Happiness with the Capital H

To me, one of the ultimate purposes in life is to find Happiness. Then, where can I find this happiness? Some say it resides in money, relationship, travelling, raising children, or simple things such as smoking while drinking coffee in the morning.  I, however, do not think this is the case. Don’t get me wrong. Those are nice things, but to me, it is not a true Happiness since it will not last simply because human mind is so adaptable to changes—either good or bad ones.

Three to four years ago, I completely depended on public transportation. I was so broke; the money that I had was just enough for transportation and mineral water. I could not go places and all I knew was just the route from my home to campus. At that time, I said to myself that I would be happy and fulfilled if I had a bike and some money.

Let’s cut the long story short, I got some freelance jobs and then I had some money to buy a secondhand bike. I was so happy. Then, my ‘default state’ leveled up. After a while, I want more. I did not feel that happiness any longer. After that, I thought getting good grades would make me happy. Then, I got quite good grades. I was happy. Later, I felt empty inside. Then, I thought flirting with some cute girls would make me happy. When I did it, I was happy. Later, I felt empty inside again. I would either want something more or something else.

If I won a hundred million Rupiah lottery, I would buy a Jet Ski and be so happy. After a while, my happiness level would go up to a new ‘default state’. In a few months, after riding that Jet Ski a hundred times, I probably would get bored and forget the happiness when I won the lottery and the Jet Ski—like my bike. Let’s say that a year later, I got robbed, lost the Jet Ski, and ended up becoming a bum. I was so depressed. My ‘default state’ would go down. Then, in a random day, I found 15.000 Rupiah on the street. I would be so happy, and then I bought some food. The next day, I would feel empty inside again and a voice in my head would ask, ‘I want more!' or 'Now what?’

I realized that I am trapped in a crazy loop, and I have to find a more permanent source of Happiness—yes, the one with capital H.

It may seem that I am very hard to please.

To be frank, I felt happy when I was in a relationship; in an amusement park when I got on some rides that pump my adrenaline; when I was hanging out with my friends; also, over small things such as watching movies, reading books, having an ice cream, and having silly random conversations about things like, ‘what is your favorite color?’, ‘What do you fear the most?’, or ‘What kind of death do you prefer?’.

However, then, I always felt empty inside when I went home after those activities. To be precise, it is shortly after I mumbled, ‘That was fun!’

"Happiness seems to be a fountain of youth. They spend all their time searching for it. They leave their houses not knowing that their time is running out…" 

 When I was alone at home after boosted by one of those pills of excitements, a voice in my head would ask for something more or something else. It is crazy how it craves more and more ‘pills’. It is as if I was a drug addict and my mind kept screaming, “I want more! I want more! Give me more!” and then, if I could not get what it wanted, I would have a withdraw syndrome. Then, I felt sad or even depressed.

That is why many people would find a shortcut for stimulation like drug, alcohol, cigarette, porn, confirmation on social media, boyfriend/ girlfriend, and many more. These types of people would have a roller-coaster mood swing. They would be happy and then sad in a short period of time. You may have a friend, girlfriend, or boyfriend, who grumbles on social media because he/she felt that nobody was around when he/she is depressed as if everybody is responsible for his/her happiness. Yet, he/she thinks they are responsible. 

That is currently what happens to a majority of people—sometimes, I am included.

"In front of a genie, a bum wished for a great job, big mansion, a beautiful wife, and cute kids (Yes, he got 4 wishes, this is different lamp). He got that. One day his wife took the kids to go shopping. Five hours later, they had not come back. He wondered what if his wife met a cool guy and cheated with him; what if someone kidnapped his kid; what if they got robbed. Then, He got a heart attack."

Where is It?

As long as I live, I thought Happiness is outside while, in fact, it is inside my mind. There is nothing outside that can make me happy and fulfilled in the long run. 

From my readings, one of the ways to unhook the monkeys on our back is by self-isolation for one or two hours, or more. What I meant is by unplugging all sources of stimulation. Then, try to be still and comfortable. We should notice how our mind reacts on this. Within minutes, it would create a withdraw syndrome. It is like treating a drug addict, in a way. 

Being aware is very important since only a few people can even understand this. Then, we might need to do self-affirmation, meditation, and contemplation so that we can be more aware of the now and have an attitude of gratitude.

There are many steps ahead that you need to know. You may want to know the science of it by researching on neurotransmitter and Dopamine something. Yet, this is not a Self-Help post. Go help yourself! 

Now, I might seem like a monk who does not need money, friends, girlfriends, and other worldly things. Of course not, in fact I want that all. I am suggesting a less neurotic kind of life, though. In social context, I think it would be nice to be firstly happy inside, so that instead of intoxicating other people’s mood, we can be positive or at least be neutral to others.  Moreover, I think it is great to be happy without external stimulation.

Also, keep in mind that I am not promoting being emotionless. 

If in the left side we have someone with Bipolar Disorder and in the right side we have a Psychopath monster, it would be great to be somewhere in a middle; a stable human being who understands his/her emotion; a human being who looks.

"Happiness seems to be a fountain of youth. They spend all their time searching for it. They leave their houses not knowing that their time is running out. In their deathbed, they regret and mumble, “It is here all along”."

_________________________________

____________________

_________________________________

I am not writing fact here. This is merely my story and it may be right as it may be wrong. Maybe money is the ultimate Happiness, or boyfriend/ girlfriend, or career, or a Jet Ski, or  watching movies, or reading books. I don't know. Maybe.

On Life

On Life

Currently, I spend more of my time on the road rather than on the actual working. It is actually better, though, since I could have wasted more time on the road if I had worked at one of the companies or institutions that I applied before. Anyway, I am used to it.

Yes, I am used to all the hustle and bustle on the road. To me, there is no noise anymore; it has been the music orchestrated to background my day. It has been my routine. Even, now, I feel that my involuntary system does all the riding while I am wondering in some strange land of imagination and contemplation.

