What I believe

Between thought and action lies speech, which can substitute for either. It can just as easily mask thoughtlessness as impede action.

Right speech, however, does not substitute for thought or action, but mediates them. Giving expression to thought, it enables intelligent action.

 Found this quotation here

Opinion

Recently, I had seen so many people taking opinions too seriously, even in a virtual society, one got a heart attack just cos she couldn't handle the opinion, which obviously, people's opinions aren't necessarily true. A man asked me to shut the fuck up simply cos I feel annoyed when he poses an annoying question towards a woman, and that woman has expressed her inconvenience. And I told him to back off cos his question was not propitious to the woman. Anyway, he can't handle it. Here's some flash:

1. Negative opinions exist. Anti-abortion groups are not deprived of their rights to speak negatively on discussions about abortion, unless if it is a discussion forum exclusively arranged for pro-choice people only. Even then, pro-choice people may be allowed to make counter-views to certain aspects related to abortion.
2. No one is claiming undeniable truth or ultimate credibility to whatever they are saying, but it is not one’s fault that he is more literate and convincing in getting his point across than you are.
3. If you do not wish to discuss about anything that is more than just a bunch of one-liner empty assertions, then DO NOT! Why bother to try?
4. Just because someone has a negative opinion about certain aspects of A, it does not mean that he cannot acknowledge some positive aspects of it. Nor does it mean that he views A in entirely as negative.
5. Similarly, switch the words “negative” and “positive” in #5 above and re-read the sentence.
6. Ad hominem is downright desperation. And it does NOT work no matter how hard you push it.
7. Or any other non-related bashing. It might or might not be correct, but it is still irrelevant.
8. Popular opinion does not equal truth. Remember geocentrism?
9. Opinions are opinions. You are allowed to have yours and I am allowed to have mine. At the end of the day, they are just opinions. Why are you taking it too seriously?
10. If you cannot handle opinions that do not agree with yours, then NEVER proceed into any discussions.

Food for thought (Ambition)

I ain't preaching here for sure, but I had a talk with somebody today making me think all this. Why ambition? Many people live being ambitious, I am not saying it's wrong, one's way of life is not ours to judge, especially if that doesn't hurt us yet it dawned on me to ponder what kind of ambition I am applying for myself.

Generally speaking, ambition means “an eager or inordinate desire for preferment, honor, superiority, power, or attainment.” The desire to achieve prominence is very strong. Even some persons succumb to it. At one point’s of people’s life, our necessities change. And I myself have experienced it, that my goal has changed, I’m not really who I used to be. I can say I was more ambitious in the past, with a lot of worldly ambitions, and wishes… They say, Never stop till we reach the top, and I did believe in that and did my best to achieve what I wanted in life. However, I have come to realise one thing, that if we lean upon the thingamabobs of this worldly system, our core satisfaction isn’t accomplished. Cos, the rule is simple: Human basic inclination is self-centred, hardly satisfied, we always want more and more, and whenever I reach that one point that I want, I'll come back to the base line of where I start not getting satisfied. 

"Someone else's opinion on me doesn't have to become my reality", that's one of the motto I live on, and for me this is very reasonable and flexible for me. IF I don't see the reasonableness of what people tell me to change, I won't change, regardless of how many of them that ask me to change, majority isn't always right anyway. (Read my article about "Is it a crime to be single?") On the other hand, when I see the sense of what I have to change for better, I'll comply. One can't always be right, I can't either. But to choose a path that is not mainstream, It is commonly understood that many will probably think I am weird. For me, as long as I don't hurt them, then it's none of their business, especially towards ones that voice their opinions based on their own interests and not the mutual or the greater good interest. Hence, majority people's definition of success, has no effect on me, cos their perspectives need not become my reality.

I relinquish some of my ambitions, at least this is what I am doing now. I relinquish my scholarship, some job offers, all the master degree offers, that can bring prestige or worldly applaud to what I believe as vanity for now, and I prefer to pursue something better. I do believe what Solomon says in bible in Ecclesiastes 1: 2- 7 "All Human striving is fleeting and temporary". The Hebrew word translated “vanity” refers to something empty, futile, meaningless, of no substance, or of no lasting value. I don't want to aim such high education, or high prestige, nor do I want to base my life of materialism. Materialism is, in fact, a hindrance to happiness and satisfaction. Then again, I am not judging those who pursue that, cos some indeed "make use" of that and help humanity, and if that is genuine from heart that's even better. And sadly, tho exist, but it's not often the case.

