A (Not So) Brief on Almost Everything

Not posting for almost a little too long, I got myself stuck with a lot of ideas to break down. At first I was about to write a single post for each thought, but then I realized that it’s gonna take such a long time and space, so I decided to compact them all into a single post. I hope that you treat every point as valuable as a full post, and–since the post is going to be quite long–I also am humbly asking you to at least read the bold sub-titles and continue to its paragraph if you find them interesting.

The world makes you think that, success or failure, you deserve what you get.

I happened to have stumbled upon Alain de Botton’s TED Talk, and I could hardly stop myself from attentively nodding to Watson’s screen (That’s the name of my laptop, yes.). What I really want to quote from his 16 brilliant minutes of British-accented speech is this:

Back in the middle age, when you saw a poor man on the street, you would say that he’s unfortunate. Today, you call people without job as losers. There’s a big difference between these two terms, and it is constructed throughout 400 years of evil meritocracy.

Another way to say it in modern English: “There are too many random factors that contribute to your path of success; being on the top of a society-constructed pyramid/career does not always mean that you’re better than those at the bottom.” In which, I wholeheartedly agree. Some people get to decent colleges because they have their parents’ money. Some extremely smart people ended up selling shoes at their father’s shop. We really have to recreate our concept of ‘ social structure’.

One funny example: the bald guy was born earlier, so he got the chance to convey my own thoughts to a larger audience. I was born later in a developing country whose people, generally, do not care about impractical philosophy discussion. This surely can’t be explained by the principles of meritocracy.

People who read too many romance tend to complicate things.

I always think that a perfect love story will only happen to people who don’t read novels–or watch drama movies. I myself have consumed too many fiction books that have various plots to not have assumptions on what would happen next, making it impossible for me to fully enjoy the not-knowing-state and be surprised of how people show their affection to each other. In other words, these stories eradicate your sacred idea of uniqueness. A research additionally showed that these novels and movies actually make women set their expectation of relationships very high when, matter-of-fact-ly, it is unlikely to happen unless the guy is some exceptional alien who thinks–or at least understand–the way female beings do.

‘Be yourself!’ is so last year.

I once had a discussion with some friends about whether or not we should really be ourselves at all times. Putting the riddle of ‘how do you really know which one is your true self’ away, we came up with what we call as ‘conditionality’. This means the skill of being able to equalize our frequency to the person we’re with. For example, when you’re out with your yeyek friend, to some extent loosening yourself up to a bit of yeyekness doesn’t hurt. The goal of this behaviour is mainly to befriend and understand the subject in a much better way. We concluded that ‘being ourselves’ does not always benefit us in every situation.

The process of learning a language always creates a certain prejudice to its words.

Especially when you don’t live in the native speakers’ environment and merely study it from weekly courses. Teachers who see English as a foreign language will never get you any close to the real language. They tend to tell you to memorize vocabularies and relate it to a certain translation in their own language. This is where the problem starts. For example: since average English-speaking Indonesian started their lesson back in elementary school, once they hear the word chair, they will always relate it to a physical seat. So even if you know that when a professor is endowed with a chair in economics it means that he becomes a professor, you will always have an image of a chair pops up in your head. Tell me I’m right.

A bit off the topic, a year ago, an abla (Turkish pronoun for sister) told me that Arabic is the universal language of our souls. This is indeed very highly related to Islamic believes and make no sense for secular people, yet I love the idea that every person in the globe actually speak a singular language. This notion also explains why we are told to read the Quran in its purest form, before any translation occured. Because regardless our conscious does not fathom anything, our soul does.

Soulmate is a floating, never-to-be-verified concept.

Ranked second after fate, the idea of soulmate always tickles my brain’s philosophical realm. The big concept is that ‘there is a special someone that is destined to be your company for the rest of your life’, right? This means that you’re cluelessly searching for a single man, or woman, out of 9 billion people in the world? How do you even know where to start? A hypothesis? My questions would then be:

  • At what point can we be assured that someone is our ‘other half’?
  • How can you confirm your faith before the story even finishes?
  • Is relationship/marriage only a tool to officialize this hypothesis? Because you now, married ‘soulmates’ divorce, too.
  • If your partner cheats on you, does that negate the idea that he’s your soulmate? What are the indicators?
  • Is death then the only validation to prove your hypothesis?