To me, the road—especially that I crossed almost every day—has made people less humane. They pace up their bikes or cars like a madman. It is a normality to see someone fall from their bikes or get hit by a car, or bus. I do not know why they risk their life; I cannot comprehend why they sacrifice their life, for what? It may be to be on time to work, which leads me to ask further questions on the reason why they are always in hurry or why they are always in the oh-my-god-I-will-be-late state of situation.

It is so difficult to make a U-turn without constant fear that some madman would hit me from the back, or any sides. The road and routines have robbed the humanity out of human. I see nothing but robots instead of good loving fathers, mothers, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, children, or cousins.

Then, suddenly, I got a message that my cousin—who is also my best friend since childhood—dies in a bike crash. Yes, he dies; not died nor passed away; he dies! The death is not the past; it never stops haunting me. For other people, it maybe just some news like, “Honey, I saw a man die today. He was so young, I feel so sorry for him. Anyway, where is my dinner?”

It is not like that for me even though I cannot do anything more than what those random people do.

That is the reality screaming at my face that life matters. Yes, life matters! Not only the life of my cousin or people who I know or love, but also every other life of people who is a complete stranger to me.

Even though it seems natural, it is so egotistical, though, to think that one’s life is more important than others’; even to think that my mother’s life is more important than my neighbor’s mother’s life. 

Anyway, that is what it is and it is how it must be; and I am inextricably tied with it.

Please, drive and ride safe. If it is not for you, then, drive and ride safe for the people who love you; or the life of a strangers—who is at stake—and the people who love them.

There is no job that outweighs life for we can find other jobs. 

There is no dinnertime that outweighs life for we can arrange some more. 

There is no family-time that outweighs life for there is no family-time if there is no life.

_______________________________________

_______________________________

_______________________________________

Dedicated to the life and death of my dearest cousin,

Attias Pradipta,

May, 16^th 1992 — March, 24^th 2016,

Rest in Peace, Brother. I’ll see you soon.

Skeptisisme dan Agnostisisme

Skeptisisme 

Menurut KBBI, Skeptis berarti kurang percaya atau ragu-ragu, sedangkan skeptisisme, seperti kata-kata yang berakhiran –isme lainnya, adalah aliran atau paham yang selalu memandang sesuatu tidak pasti. Walaupun baru santer terdengar pada sekitar awal abad ke-17, sebenarnya, konsep dasarnya sudah ada sejak zaman Yunani kuno ketika Socrates menyatakan bahwa dia meragukan dirinya sendiri dan apa yang dia lihat. Konsep dan istilah ini dipopulerkan oleh Rene Descartes.

Descartes menyadari bahwa sejak dia kecil, banyak kepercayaannya yang ternyata salah. Dia mulai berpikir bagaimana jika apa yang dia percayai saat ini juga ternyata salah—dan dia belum menyadarinya. Sejak saat itu, dia ingin memastikan bahwa dia tidak berpijak pada sesuatu yang salah lagi, alhasil, dia meragukan semua kepercayaannya—sampai dia bisa yakin mengenai kebenarannya.

Analoginya adalah dia sedang memegang sekeranjang buah apel. Dalam keranjang itu, mungkin ada beberapa buah apel busuk yang bisa ‘menular’ ke apel lainnya, dia pun mulai memeriksa apelnya. Namun, mungkin juga apel yang berada di paling bawah keranjangnya juga busuk. Oleh karena itu, dia mengeluarkan semua apel dan memeriksa satu-satu sebelum memasukan kembali ke keranjangnya.

Awalnya, Descartes menginspeksi ulang semua hal sebelum masuk ke sistem kepercayaannya menggunakan metode empiris—sistem indra. Dia menyadari bahwa sangat mungkin ada kecacatan dalam metode empirisnya karena dia tidak selalu bisa memercayai kelima indranya tersebut. Banyak sekali kondisi eksternal dan internal yang dapat mengganggu dan memengaruhi indranya dalam memersepsikan rangsangan.

Keraguan Descartes berlanjut menjadi lebih radikal. Dia berpikir bagaimana jika semua yang dia percayai selama ini, semua persepsi yang dia miliki, semua pengalaman yang dia alami, dan semua pikirannya telah ditanam oleh sang “evil genius” yang menciptakan sebuah dunia khayalan yang takkan pernah terdeteksi kebenarannya. 

Saat itu, dia meragukan semua hal, termasuk diri dan persepsinya sendiri. Namun, ada satu hal yang tidak dapat dia ragukan: keadaan bahwa dia sedang meragukan sesuatu. Pada momen itulah, Descartes menyadari bahwa ketika dia meragukan sesuatu, setidaknya dia merupakan sebuah entitas yang memiliki alat untuk berpikir.

Descartes mendeklarasikan pemikirannya tadi sebagai Cogito Ergo Sum (I think, therefore I am).

Tanggapan terhadap Skeptisisme

Seorang yang skeptis bukanlah orang yang meragukan segala sesuatu dan hanya diam hingga akhir hayatnya; skeptis bukan pula sebuah keputusan final bahwa suatu hal benar atau salah dan bernilai baik atau buruk. Seorang yang skeptis sangat menjunjung tinggi kebenaran, sehingga, dia selalu mempertimbangkan segala sesuatu menggunakan pelbagai kerangka berpikir.

 

Dalam dunia filsafat, ada dua kerangka berpikir untuk memahami hakikat kebenaran: empirisisme dan rasionalisme.

Menurut KBBI, empirisisme merupakan “aliran ilmu pengetahuan dan filsafat berdasarkan metode empiris; dan teori yang menyatakan bahwa semua pengetahuan didapat dari pengalaman”; sedangkan rasionalisme, merupakan “teori yang menganggap bahwa pikiran dan akal merupakan satu-satunya dasar untuk memecahkan permasalahan mengenai kebenaran yang lepas dari jangkauan indra; paham yang lebih mengutamakan kemampuan akal daripada emosi atau batin.”