Then, does it mean it is wrong to have a good time or to earn money? No, it is not. Laughter, or having a good time (what money offers too, self pleasure, I do enjoy that too, I am no robot! >_< ), may help take the mind off one’s problems temporarily,and it is indeed pleasurable and fun and nothing is wrong with all those, even the Bible implies this notion: “Go, eat your food with rejoicing and drink your wine with a good heart.” (Eccl. 9:7) .No doubt we have taken pleasure in watching a gorgeous sunset or a colorful rainbow. Perhaps we have marveled at the beauty of a star-filled sky on a dark night. Or we may have stood in awe at the grandeur of magnificent mountain peaks. Even the fragrance of flowers and the freshness of a new morning can be exhilarating. It is only proper that we should find pleasure in these many good things, clearly there is nothing wrong with wholesome pleasure. Watching movies, listening to songs, and reading books are just some of the many fun things as well.

But the problems do not go away. So trying to find true happiness by merrymaking/ pleasure is “insanity”; it makes no sense. Similarly, “rejoicing” does not solve life’s problems. Merriment and pleasures are thus contrasted with the happiness that results from having a certain spiritual fulfillment.

Well, does it mean, that if we relinquish our high ambitions, we won’t develop any longer? My answer is NO, because we’ll still develop mentally, emotionally and spiritually, depending on whether we still read, watch or learn. There are always other medias to develop, not necessarily high education, prestige, and other mainstream so called of success, cos most of the time, we are prone to becoming arrogant that way. What I am trying to say here is, what is so called good ambitions by people is not always the compulsory thing to follow, albeit not wrong. No one can patronize us. And I can't and I don't want to patronize either, it's always good to have goals. :P

For me, I have another goal to achieve, but a humble goal, that is to develop my spirituality, finding the truth, to be able to reach base line, being able to be satisfied, not necessarily easy, but that's what I am striving for. still I have to educate myself a lot in order to achieve it, something that most common people won’t comprehend. Among the many benefits of heeding this Scriptural counsel is the one mentioned at Ecclesiastes 5:12: “Sweet is the sleep of the one serving, regardless of whether it is little or much that he eats."  To whom should I serve? Humanity? God? Of course, in time I can provide better answer for that...

A friend in need is a friend indeed, WRONG!

They say "A friend in need is a friend indeed". Is this true and complete axiomatic? Or is this some sort of cliche that is simply hackneyed to please the ego of the people involved in the 'friendship'?

Indeed, this line seems to be noble element for friendship, and in 'certain circumstances', I won't deny that friendship in need is a friend indeed. But does this apply to all situations? Or does it leave a chance that friends will 'abuse' this line to suit his ego or 'NEED'??

This line simply is not applicable in any situation, not when your friend, in average reasonable perception is misguided, is wrong, and therefore as a friend, you can't acquiesce with whatever you friend wants or 'needs' from you. Take, for instance, a friend who persuades you into buying and using drugs, and he 'needs' you to do that so that you can be with him during his thick and thin being, or a friend, in a particular circumstance, is showing such a bigotry into certain race, and you are not discriminative at all, and with his vitriolic insults he has made lots of enemies, and he FORCES and IMPOSES his idea on you to hate his enemies despite the fact that he is totally wrong and his enemies have nothing wrong to do with you or even decent with you. Is this actually friendship? Just because your friend hates, does it mean you have to hate too? Wrong! Simply such misrepresentation of a friendship!

(Sigh...) Some people take friendship for granted, just because they share certain stuffs with you, and you do with them, that makes you two friends, and with ego one friend will possess the others, don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with feeling possessive, tho I'd rather not be possessive and demanding, but possessing your friend does not mean you can cross the line of propriety, it doesn't mean you can force your friend to have the very same idea with you. If you fail to agree to disagree, based on average reasonable situation (not when your are really dealing with schizophrenics or mental retarded people, this is clearly a special case and not discussed in here), you can either reason until two of you are satisfied, or any of you stand corrected, or else, go with your own opinions without bugging each other, this is when understanding and flexibility within friendship is displayed. Understand that two heads can't have one opinion. Afterall, you must love your friend to be a friend, hence showing understanding and flexibility is just part of it. Average reasonable situations, however, does not translate the idea of a situation that your friend is terribly wrong, terribly misguided, in that sense, if he can't be advised or suggested, then whatever! As long as you try to correct him, explaining your stance in this issue, and if he refuses, you can stay away and let him have his own perception, like I said, no bugging. And worse, if that friend insults or imposes too much to you, you can leave him without even feeling bad! A friend in need is a friend indeed??? Think again, that kind of a friend who complies everything false might lead you to destruction.

