immortality

Sukses

posted by eloque @ 10:10 PM What Say You?: 4

Sang Alkemis

Ini cerita bodoh. Syahdan seorang Paulo Coelho menelurkan buku emas yang lantas sangat digandrungi dan dielu-elukan di dunia sastra. Judulnya O Alquimisto, alias The Alchemist, alias Sang Alkemis. Mereka yang merasa dirinya cukup nyastra tentu tidak mau ketinggalan menglaim buku ini sebagai buku kesayangan. Juga pengais makna yang filosofis, juga pembebek yang sok kritis. Sang Alkemis pun laris manis.

Syahdan pula, satu postulat dalam buku ini begitu maraknya dikutip, direnungi, dan didaras di mana-mana: “Jika engkau sungguh-sungguh menginginkan sesuatu, segenap alam semesta akan bersatu-padu membantumu mewujudkannya.”. Sederhana memang, namun betapa indah! Betapa penuh doa dan pengharapan! Betapa spiritual! Atau begitulah kata orang.

Aku berhipotesa bahwa negasi postulat itu pun sama digdayanya.

Dasarnya? Alkisah, dosenku (yang kuhormati dan kubanggakan, dll) bertitah bahwa hendaknya aku menghadap beliau segera. Tentunya tidak dengan tangan hampa. Maka pontang-panting aku menyiapkan “upeti” untuk disodorkan ke haribaan duli tuan dosen; dalam hal ini perhitungan perancangan unit pengilangan minyak bumi yang sedang kukerjakan. Tak dinyana, alam semesta menanggapi usahaku dengan satu-padu. Pertama-tama monitor komputerku rusak. Pindah data ke komputer orang lain? Maaf, sedang dipakai. Maaf, masih Windows‘98 jadi tidak mampu baca flashdisk tanpa driver-nya. Maaf, driver-nya ada tapi entah di mana.

Oke, pejuang sejati tidak akan surut hanya karena dibodohi teknologi! Sekadar menghitung tak seberapa, pakai kalkulator pastinya bisa. Alam semesta tersenyum-senyum saja. Ternyata: kalkulatorku yang baru –aku lupa!- dipinjam teman yang sedang ujian; kalkulator tuaku sudah hidup segan mati tak mau. Baiklah, saatnya teman membantu di kala susah. Lima menit riang menjajah kalkulator Nisa, barang si*lan itu mati tiba-tiba. Musim ujian begini tiap orang memeluk erat-erat kalkulatornya; tinggallah aku terpojok tak berdaya.

Dan aku harus mengakui satu hal: jauh di dasar hati aku tidak ingin, tidak mau, tidak suka mengerjakan tetek-bengek perhitungan celaka itu.

Tambahkan satu dan satu menjadi dua, maka kita dapati bahwa mungkin postulat Coelho bisa dipelintir menjadi begini: “Jika engkau sungguh-sungguh tidak menginginkan sesuatu, segenap alam semesta akan bersatu-padu menjauhkanmu dari hal itu.”. Ha!

Coba kita pakai logika dan analogi untuk menganalisanya. Postulat Coelho terdiri dari dua premis, yaitu “engkau sungguh-sungguh menginginkan sesuatu” (premis p) dan “segenap alam semesta akan bersatu-padu membantumu mewujudkannya” (premis q). Hubungan keduanya adalah “jika p maka q”, yang dalam ilmu logika disebut implikasi.

Benar-tidaknya postulat itu tergantung dari nilai kebenaran masing-masing premis. Daftarnya seperti ini (B untuk Benar dan S untuk Salah):

p--------q-----------“jika p maka q”
B---------B-------------------B
B---------S-------------------S
S---------B-------------------B
S---------S-------------------B

Bukan kebenaran mutlak, ternyata. Itu kasus postulat Coelho. Bagaimana vonis untuk postulat hipotesaku, yang nyata-nyata negasi dari tiap-tiap premis postulat Coelho?