Sebagaimana yang telah dijelaskan diatas, Descartes lebih memilih cara berpikir rasionalisme karena dia menyadari adanya keterbatasan-keterbatasan indra manusia. Namun, rasionalisme dinilai berpijak pada sesuatu yang bersifat abstrak dan metafisik, dan hal inilah yang kerap ditolak oleh orang-orang empiris-materialis yang hanya menerima ‘realitas’ sebagai sesuatu yang bisa dipersepsikan oleh indra.

Sekarang, pengertian keduanya (terutama rasionalisme) sudah semakin luas dan semakin banyak embel-embel yang ditambahkan sebelum dan sesudah istilah tersebut.

Walaupun kedua kerangka berpikir ini ada di dalam diri manusia yang seharusnya dapat memanfaatkan keduanya, perdebatan empirisisme dan rasionalisme kerap terjadi antara orang yang berpandangan dualisme, dan berpikir bahwa jika yang satu benar, maka yang satunya (harus) salah.

Bacaan lebih lanjut: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Descartes’ Epistemology

Agnostisisme

Berdasarkan KBBI, agnostisisme merupakan “paham yang mempertahankan pendirian bahwa manusia itu kekurangan informasi atau kemampuan rasional untuk membuat pertimbangan tentang kebenaran tertinggi.” Dalam The Sage’s English Dictionary and Thesaurus, agnostisisme dimaknai sebagai penyangkalan atau skeptisisme terhadap eksistensi Tuhan.

Kaum agnostik yang ada di benakku adalah kaum esoteris yang menunda keputusan mereka; para pemikir yang masih menimbang-nimbang perspektif yang satu dengan yang lainnya; yang masih mencoba memahami metafisika dan narasi agung dari hakikat semesta. 

Sayangnya, wajah agnostisisme yang aku lihat sekarang bukanlah merupakan sebuah paham yang skeptik terhadap eksistensi Tuhan, bukan pula paham dimana orang-orangnya terus belajar, mengkaji ilmu, dan mencari tahu kebenaran absolut. Kaum agnostik yang paling sering ‘muncul’ dan ‘berkoar-koar’ di media sosial dan forum-forum kontemporer adalah orang yang sangat sangat sangat yakin bahwa Tuhan itu tidak ada (ateis) dan yang malah menentang keberadaan Tuhan (anti-teis). 

Selain itu, orang-orang agnostik ‘kekinian’ ini adalah orang yang sangat bersifat anti terhadap agama—terutama Islam. Seringkali aku mendapati akun-akun resmi atau pribadi yang ‘asal comot’ berita manapun—baik itu yang jelas sumbernya maupun hoax—mengenai segala sesuatu yang menggambarkan beberapa organisasi masyarakat yang melakukan pembubaran atas acara-acara perkumpulan Islam Syiah, komunitas LGBT, Ahmadiyah, dll.

 

Aku tidak tau secara pasti seperti apa acaranya dan bagaimana proses pembubarannya. Di sini, akupun tidak ingin menolak dan mengindahkan acara pembubaran tersebut. Namun, aku, selaku orang yang sudah belajar Analisis Wacana, cukup memahami bagaimana subjektifnya sebuah pemberitaan itu. Se-objektif apapun sebuah pemberitaan, kita tidak bisa terlepas dari bias. Bahkan, keputusan media atau perorangan untuk menampilan sebuah tulisan A daripada tulisan B pun dapat menunjukan bias, preferensi, maupun orientasi dan ideologi sosial-politik. Nyatanya, tulisan yang diterbitkan oleh akun agnostik resmi maupun perorangan itu adalah salah satu tulisan yang paling subjektif yang pernah aku baca (selain curhatan anak-anak SMA di laman Facebook), yang mengandung belasan kata sifat yang menunjukan luapan emosi. Setelah aku telusuri, beberapa berita tersebut, ternyata ditulis oleh pihak yang acaranya dibubarkan (pantas saja). Setelah itu, beramai-ramai, mereka—dengan menganggap berita itu sebagai fakta absolut—menghujat dan memberi keputusan final bahwa karena ormas Islam tersebut intoleran, agama Islam pun berarti intoleran. 

Mereka paling suka menggunakan Kecacatan Berlogika atau Logical Fallacies (yang mereka dapat dari Google 5 menit sebelum mereka berteori) sebagai alat berargumentasi yang menunjukan betapa rasionalnya mereka, sebagai antitesis dari kaum beragama yang, menurut mereka, hanya bisa ‘percaya’.

Bukankah itu berarti Ad hominem ya apabila menyerang sebuah narasi besar hanya karena kepribadian atau karakteristik dari beberapa pemeluknya?

Beberapa orang agnostik yang kukenal atau kulihat berkata bahwa mereka tidak tahan melihat para teroris dan para kaum beragama yang berpikiran sangat sempit; yang melihat dunia sebagai suatu dikotomi hitam-putih. 

Namun, topeng, wajah, dan persona mereka yang aku saksikan semakin mengarahkanku untuk berpikir bahwa orang-orang itu sama saja dengan para teroris fundamentalis yang sering melakukan aksi pemboman. Mereka menolak narasi, agenda, kepentingan, dan perspektif orang lain. 

Mereka memilih untuk melihat dunia dengan melalui perspektif yang menurut mereka nyaman, atau mungkin berlindung dibaliknya; dan akhirnya, mereka menjadi orang yang mereka benci.

Aku ingat kata-kata Hermann Hesse yang sering didiskusikan dalam forum Behavior Psychology, bunyinya: 

“If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What is not part of yourselves does not disturb you”.

Menurutku,  padananya kira-kira: 

Jika Anda membenci seseorang, sebenarnya Anda membenci bagian dari diri Anda yang terefleksi pada orang itu, karena jika tidak, Anda bahkan tak akan merasa terganggu. 