A good friend of mine, Chris, told me that only in times of pressure, or bad times can we know the true colors of our friends. I totally go with this line. Only when you have disagreement, the way you and your friend assess matter and act upon it, the way you can condone each other, that constitutes whether or not if he is really your friend.

I have had the most inspiring friends of my life, I have my best friend that I value, many times I stand corrected, and many times we argue but always in the end, there's clearer situation after meaningful communication. There are also people, albeit nice, but I don't want to attach to. The way I see it, we can never be demanding and over-possessive towards your friends. There should always a way where you cannot rely too much emotionally on anyone.A CLEAR LINE! For me, friendship should not be taken for granted, nor should any other relationships. Each has to strive to be better for the other, in average reasonable context, and only through that, a friendship can be worthwhile.

Just my two cent opinion.

Paradox (WHY????)

One of the most wonderful and tormenting things about life is paradox. The paradox of good and bad, big and small, white and black, concentration and division, solidity and void. This philosophy is best represented by the circle of yin and yang. I question why is life designed in such paradox? Why are we saying one thing and another thing contradictory?

When batman asked joker in the dark knight "why dont you just kill me?" Joker answered "Why should i kill you, you complete me." There is no bad, if there is no good and vice versa. There is no god if there is no evil.. THey co-exist, no one can exist without the other... Why should we have god creating this universe if that also bring along the evil?

Why are we believing in eternal life through dead? Why inconsistency is the most consistent thing? Why are we so lonely when we have 8.5 billion people on earth? Why do i feel lonely when i am in big cities while i feel so besieged by friends when i am in a small place (Medan)? Note: i have relatively same amount of friends in both place..

I find life very difficult to comprehend because the answer of many questions is answered by questions... When consistency is an integral part of logic, by which the principle i am living, life is so inconsistent...

Paradox of hate and love: You cannot love someone without hating him/her and vice versa. You cannot think that we (human) are too small in the big universe, but you get bored with your surroundings because you think any sightseeing object is just as interesting as the previous one.

The most aggrieved part is why hardworking or genius people do not achieve their dreams, while ignorant and slothful people do... Why the best is not necessarily the best (champion).

Why the truth is the thing people hate listening the most? Why your enemies are your closest friends? (Don Corleone says Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer)...

Why do i have to ask why?

Mitigating global warming? Um...

My response to anthropogenic global warming has been nuanced for sometime – I don't trust the institutions researching climate change, yet at the same time I feel a public policy response is necessary.
On the first bit, when global warming started becoming a “scientific consensus” – that’s the time to step back and reconsider the science institutes. There is an inclination to bias when entire institutions, including IPCC, are set up to prove global warming. There will be a tendency to ignore or discount contrary evidence or alternate explanations – and in the case of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, mixing politics and science can corrupt science. Not shocking – politics is corrosive.
At the same time, I find it incredulous anyone could deny human activity having absolutely no impact on the climate. There is already strong evidence to localised environmental problems – take urban heat island effect (where emissions combined with asphalt and concrete to raise local temperatures) or acid rain. It isn’t a dramatic leap to think that pumping the atmosphere full or carbon dioxide and other gases will have no impact on the environment. At the same time, the climate of each region is interdependent on each other – so there have to be some sort of global effect stemming from human activity.
It's easy to understand why climate researchers will have the inclination to exagerate (or in CRU’s case, falsify). Without scaring a population, its impossible to adopt public policy necessary to counteract climate change. And that’s the bit: from the onset, environmentalists sought to politically control choices – walk, don’t drive, don’t buy that plastic bottle of water, sort out your trash.
Lowering green house gas emission became a lot more damaging (Sigh, such a slippery slope!). Expensive subsidies are granted to “green” projects like biofuels (which escabated the 2007 food crisis) and windmills. People are forced to change their lifestyles. And the method of controlling emissions – carbon trading – specifically allows special interests to manipulate it. Take the United State’s upcoming system, which gives free quotas to utility companies, undermining the principle of carbon trading: making carbon more expensive.
The alternative solution was one advocated by a number of economists: a flat carbon tax. As this carbon tax raise revenue, other taxes could be reduced – income taxes, corporate taxes, stuff like that. In Australia, the new opposition leadership pointed out Kevin Rudd’s emissions trading scheme is a new, expensive tax on Australians. But the impact of carbon pricing will be far lower if the impact of government taxation remains the same. There will still be the cost of distortion, and if anthropogenic climate change is a dud, it is at least a whole lot expensive compared to the current public policy response in North America, Europe and Australia.

