, printing, book-binding, packaging materials, disposal, as well as recycling.

Some of my friends rebut this perspective by saying that ebook readers also consume certain amount of energy for its production and the reading process itself. I don't deny such reality. Instead, I thenceforth strongly urge those who read less than 23 books per year to not buy ebook readers at all. There's a mathematical explanation beyond that number yet unfortunately I'm not an expert who can elucidate further.

If there's only one principle you need to uphold in being a paperless-reading supporter, it's the fact that electronic devices will always evolve to the direction of energy-efficiency. 100 Watt light bulbs are now replaced by 27 Watt compact fluorescent lamps; so are our televisions and fridges. I believe that ebook readers will also get more and more energy efficient, while paper production will always cut trees and thus waste too much.

Printed books are indeed indispensable. However, we need to categorize ourselves (as readers) and figure out the most suitable reading-style for each of us. Those living in remote areas without electricity or employees who hardly go to bookstores do not need ebook readers. Students or book fans, on the other side, can help reduce environmental damage by start buying one.
With a price range of 130-250$, an ebook reader might be your lifetime's best investation.

More and more people are becoming aware of the crucial importance of paperless readings. Since 2010, ebook sales are continually growing to 112% increase of trade from 2009. Even my most favorite female author, J. K. Rowling, has joined the campaign through her very own http://pottermore.com.

There's a huge difference between being classic and conservative.
You can save a lot from converting to ebooks.

"It is my view you can’t hold back progress. Ebooks are here, they are here to stay. Personally I love printed paper, but very very recently, later than a lot of people because I’m not very technologically adept, in fact it was this year for the first time that I downloaded ebooks. And it’s miraculous, for travel and for children particularly, to carry around a thousand books in your pocket on a small device is an extraordinary thing, so I feel great about taking Harry Potter into this new medium. But I still love a printed paper book; I think you can enjoy both." --J. K. Rowling

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

As a (formally) international relations student, I have always been interested in discussing 'power' as a concept. I believe that Indonesian females are (mostly) Renaissance women by nature, who see 'power' and 'influence' as two different things. According to Forbes' 11 Most Powerful Women, power is something that you earn over time, (like) getting a better seat in restaurants, the ability to set agenda, and most important of all, the opportunity to be able to help others. I myself define power as being hierarchically higher but horizontally equal and contributive--with the relationship of students and teacher in a class as the best example in particular. As you might have understood, I'm an aspiring professor, mainly inspired by these two scenes from my all-time favorite movies:

1. Mona Lisa Smile (2003)

Betty: What is that?
Miss Watson: You tell me.
Class: [silence]
Miss Watson: Carcass by Soutine. 1925.
Betty: It's not on the syllabus.
Miss Watson: No, it's not. Is it any good?
Class: [silence]
Miss Watson: Come on, ladies. There's no wrong answer. There's also no textbook telling you what to think.
Class: [silence]
Miss Watson: It's not that easy, is it?
Betty: All right. No. It's not good. In fact, I wouldn't even call it art. It's grotesque.
Connie: Is there a rule against grotesque art?
A girl: Aren't there standards?
Betty: Of course there are. Otherwise a tacky velvet painting could be equated to a Rembrandt.
Connie: Hey my Uncle Ferdie has two tacky velvet paintings. He loves those clowns.
Betty: There are standards, technique, composition, color, even subject. So if you're suggesting that rotted side of meat is art...much less good art, then what are we going to learn?
Miss Watson: Just that. You have outlined our new syllabus, Betty. Thank you.
Class: [silence]
Miss Watson: What is art? What makes it good or bad, and who decides? Next slide, please.

2. Dead Poet Society (1989)

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Although massively used and majorly ubiquitous, words would never, never rust or become obsolete. If we treat words as stocks, their graph of growth would most likely be close to that of my life: unpredictable. Some words may vanish, extinct ones may rise after some time, and a certain group of them can always have higher value than the rest of their folk. The main key is to have it well-structured and carefully-composed, thus powerful enough to send a chill to the readers' spine. I write this post as an additional archive to complete this one, also to the fact that they're all too beautiful to waste:

“So avoid using the word ‘very’ because it’s lazy. A man is not very tired, he is exhausted. Don’t use very sad, use morose. Language was invented for one reason, boys--to woo women--and, in that endeavor, laziness will not do. It also won’t do in your essays.” --Dead Poets Society (1989)

"The English language is like London: proudly barbaric yet deeply civilised, too, common yet royal, vulgar yet processional, sacred yet profane: each sentence we produce, whether we know it or not, is a mongrel mouthful of Chaucerian, Shakespearean, Miltonic, Johnsonian, Dickensian and American. Military, naval, legal, corporate, criminal, jazz, rap and ghetto discourses are mingled at every turn. The French language, like Paris, has attempted, through its Academy, to retain its purity, to fight the advancing tides of franglais and international prefabrication. English, by comparison, is a shameless whore." --Stephen Fry in The Ode Less Travelled

"So I kept reading, just to stay alive. In fact, I’d read two or three books at the same time, so I wouldn’t finish one without being in the middle of another — anything to stop me from falling into the big, gaping void. You see, books fill the empty spaces. If I’m waiting for a bus, or am eating alone, I can always rely on a book to keep me company. Sometimes I think I like them even more than people. People will let you down in life. They’ll disappoint you and hurt you and betray you. But not books. They’re better than life." --Marc Acito

"There they were, two highly analytical mind, presumably immune to irrational infatuations—but somehow, while they sat there discussing linguistic morphology and pseudo-random number generators, they felt like a couple of teenagers—everything was fireworks." --Digital Fortress

"Science is beautiful when it makes simple explanations of phenomena or connections between different observations. Examples include the double helix in biology, and the fundamental equations of physics." --Stephen Hawking

"Iactura paucourm serva multos. Sacrifice the few to save the many." --Deception Point

"I do not want a husband who honors me as a queen, if he does not love me as a woman." --Queen Elizabeth I

"A politician needs the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen." --Winston Churchill (Didn't know he could be that hilarious!)

"I am a person of faith. But sometimes I like to step outside of faith and just think about things rationally. Usually this oscillation between faith and skepticism serves me well, with faith giving reason its moral bearings, and reason keeping faith, well, reasonable." --David Hazony

"I think my ideal man would speak many languages. He would speak Ibo and Yoruba and English and French and all of the others. He could speak with any person, even the soldiers, and if there was violence in their heart he could change it. He would not have to fight, do you see? Maybe he would not be very handsome, but he would be beautiful when he spoke. He would be very kind, even if you burned his food because you were laughing and talking with your girlfriends instead of watching the cooking. He would just say, "Ah, never mind."" --Little Bee

Permalink | Leave a comment  »