________________________

_____________________

________________________

Tulisan ini pun tidak terbebas dari bias. Aku tidak mencantumkan beberapa sumber yang aku baca karena aku terlalu malas untuk membuka-buka lagi artikel atau buku yang telah kubaca beberapa minggu atau bulan yang lalu. Lagipula, blog ini bukanlah sebuah jurnal ilmiah.

Tentang Realitas

Realitas objektif

Berdasarkan dari apa yang aku pelajari, (hampir (?)) tidak mungkin manusia mencapai (memahami) realitas objektif. Apa yang kita persepsikan sebagai sesuatu yang benar, realitas, atau kebenaran, hanyalah sesuatu yang kita simpulkan menggunakan nalar, pengalaman, dan ilmu kita yang melahirkan realitas-realitas yang bersifat subjektif dan disipliner. Lantas, orang yang memiliki pengalaman berbeda dan mempelajari hal yang berbeda sangat mungkin mempersepsikan sesuatu sebagai realitas yang berbeda pula.

Padahal, mengutip dari David Mitchel, dalam Cloud Atlas, “realitas itu singularis, versi-versi dari realitas adalah ‘bukan realitas’”.

Agama dan Kepercayaan

Agama memiliki realitas objektifnya masing-masing. Jangankan realitas dalam semua agama. Realitas objektif antar tiga agama besar Samawi saja sudah berbeda. Lantas, apa yang terjadi jika para pengikut suatu agama memaksakan realitas agamanya terhadap agama lain? Jangankan dari tiga agama sejenis tersebut, dalam satu agama saja—yang memiliki kitab yang sama—ada berbagai versi-versi realitas yang sering menciptakan konflik dalam agama. 

Mari kita kaji lebih dalam lagi kitab yang kita percayai.

Kebebasan

Ketumpangtindihan realitas ini tidak hanya terjadi secara inter-religius ataupun intra-religius, namun juga antara agama dengan paham ‘kemanusiaan’ yang mengedepankan kebebasan dan Hak Asasi Manusia. Dalam kacamata agama, dalil dan peraturan-peraturan yang mencakup perintah dan larangan itu berfungsi sebagai pedoman hidup manusia. Namun, kerapkali apa yang benar menurut agama tersebut tidak sejalan dengan apa yang benar dari perspektif paham ‘kemanusiaan’ 

Indonesia merupakan negara yang berlandaskan ketuhanan, dimana penduduknya harus (?) bertuhan—yang berarti, rakyatnya berpedoman pada dalil-dalil agama. Pada saat yang bersamaan, Indonesia juga menjunjung tinggi kemanusiaan, keadilan sosial, dan Hak Asasi Manusia.

Sebagai Muslim, aku kerap dibingungkan oleh beberapa fenomena ‘abu-abu’ yang terjadi belakangan ini, seperti fenomena pelarangan minuman beralkohol. Sangat banyak orang dan bahkan Muslim yang melontarkan kritikan pedas pada agamanya sendiri mengenai fenomena ini karena selain banyaknya varietas tanaman penghasil arak atau minuman tradisional beralkohol lainnya yang merupakan potensi, banyak pula petani yang kehilangan mata pencahariannya ketika arak yang mereka produksi diilegalkan. 

Fenomena LGBT

Bagaimana dengan fenomena LGBT? Apakah agama dan budaya ketimuran merupakan tokoh antagonis yang merampas hak asasi para LGBT ini?

Mana yang benar? Perspektif apa yang harus aku pilih? Apa realitas objektifnya?

Ada yang percaya pada realitas bahwa LGBT merupakan penyakit atau gangguan kejiwaan, ada pula yang percaya jika itu sudah merupakan hakikatnya. Ada yang berargumen bahwa hewan saja tidak ada yang melakukan hubungan seks sesama jenis. Kemudian dibalas dengan artikel bahwa beberapa persen simpanse, lumba-lumba, jerapah, singa, dan paus melakukan hubungan homoseksual. Ada realitas bahwa perilaku homoseksual itu menular, ada yang bilang tidak… dan seterusnya… 

Seumur hidupku, sudah belasan kali aku didekati oleh seorang pria homoseksual, namun, pada akhirnya, walaupun risih (karena aku seorang heteroseksual), rasa penasaranku berhasil membawaku pada suatu realitas-realitas kecil di benakku. Ada sekitar lima gay dari beberapa orang gay yang bisa aku ajak bicara, mengaku bahwa mereka mengalami pelecehan seksual oleh kerabat atau teman sepermainan mereka (biasanya yang lebih tua) ketika mereka masih kecil. Bahkan, ada juga yang mengaku pernah membius seorang pria heteroseksual, dan menidurinya, yang kemudian bergabung ke komunitas homoseksual mereka. Memang, terkadang korban—entah karena tekanan psikologis apa yang terjadi pada mereka—memiliki hasrat untuk menjadi pelaku atas apa yang pernah mereka alami.

Sekitar dua tahun lalu, aku pernah kehilangan ponsel dan sejumlah uang—yang aku dapat dari hasil kerja keras sendiri selama beberapa bulan—ketika di dalam bus dalam perjalanan pulang dari luar kota. Selain itu, sekitar empat tahun sebelumnya, hal yang sama juga pernah terjadi, walaupun caranya berbeda. Sesaat setelah itu, tumbuh sebuah pikiran liar di pekarangan akalku bahwa mengambil barang orang lain itu sangatlah mudah, aku tidak perlu bekerja berbulan-bulan. Pada malam hari, aku bisa merampok siapa saja (yang terlihat lemah), aku hanya perlu senjata tajam, tongkat, ataupun batu. Namun, untungnya aku masih bisa berpegang teguh pada sesuatu yang aku anggap benar. 

Akupun kembali bekerja keras.