Discrimination? Really?

One of my friends I most respected in life and has done great impact on my life, once asked: “What is discrimination?” Many answer “Different Treatment by law”. He said no. There is nothing wrong with treating people differently. Discrimination is treating similar things differently and different things similarly. Analogy... imagine now you are a policy maker, required to design policy concerning quantity of toilets in public places. Since male and female “peeability” is different, you have to discriminate male by creating more female toilets than male. If you realize in your daily lives in public places, be it in a restaurant, club, or malls, the line for female toilets are much longer and shifting of one female to another female using one toilet is much slower.

Now, we come to understand male and female are different in terms of “peeability”, therefore it is justifiable to differentiate treatment. Another VERY STRENOUS CONCEPT in discrimination issue. Male and female are different in “peeability” but not in terms of humanity, i.e. rights to breathe the air. Imagine if you are from outer space, as you get closer, you will see that human and animals are different, but you cant distinguish male and female. As you get even closer now you know human consists of male and female different skin colors, height, physiological characteristics. IF you get even closer, you will understand that even man is different in terms of sexual orientation (same thing as female). In philosophical diction, i call it comparator. What discriminates things depend on the comparator. You said male is different from female in terms of peeability not the right to breathe.

Issue of discrimination has been living side by side with human’s existence, yet little understanding and consensus is reached on this area. This is the root of many evils hitherto including Environmental protection under Kyoto Protocol, rights to legal aids, particularism versus universalism, torture, terrorism, child’s trafficking, gender discrimination, extreme poverty, illiteracy and freedom of expression. The biggest catch of environmental protection is States’ ego. U.S said China should have taken at least as much commitment as US does in reducing carbon emission. China said NO, US has been polluting our earth since industrial revolution in 17-18th century. It is not fair to ask China now (since china has just been emitting carbon few decades ago) to clean up the mess US caused by taking similar commitment. IS THIS DISCRIMINATION?

In gender issue, we are also confronted with many arguments, principally surrounding whether male and female are the same. If they are different, in what aspects they are different, i.e. physical abilities, leadership, rights to title of property or land? How to identify whether certain different treatments are due to different nature of male and female? Since physical abilities of male and female are different, we dissect Olympic competition into male and female category, especially for running and football.. But can physical abilities different justify difference in terms of rights to title of property or rights to freedom of speech? NO. This is an easy issue. What about different treatment in salary and career wise because women get pregnant and are physically weaker? So, even if a man and a woman are equally qualified for certain jobs, a boss differentiates their salaries and career development. IS THIS DISCRIMINATION?

Protection of aliens and citizens. States argue that citizens pay tax and are born with legal rights and obligations to the State, so it is fair to differentiate standard of treatment for aliens and citizens. Aliens/foreigners dont have to pay tax (VAT). If you travel to Europe and shop, you can claim for tax reimbursement in airport. The reason is because you are not enjoying the facilities the State provides for its citizen, such as free education, infrastructure, and housing subsidy. On the contrary, foreigners are discriminated in terms of quota of education in prestigious university in that country. Germany allows only 20% foreigners sitting in heidelberg (hypothetically), singapore puts quota on foreign students, irrespective of how smart the foreign student is! IS THIS DISCRIMINATION?

Rights of disabled children. Government in many countries spent 20-30% of educational budget for infrastructure that is intended to accommodate students with disabilities. In that particular country as well, as many as 20 million children do not go to school because of poverty. Suppose building special elevators costs 1000 and providing free education for 1 child is 20. The result of special elevators project helps 50 children with disabilities, while if this money is spent for free education it results in 500 normal children at school. Now if government decides to allocate this money for 500 normal children, it is different treatment. IS THIS DISCRIMINATION?

Last point, WAR. I have much passion in this issue. Suppose State A attacks State B because of abundant oil reserves in State B. State A also attacks State C with more oil reserves. When State A attacks State B, its soldiers cruelly killed the citizen and soldiers of State B because they are of different religion, ALTHOUGH STATE B doesnt fight back! Historically State C has been in tension with State B because of different political beliefs. When State A attacks State C, State C resists and it results in a huge war, a lot of lives are lost (torture, extreme gross violation of human rights), buildings are destroyed, and economy is down. Ramifications are tremendous! State A is sued B and C before an international court. State A was punished with full reparation made to B and long life embarrassment, while in the case of State C, State A only has to make partial reparation and that s all. IS THIS DISCRIMINATION?