Feelings will always deceive owners. Thenceforth, I believe that unless you can quantify its premises, it never really exists.

Making mistakes is the best way to learn.

Almost a month ago, my friend wrote something on being wrong. He summarized Kathryn Schulz idea of the–quoting his own words–misconception of human understanding of erroneousness. I’ve just watched the whole video myself and I turned into wonder as she explicates her genuine, provoking thoughts.

We should never stop entertaining the possibility of being wrong.

The idea of being right at all times will eventually kill you because it becomes harder for you to admit that someone else’s argument makes more sense than yours. I believe that being wrong once in a while is an att

ribute of humane, that it is inherent in everyone. The only difference is on how we react when we realize that we are. Next time we’re wrong, let’s learn to forgive ourselves.

A different approach should be applied when we talk about proofreaders, though. Let them be all tortured with shame and people’s ridicule when they fail to correct the wrongs, because hey that’s what they are paid for! Haha.

Being paid takes a part of your freedom.

I’ve just come to an epiphany that maybe, people love blogging because they don’t have editors who scrutinize whatever crap they write. I am now a labor that is paid on $15 per day to write articles, so I have to accept the fact that I’ll have someone who supervises my work and wake me up to make improvements on this and that. Dee Lestari once tweeted about how your relationship with passion will change once it becomes a profession and I’ve just understood that she’s totally right. For now, I will try my best to make sure that I’m worth the money they pay me for. Oh and I really, really hope that the government also think the same way.

Some people don’t judge but are very judgmental about how people will judge them.

Like, “I don’t think that my speech would impress them that much because I’m just an unimportant person from a second-class college and they’re Harvard guys.” These negative thoughts, ladies and gentlemen, are very deadly. These kind of people don’t even bother taking care about that guy who sits in the corner wearing a pink shirt, but they do care too much about whether or not people will see them as gay if they put on the same outfit. The worth-a-try solution is to stop doing that on purpose.

Indonesian people need to be trained on ‘laughing strategically’.

This aptitude is very practical and useful in one-on-one conversations. I sometimes find it hard to really harmonize my laughters into others’ because sometimes I laugh too early and sometimes too late. It would be nice if an expert can share their ideas upon when we should laugh loudly, quietly, or when we should just be silent all the way.

That’s all I can say for now. Thanks for reading thoroughly (which I doubt that you did)!

One Day a Book

The holiday has finally arrived! (Yeah, tell me about that.)

Since my jobs still occupy me as much as they did beforehand, holiday only changes my ‘weekdays’ and ‘weekends’ into one label of ‘weekdays’. The holiday makes no difference on the practical level, thus I decided to make my own project–or I should say target–so that the upcoming months would actually be filled with some fun and not mere works.

Book-lending-2swap

“You see, books fill the empty spaces. If I’m waiting for a bus, or when I’m eating alone, I can always rely on a book to keep me company. Sometimes I think I like them even more than people.” –Marc Acito

Out of the blue, I got an idea to have One Day A Book (although it does sound weird, compared to the usual form of One Book A Day, I guess I just want to have it that way). The basic concept is to have circadian reading on one paperback per day during 31 days of the whole July (or, August, if I can’t make it early), which is preferably 1) fiction, 2) 100-200 paged, and 3) any genre is acceptable.

So I throw the idea to Twitter, and I was so delighted to see that most of my friends are amazing readers! Here goes the already arranged list of books that they recommended:

  1. Catcher in the Rye – J.D.Salinger
  2. Franny and Zooey – J.D.Salinger
  3. Essays in Love – Alaine de Botton
  4. Blindness – Saramago
  5. Eragon – Paolini
  6. Lolita – Nabokov
  7. A Visit from the Goon Squad – Jennifer Egan
  8. Doctors – Erich Segal
  9. The Imperfectionists – Tom Rachman
  10. Kafka On The Shore – Haruki Murakami
  11. The Five People You Meet In Heaven – Mitch Albom
  12. Perks of Bing a Wallflower – Stephen Chbosky
  13. To Kill A Mockingbird – Harper Lee
  14. The Solomon’s Ring
  15. Twenty Love Poems and Song of Despair
  16. The United Burger States of America
  17. The Gulag Archipelago
  18. Never Let Me Go
  19. Panggil Aku Kartini Saja
  20. Manjali and Cakrabirawa
  21. The Little Prince
  22. God Explains in A Taxi Ride
  23. Life is Good If We Don’t Weaken
  24. Howards End and A Room With a View – E. M. Forster’s
  25. Siddhartha
  26. The Stranger/The Outsider
  27. Homage To Catalonia
  28. 1984
  29. Dr.Zhivago
  30. San Fransisco Blues
  31. On The Road
  32. Stone Woman
  33. Le Fleurs de Mal
  34. The Grand Design
  35. Sofie’s Verden – Jostein Gaarder
  36. Life of Pi – Yann Martel
  37. Leviathan – Thomas Hobbes
  38. Tuesdays with Morrie – Mitch Albom
  39. Tipping Points, Blink, Outliers, What the Dog Saw – All Malcom Gladwell’s
  40. Breakfast at Tiffany’s – Truman Capote
  41. Art of War – Sun Tzu
  42. Arthashastra – Kautilya
  43. Annie On My Mind – Nancy Garden
  44. The First Men On The Moon – H. G. Wells
  45. The Lost Symbol, The Da Vinci Code, Angels and Demons, Deception Point, Digital Forters – All Dan Brown’s
  46. Brave New World Revisited – Aldous Huxley
  47. History of Love – Nicole Krauss
  48. Suite Francaise – Irene Nemirovsky
  49. Inheritance of Loss – Kiran Desai
  50. Atonement – Ian McEwan
  51. On Chesil Beach – Ian McEwan

The underlined titles are read already, but surely there are many of them left to explore! So yes, challenge-accepters are all welcome (some people actually mentioned me saying that they would also do One Day A Book).

The next obstacle might be on how we’re gonna find those books. Well, some people informed me that both Pasar Festival and Blok M possess decent secondhand bookstores, so there might be treasures that we can find there. Or, library.nu is always there for you who appreciate writers yet do not possess that much of capital to afford the printed version.

Believe me, every good writer was formerly a good reader–actually, many of them still visit the library from time to time. I’ll suggest you to never take advices from professional writers–or anyone else–on how to become a good writer, because it will never work. The only way to get there is by taking extensive readings and find your own style.

That’s how truly great writers really do it.

The Thing about Brainy Guys

Half an hour ago, I tweeted a simple sentence–which has been one of the main principles I uphold in life—“Intelligence is sexy.” To my surprise, it got retweeted by at least 10 accounts, and this fact simply confirms that there are people who are not pretty enough and in need to create another justification to label themselves ‘sexy’! Sad, no? Kidding.
Second surprise: our mighty dictionary has actually reserved a spot for specific terminology on ‘one who finds intelligence the most sexually attractive feature”, namely sapiosexual. Basically, they are the kind of people to whom philosophical debate is more intriguing than physical dating. We might translate that as me, and any of you who nod while reading this post.
The sexiest part of a man is their brain.
The quote originally came from a fiction piece whose title I can’t recall. Let’s just focus on the essence of that premise. Some girls’ attention can be caught by expensive perfume or decent suit, but you can’t buy their heart with just outer appearance.
20393
The King needs not to move a lot, but he has to possess certain aptitudes as well as the skill to lead. To think.
Such conclusion is very, very subjective–as there might be ladies who find less intelligent guys as cute–but the case goes like that to me and most girls with whom I’ve been discussing this with. Most of them agree that the definition of ‘brainy’ can vary in multitudinous ways, but the point is, to win her heart you have to beat her brain.

This condition may yield in two possibilities: a) smarter guys marry smart women and they’ll have genius kids, or b) smart guys prefer to take the easy way and marry someone less clever and have average kids. Bear in mind that ‘beauty’ and ‘cleverness’ are not mutually exclusive. Also, be aware that the sexiest part of a girl is not her brain. As a matter of fact it hardly is.

There is this hypothesis which stated that:

  • How girls rate guys: intelligence + humor + money + look
  • How guys rate girls: look (intelligence x humor)
This means that a woman who scores ‘0’ on look gains a total score of ‘0’. Girls who ranked high in ‘intelligence’ usually should be happy with admirers and not lovers. Oh. I should also add that a man’s intelligence must have the biggest coefficient compared to the other variables.
The problem mostly rises because men with brain are usually heartless i.e. lousy in emotional expressions. Let’s take a look on Dr Watson’s quoted remarks on one of the brainiest guys I’ve ever known, Sherlock Holmes:
It was not that he felt any emotion akin to love for Irene Adler. All emotions, and that one particularly, were abhorrent to his cold, precise, but admirably balanced mind. He was, I take it, the most perfect reasoning and observing machine that the world as seen: but as a lover, he would have placed himself in a false position.
You see, all the aforementioned statements stand to my disadvantage. I highly tend to fall for guys with brain who hardly admits when they have a crush on a certain woman, and I scored higher on brain compared to beauty–which is not very strategic. This is just a random rambling, don’t take anything too seriously.
Have a great night!