Pengalaman singkat tadi itu hanyalah realitas subjektifku. Mungkin memang perilaku seperti itu bisa menular (tidak menular seperti penyakit flu, lho), mungkin juga tidak. Aku tidak ingin terlalu berkoar-koar atas apa yang aku pahami secara parsial. Aku bukan seorang ahli Behavior Psychology yang memahami cara berpikir dan perilaku seseorang, ataupun ahli Neurologi (atau apalah itu) yang bisa mengetahui struktur otak seseorang. 

Walaupun aku seorang ahli sekalipun, sangat mungkin bahwa analisaku dibiaskan oleh agamaku, kepentingan politikku, atau sesederhana bila aku punya beberapa teman atau musuh yang merupakan LGBT.

Keyakinan akan Suatu Realitas

Aku ingat pada kisah Galileo yang dihukum mati (atau hampir?) ketika dia mencoba membuktikan bahwa bumilah yang mengelilingi matahari, bukan sebaliknya. Namun, karena gagasannya itu terlalu radikal, dan karena Gereja Katolik Roma sangat yakin akan realitasnya bahwa matahari mengelilingi bumi, Galileo malah dianggap melakukan bid’ah dan mendapat hukuman. 

Bagaimana dengan rezim Soeharto yang membinasakan ratusan ribu orang yang menurut realitas pribadi atau golongan Pak Harto layak untuk ditumpas?

Bagaimana dengan sejumlah kasus salah tangkap yang dilakukan oleh beberapa oknum polisi karena apa yang mereka yakini sebagai kebenaran, dan ternyata salah?

Bagaimana dengan ratusan ribu (atau jutaan?) warga Iraq yang dibantai karena realitas yang dipercayai sejumlah petinggi di Amerika Serikat bahwa para teroris 9/11 berada di sana dan dibiayai oleh Iraq?

Aku sangat sadar—dan ingin mencoba lebih sadar—mengenai bagaimana rumitnya cara pikiranku menyimpulkan hal-hal yang berada di sekitar. Aku sadar betul bahwa aku tidak akan pernah mencapai suatu realitas objektif yang secara otomatis selalu tersaring dan terdistorsi oleh lensa-lensa dan pola pikir, serta bias-bias media, orang lain, atau aku sendiri; atau mungkin karena realitas objektif berada di suatu tempat agung yang tak dapat diraih oleh jangkauan horison pengetahuanku yang parsial, dan ragaku yang fana.

Mengutip dari Mark Twain, yang dikutip di film The Big Short (salah satu film yang aku tonton lebih dari sekali agar aku mengerti):

 “it ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that ain’t so.”

Yang dalam Bahasa Indonesia, kira-kira padanan kata-katanya:

 “Yang jadi masalah itu bukanlah yang tidak kau ketahui, melainkan, yang kau yakini sepenuh hati, dan ternyata tidak benar.”

On Smoking

To me, it is both dejecting and disappointing to even think—not to mention ‘seeing’—of a little boy smoldering one by one of those cigarettes. 

As far as I know, smoking is an addictive behavior from which the smoker is characterized by compulsive engagement in rewarding behavior, despite negative consequences. Therefore, the smokers are aware of the damaging consequences, yet, they are too engaged in the behavior since it is rewarding—they get the excitement or stimulation when they are smoldering. Also, there may be several side effects when they cease smoking, such as anxiety or other nervous disorders.

They are stuck, then.

Most of the smokers claim that they do want to stop smoking if they could. They are, however, too ‘hooked’ on it. Then, they start rationalizing their behavior by stating that smoking has been a source of imagination, tranquility, and peacefulness for them.

How about the non-smokers? Do they lack of creativity? Are they always restless?

Anyway, I am not going to judge or campaign here. I will let others do that. I am not that good of a person, though.

What interests me is the fact that cigarette is addictive. If it is, then, why do the smokers smoke in the first place? Just to reason to others that they cannot stop for they have already addicted to it, later.

An eternally crazy circular reasoning.

On most occasions, they start smoking when they felt their life is falling apart [I can’t find any other dramatic expressions] due to workloads, broken heart, or other reasons I am unaware of. That time is actually the perfect time for their noble friends—who are smokers—to offer and introduce them to the medicine of-all-social-problems.

On the cases of children or teenager, some of them start smoking not likely because of the social problems that burden them, but, it is their fellows—who have excellent sales and marketing strategy—or merely imitating their role model. Actually, there are many reasons, such as: 1) they want to look tough; 2) they want to either stand out (by trying on several roles, including a cool self-destructive boy who is unique comparing to other usually non-smoker children) or belong (to some social groups which consist of others smoker teenagers) [from Erick Erickson’s stages of personality developments and the issues that underlie them. On adolescents’ development, the underlying issue is Identity v. Role Confusion]; 3) as a form of resistance against their parents; 4) they think it is so cool to smoke while contemplating the constellation, universe, or life; and many other reasons that you may think silly, but very important in their eyes. 

At that time, they are not addicted yet, since it takes some doze of nicotine or other substances from the cigarette to create the addiction [if it is really nicotine, I am thinking of making nicotine candies. I think it would sell]. In fact, the first time they smoke, their body would resist it. All involuntary systems in our body are really smart; they know what is good and bad for us. It is only our cognitive system that we voluntarily control, that is stupid, though.

As the matter of fact, it is unpleasant, when you start smoldering one by one cigarette at the first time. Dizziness and nausea are some of the reactions you would likely to encounter as soon as you are inhaling through those cancer sticks.

It would last for three or four days before you can fool the involuntary systems in your body so they would not resist to the poisons on the cigarette anymore. Still, you have not been captivated by it. You can continue living your days without it, but, sometimes, the idea that cigarette is addictive somehow stimulates you to smoke even though you are not yet addicted to it. Although you do not want to smoke, you keep smoking because it seems to be what you are supposed to be doing. You start falling in love to the idea that you are smoking, instead of the cigarette itself.