-p------q------------“jika –p maka –q”
S--------S-------------------B
S--------B-------------------B
B--------S-------------------S
B--------B-------------------B

Gagal, saudara-saudara! Nilai kesahihannya tidak sama. Meskipun, jika kita jeli, akan tampak bahwa postulat hipotesaku akan sama saktinya dengan milik Coelho jika dan hanya jika baik premis p maupun premis q benar adanya (dengan mahfum bahwa masing-masing jiwa pastinya memendam suatu hasrat, dan dengan demikian premis p selalu bernilai benar). Pada kondisi itu, jika postulat Coelho dianggap sahih maka postulatku pun setali tiga uang. Boleh juga kan?

Omong-omong, cerita bodohku berakhir begini:
Arko, melawan hujan, mengantarku menjemput “kalkulator perjuangan” malam-malam. Perhitungan itu kukencani sampai jam empat pagi. Nyatanya Yang Mulia Dosen tidak ambil pusing dan tidak peduli. Aku tidak tahu di mana posisi alam semesta pada akhirnya; di seberang sini atau sana. Namun daripada melulu mengandalkan bantuan dan keberuntungan, aku mendapat pelajaran: yang lebih penting adalah usaha dan kemauan dari dalam. Pasti ada jalan.

Di-beking alam semesta, itu jelas menggiurkan. Tapi tentang ini aku jadi ingat komentar seorang kawan tersayang. “Ingin alam semesta membantu kamu Lok? Makanya, jadilah Sang Alkemis, jangan jadi Sang Chemical Engineer, he he..”. D*mn right, bro.

Untuk penggemar Coelho di luar sana, dan terutama untuk Arko, yang hatinya begitu cantik.

posted by eloque @ 7:36 PM What Say You?: 1

THE ANTI-PORN BILL

Untuk membaca versi bahasa Indonesia, klik di sini.

IDEAS (must we have the anti-porn law?)

We have every reason to believe that anti-porn bill was derived from a noble idea of protecting the society from moral deterioration (whatsoever). In that respect, nobody can deny the importance of the objective, and how it is worth fighting for. We are obliged to appreciate the good intention. Yet it is still debatable that banning bare breasts in public will positively result in the improvement of our morals.

The fact is, the more repressive the regulation is, the more outbursts it creates. As reported by The Jakarta Post yesterday, the number of violation towards women increased during the previous year. The number of rape in Indonesia is five times as big as those in European countries. The same goes with sexual crimes toward children (not considering the unrevealed ones).

Instead of protecting the adults –who can think for themselves anyway-, i am more than willing to accept the antiporn law when its main concerns are of protection for children and women. Anything to do with sexual crimes toward children is undoubtedy a subject of banning. Children exploitation for sexual reasons, no matter how private, is still a violation. In this case we must not succumb to -nor tolerate- any pretexts.

On the contrary, the noble objective of protecting women can also be a boomerang. In this patriarchal world, where women are still seen as the (main) sex object, the impacts of the war against pornography will fall badly on women themselves. There will more restrictions as to what they are allowed to wear and do, while in the other hand this “compulsion” will encourage the increase of sexual crimes, whose victims are none other than women. What is expected to be a moral improvement and an aid could as well run far from the initial plan.


TECHNICAL (if indeed the law must be passed)

First of all: to what extent does the state have the right to manage the morals of its citizens? They might have the right alright, but i don’t think that right encompasses the entire aspect of the citizens’ lives. It has nothing to do with religions and Islam –as the majority. Even if Indonesia IS an Islamic country, and bound to enforce The Syari’a, including to eradicate porn for religious reasons, there is still a question left: isn’t there supposed to be no compulsion in Islam practises? Isn’t religious matter (along with all the rules and rituals) a prerogative of each individual’s?