Now the most sensitive issue in Indonesia. Chinese Discrimination. Few days ago, i argued tensely with my friend that Chinese has been discriminated until now. He said no. Bataknese is also discriminated when they come to Jakarta and deal with Javanese officials. It is normal because every race feels this sense of chauvinism. This sense of chauvinism grows into the practice of collusion. So he said, since not only chinese who was treated differently in Java, but also bataknese, there is no discrimination. WRONG! Discrimination happens because of different treatment that is measured by damage and quality of hatred. If Chinese is no treated similar to bataknese in Java, there is no discrimination amonng bataknese and chinese, but there is discrimination against chinese in Java. Discrimination doesn t happen ONLY IF the JAVANESE is treated similarly in Java as well. Now my friend gets smarter. He said Chinese in 1960 enjoys all the economic facilities while indonesian (pribumi) enjoys political careers. This political and economics trade off is meant to maintain US' support to Indonesia by means of international recognition. If Indonesia places the Chinese in political structure, it will be viewed by US as communist country. SO indonesia decided not to. Therefore, Chinese should be treated differently in terms of economy right now, such as pay more for driving license, permit, identity card and passport (not entirely true, but it still happens!). Sigh, i said this is what is wrong. Differentiating Chinese and non Chinese for its political rights based on economy differences is not correct.You can differentiate treatment ONLY IF the difference you are using is relevant to the different treatment. FOr example peeability between male and female for different treatment if number of toilets, not the right to breathe!

The concept of discrimination is strenuous subject. As long as international community and human in general cannot strike a right balance, our world will be filled with homo homini lupus. The strong one eats the weak one. The strong one dictates human rights. The strong one tells the rest what is right and what is wrong. The weak one feels dissatisfied, outraged, rebel and WAR!

My quote “War is the child of every regime, be it classical democracy in Athens or John Locke/Montesquieu’ trias politica. It is meant to create confusion and blur the line of the perfect balance of rights. When confusion is in place, human is nothing else but animals!”

Human makes mistakes

To err is human (or to blunderr is human). So they say. But did you ever feel you are plain stupid? You look at yourself in the mirror, reproaching yourself, hating yourself. Stupid. Moron. Imbecile. Idiot (I like to be redundant, so I can look less stupid even when I’m upset at myself for being one) Either way, Idiot!!

You make mistakes…professional ones..personal ones..emotional ones..or simply some faux pas (trust me, I’ve had a fair share of those).. People are upset or laughing at you… People even hate you. You are even more upset with yourself… Feel like banging your head on the wall.

BUM..BUM… BUM!! exactly that.

Stick and carrot principle often often applies here. You feel like punishing yourself for allowing the stupidity. You feel like forcingly telling your brain to behave. Be nice. Be smart. Be you. Be wise and not become a pain in the ass for other people. Well, the smart you. Not the stupid-at-the-moment you.

Just when you think you are just done away with your fair share of mistakes of the month, there comes another.. and so another BUM…BUM..BUM…Self esteem goes rock bottom, your pride becomes so diminished that you wish you just disappear! Seriously!

On my younger days, I thought when I grow older, my mistakes would go less. Age and mistake should be the other way around. Like light and shadow, day andnight, sport and fat, they should be mutually exclusive, if one is thriving, the other will be diminished…bottomline is you are supposed to be wiser when you are older.

Which is often not the case… I know, I know.

But to err is human. We make mistakes, sometimes because we are sleepy, negligent, forgetful or because we overlook some things, in short, faulty perception, or simply because we never know about the future. In any ways, we can hurt or offend people not on purpose.

But where to draw a line between a "blunder" and a reasonable course of action based on the available knowledge at the time?

And in hindsight, at times, we make some decisions based on available information. Hence, change of situation deprives the current decision of its validity. Ergo, a mistake (now). Being human, we are just bound to make mistakes.

Nature works in an unpredictable way.A mistake at present, can turn out to be something good with changing
situation.And hey! Here is another flash.

When you make mistakes, you learn the hard way not to repeat it, to avoid it, to anticipate.(This is very important to avoid more and more mistakes)

When you anticipate, you make better plans.

When you make better plans, you are bound to do things in a much better way.
Even babies have to fall in their first steps so they can walk.

The right to be wrong. They say what doesn’t kill you will only make you strong. Mistakes will make you strong. Don’t quit making mistakes. It’s our prerogative right to make mistakes. Afterall we’re human.

……Oh, and another moral of the story is, if you are thinking of banging your head, at the very least, don’t do it on the stone wall and risk a concussion, do it on the wooden board, it’s loud and it doesn’t hurt...:p