In a few months—or years—you may have been hooked by it. It becomes something which is more important than food.

Then, when you run out of cigarette and money, you would curse your old days and old friends that introduce you to cigarette. Anyway, you will have thousands rationalizations on why you should keep smoking, such as: 1) I am 70 now and I have been smoking for 50 years and I am still alive; 2) cigarette is better than those chocolates and candies that secretly kill you; 3) we are already living in a polluted earth so we are all sitting on the same bench to inhale carbon emissions; 4) we are all going to die anyway; 5) I exercise regularly, though; 6) there are millions of smokers in this country, so, I can be either an active or passive smoker, anyway, passive smokers are in more danger… and many other rationalizations.

The thing is that all the rationalizations seem so legitimate and valid, in a way. Therefore, there is no need to counter and debate on that any longer. It is just useless.

There is no point in arguing, though. Smoking is the issue of health rather than morality. As long as the smokers smoke far enough from you, you need not oppose them. If you are into nature so much, you would better consider the pollution from your motorcycles, cars, or companies around you. It is in our cells, that we want to live as long as we can (survive), that is why, sometimes, we are so concern on people’s smoking—or sexual orientation. It is also a logical fallacy to say that there is no animal in this world that smoke; therefore, those who smoke are lower than animal.

Anyway…

Personally, to me, it is great to have nothing on my back. I am currently unhooking as many burdens as I could, all the addictions that I have. Let’s liberate ourselves from all possible addictions such as drug, alcohol, cigarette, porn, or validations (craving likes and positive comments) from everybody and even strangers, and any other types of addictions. 

People choose whether to smoke or not. Yet, it is difficult to make a right choice when you were a small kid who do not understand several perspectives on the things you are about to choose. That is, I think, where adults’ role (not necessarily parents) should play on.

Well, I start losing tract and idea about this topic.

Bye.

Our Little Secrets

I believe that despite of our negative self-image, almost all of us perceive ourselves as good, unique, smart, cool, popular, open-minded, noble, modest, or/ and other positive attributes anyone may think of.

The thing is that, unconsciously, we all want this good self-image of ours to be reflected on the eyes of others. We want others to validate the self-image we have been tirelessly building and polishing in our entire life. That is why we depend too much on others. We are all too busy searching for validation and approval from others that we are the noble/ smart/ calm/ open-minded/ modest/ popular person after all. 

We all want to be great.

We want to be perceived as popular person. At times, we forget that we are too busy uploading stuffs—either true or fictitious—to uphold our popularity. We are so excited when we get the ‘likes’ and positive comments. In fact, that is what we are looking for. We are crazy about it. The affirmation that we are the popular person after all.

We want to be perceived as classy person. When we go to some places, we are so neurotic to share that we go to some classy places that only classy people can go. Sometimes, we even fake the hotel or restaurant we go in (in social media) simply to ‘wow’ people. While at the same time, we are losing the essence of the moment.

We want to be perceived as creative person. We like to see what others may comment positively on what we create. When they give positive comment, that is when we come at the realization that we are the creative and unique person after all. 

We want to be perceived as calm person. In the evening before final test, sometimes, we are so proud to announce that we are not going to study. Also, two hours before the deadline of research submission, we are so proud to announce that we have not done anything. We want to be different, cool, and calm in facing things that scary most of our friends. We get more excitement when others comment on how calm we are, and how smart we are that we require no time to do all those things we are about to face.

We want to be perceived as open-minded and smart person. Sometimes, we post or boast something we actually do not understand. Some other time, we are trying so hard to be the Humanist, Liberalist,  and open-minded person whose thought is so deep and profound so that no religions and tradition can outsmart us. We secretly browse the topic—sometimes plagiarize the whole idea—we are about to post or boast to ‘wow’ everybody, even any professors in the field we are engaging on. 

We want to be perceived as good and kind-hearted person. That is when we fake everything and agree on things that we basically do not agree on. We are too busy being the fairy and good person to avoid tension; and by that, we forget that tension only comes when the interacting people are being authentic; and authentic tension is the one that enlightens situation and tightens up relationship.

The idea is quite ridiculous, sometimes, when we even want the validation from some random strangers on the street. We are all very curious, thinking what is going on in every mind of those strangers, what they think about our looks, our speaking pattern, the way we walk, etc. We expect them to think positively about us by doing anything required to be perceived as good person.

We are ave very caring creature. We care too much.

Indeed, sometimes, we just want a feedback from others. We want to know what they think of our creation, our trip, our profound thoughts, etc; but, at the same time, we also do not want any criticism. We hate it!

We want as much as confirming evidences of our greatness rather than the disconfirming ones.

Those are some of our secrets. There are still so many more secrets, but they are too secret[ous] to be told.

Rasional dan Irasional

Sebagai lulusan Bahasa dan Sastra Inggris, kerap kali teman-temanku meminta bantuanku untuk menyunting atau mengoreksi artikel, esai, dan bahkan skripsi (dalam Bahasa Inggris) mereka secara cuma-cuma. Bila aku sedang tidak banyak pekerjaan, biasanya dengan senang hati aku melakukannya. 

Aku terkadang bingung ketika mereka memaksa untuk membayar, aku bukanlah seorang penyunting—berbeda cerita bila mereka memintaku menerjemahkan teks. Alhasil, suasana hangat pertemananpun terlelan oleh kecanggungan. Hal yang menurutku paling aneh adalah aku bisa menerima jika temanku membayar dengan sesuatu yang bukan uang (makan siang, minuman, dsb) atau bahkan cuma-cuma, namun ketika mereka membayar dengan uang senilai Rp. 20.000 (seharga makan siang) atau lebih, aku mulai berpikir mengenai standar acuan upah penyuntingan, dan akhirnya menolak.