The state may regulate what’s in the public domain, but if i decide to walk around naked in my own room, i believe the state has no say in this. This can well mean the porn the state may arrange is confined to what’s visible (and maybe “can be heard” as well) in public.

Secondly: how do you define porn?

The Anti-porn bill goes as follows: pornography includes “certain sensual parts of the body”. Further explanation says: "it covers genitals, thigh, hip, bottom, navel, woman’s breasts, either shown partially or entirely.”.

According to Oxford Advanced Learner Dictionary: pornography (inf, porn): books, videos, etc. that describe or show naked people and sexual acts in order to make people feel sexually excited, especially in a way that many other people find offensive.

The problem is, definitions depend a lot on the perspective of the observer. And perspective is subject to subjectivity. For a conservative muslim, even the hair of a woman is a form of porn. But try and go ask a fed-up-with-as*es clubber, we might well hear a different tune.

So whose definition are we going to use? These definitions vary not only from group to group, but also from culture to culture. Indonesia does have a range of cultures. Will we charge a female Balinese dancer in her costume (which is a part of a sacred ritual of worship) of committing porn? If the Papuans remain in their koteka, will we take them all to jail?

The problem of perspective gap will not emerge if the border between what is proper and what is porn is not so strictly drawn. It is fair to say that in any culture there is an “agreement” that the genitals and sexual acts are porn, and not to be shown in public. Actually between the proper and the porn, there is an area of the indecent, and it is exactly this area that varies from culture to culture. Porn may (and should) be banned, but merely a indecency can still be tolerated in accordance with local custom. Hence, it will be much better if every region produces a by-law of porn and indecencies that facilitates a more down-to-earth definition.

We must also stress how ambiguous it is to use the word “erotic” to define porn (as is the case with the anti-porn bill). Semantically, erotic means showing or involving sexual desire and pleasure; intended to make somebody feel sexual desire. It’s clearly subjective. What is erotic for a person might be something trivial for others, and it has nothing to do with clothing. A woman wearing jilbab with her jilbab blown on the wind, revealing a bit of her hair, might be more erotic than a girl (out of thousands) with bikini on a beach. How can you make a definition out of something indefinitive? That would be foolish indeed.


IMPACTS

The issue has sent back a wave of opposition to passing the law –including that ridiculous act in Bali. Furthermore, the possibility of separation of Bali and Papua –as they threathened that that would be the case if the law were passed- becomes a must-discuss topic these days. Tourism sector will indeed suffer a great loss, as tourists definitely prefer free, relaxed places to a tropical country which obliges them to wear long sleeves whatsoever in the hot air. And Papua is due to have a culture-shock if the people are forced to adopt an unfamiliar set of principles.

As the demo, debate, discussion, and all the riot go on, owing to this particular issue, so many energies are spent, so much time is wasted. They might not be wasted in vain, for all the enthusiasm is another step in the journey toward a mature nation. Yet just imagine if the energies and time were lavished on something essential: fight against corruption or improving the quality of education.

SUMMING UP

I believe that we can enforce acts but we cannot enforce morals. Even if the bill were finally passed, it did not subsequently mean that the morals of this country would improve. The true measurement of morals is when you have the chance of doing something “bad”, yet you don’t. A saying goes, “Character is doing the right thing when nobody’s looking.”. Hence, let people dress the way they like, act the way they want (as long as it doesn’t do harm to –nor offend- anybody, why bother?). Make the regulations –unambiguous ones, that is- for things that really matter, child protection for example. Instead of binding rules, what counts is how to cultivate their awareness of the consequences of their choices when they have the freedom to choose. Once again education (not in a narrow sense) takes a major role. Because the thing about life is that you choose freely and you live with it. I know i can wear tanktop if i want, all the same i wear jilbab. Yet if other girls wish to show their belly buttons off, be my guests. It’s their lives anyway.

To Michael, who made me write this.
More about porn on wikipedia, click here.

posted by eloque @ 10:19 PM What Say You?: 1