Going to the Moon

If Bruno talks to the moon, I’d like to share the story on one of my lifetime dreams–to actually go to the moon.

1edae17e-7f66-49fe-b375-463c5e806f3e-moon_astronaut

Despite the sentiment and public scrutiny upon the truth behind the early Apollo missions (or any other discoveries that NASA made), I myself always wanted to land my feet on the moon–as well as other steps that I would have to undergo beforehand. I’ve been rewinding the following scenes over and over in my head:

“Departing in three, two, one…”
With my heart pounding real hard, I was in the space shuttle which will soon leave Earth and penetrate the atmosphere. There were people flooding in the open field where my ship was taking off. As soon as we reached the ‘space’, I could feel myself weightless and drifted on the air. What I knew next was the moon which used to be so small and far apparently got bigger and hundred times more beautiful. And just in less than another 30 minutes…there we were. On the moon. The ship’s special door opened. I stepped off and let myself be amazed by what God has created.

Absolute silence that followed…the dim light that came from the sun, blocked by our planet…Earth…looking just as gorgeous as it always was–the way those pictures in library’s heavy books showed.

As a matter of fact, I have (literally) dreamed about going to the space–with a real ship–once. Four years ago, I was also blessed to be able to go to Johnson’s Space Center in Houston where I took the NASA behind-the-scene tour, witnessed the Astronaut Gallery as well as other stupefying exhibits. Both were astonishing experiences I’d indeed love to relive. Let’s just hope that one day those NASA guys finally create a public spacestation where everyone can get to. 

To close this full-of-imagination post, I apologize for my poor vocabularies on space businesses (I don’t even understand the difference between shuttle or ship) as well as adjectives to show wonder. Have a great Sunday!

In my mind, the men and women of NASA are history’s modern pioneers. They attempt the impossible, accept failure, and then go back to the drawing board while the rest of us stand back and criticize. –Zach Herney in Deception Point

Train’s Logic

(Disclaimer: don’t hate me if this post sounds extremely cynical and not giving solutions. I’m just one of those desperately disappointed customers–or simply observer–who would like to give a wake up call.)

My hypothesis: it possesses none. And by train, I refer to the people behind their desks who decide policies that affect the whole commuting society in Jakarta, Depok, Bogor, and their surroundings.

Assuming they do have it, my experiences conclude that it can never be publicly accepted for its different nature. The logic, I mean. Let’s take a look to several points below; according to the train:

  • Our society is divided into three classes: a) the have–who can pay Rp 9.000 for a Pakuan ride, b) the semi-have–who are charged by Rp 5.500 one way, and c) the poor–God knows if they really pay the budget ticket that costs them Rp 2.000. Instead of being a ‘one for all’ public transportation, the train feels it safe enough to let the economic gap stay that way. Genius.
  • The have have the absolute right to do whatever they want to the poor just because their train takes more money from their pocket. This includes forcing them to wait at Stasiun Depok or Stasiun Manggarai for ‘a while’ after their mighty Pakuan gets ahead.
  • The poor can’t sit on the top of their train on their own risk because it’s dangerous, but the have can violate the rule of ‘no sitting on the floor’ and ‘no extra seats’ inside the coach (which is evidently annoying throughout hectic hours)–because they pay those little seats themselves?
  • Female have should enjoy full protection from those mashers with a gerbong khusus wanita but the same rights don’t go to the female poor. (What? They pay us Rp 2.000 a ride and expect us to protect them? Don’t be silly!)

1

The scariest gap in our society is that several feet from express train to the budget one. Indonesia needs a change, young minds.

Of course. Really, I just don’t get it.

One day, just a moment in the future, this saddening system should change. Either I take the power myself and enhance better performance in every level of service in public transportation i.e. commuter trains, or I’ll persuade my future students to do so. Someone with vision should take the lead, yo.