Aku suka menulis dan menyunting teks berbahasa Inggris; namun, ketika aku dibayar untuk itu, entah mengapa aku kehilangan ketertarikanku.

Di SMA, aku pernah belajar ilmu Ekonomi, dan aku tahu hal ini jelas-jelas bertentangan dengan prinsip dasar Ekonomi bahwa manusia adalah mahluk yang rasional dan selalu berpedoman  pada cost and benefit. 

Aku lebih suka menggunakan istilah dalam versi Bahasa Inggisnya karena istilah versi Bahasa Indonesianya, ‘biaya dan manfaat’ menurutku kurang pas. Istilah ‘cost’ yang diartikan sebagai ‘biaya’, memiliki makna yang relatif lebih sempit karena istilah ini sangat erat kolokasinya dengan uang, padahal istilah ‘cost’ mengemban makna yang sangat luas. 

Dalam studi Ekonomi, hampir segala hal bisa dianalisis menggunakan kacamata ‘cost and benefit’ ini. Contohnya, menyikapi kebijakan Kemenkominfo baru-baru ini untuk memblokir Tumblr yang dituding banyak menyebarkan konten pornografi. Kebijakan Kemenkominfo ini menuai banyak kritik pedas karena cost-nya—memblokir Tumblr—dinilai tidak sebanding dengan benefit-nya—berkurangnya penyebaran konten pornografi. Bahkan, banyak yang berpendapat bahwa benefit yang diharapkan Kemenkominfo, tidak akan terasa karena banyak media lain selain Tumblr yang dapat digunakan untuk menyebarluaskan konten pornografi tersebut, sehingga, yang terasa hanyalah cost-nya. 

Contoh lainnya adalah kebijakan  pejabat Disbudpar Kabupaten Bandung Barat mengenai kemacetan di Bandung pada Desember 2015 lalu. Saat itu, aku yang terjebak macet ketika sedang melakukan kegiatan pemanduan turis di Bandung, menyalakan radio untuk mendengarkan pantauan lalu-lintas. Pejabat dari Disbudpar, yang ketika itu diwawancara oleh radio Pikiran Rakyat, mengatakan bahwa cara agar Bandung tidak macet ketika musim liburan adalah dengan cara tidak pergi liburan ketika musim liburan. Beliau menambahkan bahwa jika ingin berlibur, sebaiknya ambil cuti kerja saja. Komentar ini, tentu saja terdengar sangat konyol karena cost-nya—menghimbau agar wisatawan tidak berlibur di saat liburan—sangat timpang dengan benefit-nya—tidak macet; terlebih, yang mengungkapkannya adalah seorang pejabat Disbudpar yang seharusnya mempromosikan pariwisata di Kota Bandung dan sekitarnya.

Sepertinya aku terlalu jauh ngelantur mengenai topik ini. 

Kembali pada bahasan mengenai mahluk Ekonomi yang seharusnya bertindak dan berpemikiran rasional.

Lantas, apakah tindakanku itu tidak rasional? 

Apakah tindakanku merupakan sebuah deviasi dari prinsip manusia yang merupakan mahluk ekonomi?

Perilakuku diatas tadi dapat dianalisis melalui kacamata Behavior Economics, atau Ekonomi Berbasis Perilaku.

Mazhab Ekonomi ini berbeda dengan aliran Ekonomi Konvensional yang telah aku jelaskan di atas. Berdasarkan dari apa yang aku baca, Behavioral Economics (aku memilih versi Bahasa Inggrisnya karena istilah Ekonomi Berbasis Perilaku sering tertukar dengan teori Perilaku Konsumen pada Ekonomi Konvensional) mengikutsertakan studi Psikologi dan Sosiologi ke dalam studi Ekonomi konvensional untuk menjelaskan alasan mengapa manusia membuat keputusan yang tidak rasional.

Oleh karena itu, tindakan tidak rasional yang aku jelaskan di awal tulisan ini jelas dapat dianalisis dengan menggunakan lensa Behavioral Economics.

Mengutip dari buku ‘Predictably Irrational’ yang ditulis oleh Dan Ariely, dalam satu waktu yang sama, kita hidup di dua ranah yang berbeda. Di ranah yang pertama, berlaku norma-norma sosial yang penuh dengan kehangatan dan persahabatan, serta kebutuhan sosial manusia untuk berkomunitas dan saling membantu. Seperti ketika kita meminta orang lain untuk membantu mengangkat sofa ketika pindah rumah, atau membantu orang yang mobilnya mogok di tengah jalan. Timbal-balik tidak diharapkan disini. Sesaat setelah aku membantu seseorang mendorong mobilnya yang mogok. Orang tersebut tidak semerta-merta harus mendorong mobilku—yang 1. tidak mogok, dan 2. Tidak ada (hehe)

Di ranah yang kedua, norma-norma pasar dan marketing yang berlaku. Di ranah ini, semuanya berlandaskan cost and benefit, seperti, upah, gaji, keuntungan, bunga, dsb. Contoh yang paling mudah adalah ketika kita bekerja, pasti kita mengharapkan upah. 

Bukanlah karena kebaikan hati seorang petani, kita dapat makan; dan bukanlah karena kebaikan hati seorang tukang GoJek, kita bisa sampai ke tujuan; melainkan karena prinsip pasar dan interdependensi.

Pada kedua ranah ini, tidak ada hal yang lebih baik atau buruk. Kita menentukan ranah mana yang akan kita jadikan sebagai pedoman berpikir dan berperilaku, dan kemudian perlu kita sesuaikan dengan konteks.

Di bukunya, Ariely memberi contoh ‘seks’ sebagai ilustrasi. Seks dapat berada di ranah manapun sesuai dengan konteks, dan sangat tidak dianjurkan untuk mencampuradukan kedua ranah ini. Kita dapat mendapatkan seks secara gratis di ranah sosial dimana kita mengharapkan hubungan emosional. Namun, ada juga seks di ranah dimana norma-norma pasar berlaku; seks yang harus dibayar. 

Singkatnya, tidak ada suami atau istri yang meminta bayaran kepada pasangannya; dan tidak ada juga PSK yang mengharapkan hubungan percintaan serius dan berkepanjangan dengan kliennya.

Pelanggaran terhadap kedua ranah ini acapkali terjadi, dan menimbulkan berbagai macam masalah. Bila ingin membuktikan, Anda bisa mengambil sejumlah uang, kemudian datangilah pacar Anda, setelah itu, keluarkan semua uang Anda sambil memintanya apakah ia mau melakukan hubungan seks dengan Anda bila anda bayar dengan sejumlah uang itu (sebaiknya Anda laki-laki dan pacar Anda perempuan, karena jika pacar Anda laki-laki, Anda tidak perlu mengiming-iminginya dengan uang (?) ). Contoh lain, cobalah Anda pergi ke lokalisasi dan setelah melakukan hubungan seks, katakanlah bahwa Anda tidak akan membayarnya karena Anda mencintainya, lihatlah reaksinya. 

Woody Allen, menjelaskan permasalahan ini dengan tepat “The most expensive sex is free sex” 

(sebenarnya aku ingin menerjemahkan kata-kata ini, namun cukup sulit untuk menimbulkan efek yang sama, karena kata 'free' dalam Bahasa Inggris dapat berarti 'bebas' dan 'gratis' secara bersamaan, jadi tidak jadi).

Kembali ke topik awal. Lantas mengapa aku lebih bersedia melakukan penyuntingan dengan hanya diberi jus seharga Rp. 6000 atau bahkan tidak diberi apa-apa, daripada dibayar dengan jumlah uang seharga jus itu? Atau mengapa aku lebih memilih melakukan sesuatu secara cuma-cuma?

Anda sudah tahu jawabannya.

Semicolon and Anti-Suicide Movement

It happened around three years ago; I was in a Grammar course when this lecturer taught us Complex Clause—clause that has a main clause and more than one subordinate clauses. This lecturer, then, asked us to compose as long as sentence as possible. That was when I started to like making long sentences; and by the way, at that time, I made a sentence that exceeded a full-page.

My habit—which can either be good or bad; I don’t know—continued for a few semesters. I got excited even more when I met and befriended Semicolon (;), this punctuation that helps me lengthen my sentence. 

I don’t know; I just like to write a long sentence—it is not OCD for sure.

It was until a lecturer came, reproved me and said that it is bad; he explained to me that it is as if we spoke without stopping. It hurts the listener or the reader. 

That was when I realized that that writing style of mine sucks.

I tried to shortened my sentence ever since.

A few years later—because I was too busy; or too lazy; I don’t know—I googled the use of semicolon and found some unique articles about semicolon.

It says that there is this Semicolon Project, a worldwide project where people got a tattoo of Semicolon on their wrist dedicated to those who suffer from depression and suicidal behavior. It is an anti-suicide movement enforcing the idea that we should choose to continue, instead of stopping; because we can.

The message is that “[a] semicolon represents a sentence the author could have ended, but chose not to. That author is you and the sentence is your life”.

That sentence struck me for a moment. 

I did not know that a punctuation can matter this much. It perpetuates some existentialist idea, though, that we are the master of our own fate, instead of thinking that we are the puppet played by the unseen hands that we have no control over.

Suicide, I think, is a permanent action for a temporal problem. We are all going to die someday, just be patient, please. 

There have been too many great people died by committing suicide and every time it happens, the world cries. 

I am not exaggerating.

I have been missing the literary works I could have read if the author did not commit suicide. 

There are some more things we could have had, though.

When rules and grammar compel a sentence to stop, an author can always decide to put semicolon and continue writing;…

Are Human Evil?

After bombarded constantly by news about corruption, murder, tyranny, brutality, cruelty, and some other unspeakably immoral evil-attributes. I feel that I start losing my faith in humanity. I am neither an angel nor saint, yet, I am disappointed because we could have been better than this. I am disappointed by the corrupted politicians, drug dealers, extremists, thieves, pick-pockets, terrorists, plagiarizers, and all those cheaters.

Well, I am—and you are—actually not in the position to judge others since I am not experiencing what they are experiencing; and there is always a possibility that I may do what they do if I were on their shoes.

I remember reading a philosophy book—which I forget what the title is. There is this chapter—which I even forget—that discuses human nature. There, Thomas Hobbes claims that human are inherently evil. He supports his claim by explaining ancient pictorial symbols on a cave walls depicting people killing each other—which is supported by some anthropologists. Also, he corroborates his notion by mentioning wars. War is indeed a big theme that shapes human civilization, political stance, relations. It also creates states and their ideology. In some literary works that I encountered, I find that (some) people who go to war perceive it as a sort of transcendence and opium that keeps their adrenalin pumping; not to mention that there are also people who go to war because they intended to do legitimate killings. Hobbes concludes that human are inherently evil because there is this ancient savagery running in our blood.

On the other side, Rousseau (you may have heard his name in Civic Education course) theorizes otherwise. He claims that human are naturally peaceful until civilization comes along.

From the perspective of Social Psychology, however, it is quite complicated. In fact, we need to differentiate behavior between Dispositional (by nature/ personality) or Situational (determined by situation). For instance, when we saw Asep was a bully at school while also a loving brother at home; we cannot judge that he has personality disorder, multiple personality, or even as a psycho. As a matter of fact, we need to know whether his behavior is dispositional or situational.

I read a research on Social Psychology conducted by Zimbardo. Around 50 years ago, he conducted an experiment in Stanford Prison. There are 24 participants who are, by flipping a coin, divided into two groups: 12 prisoners and 12 guards (which they did not know of, and did not know each other). Few days later, the prisoners were arrested by real cops (Zimbardo wanted to create a very realistic setting for his experiment) under charges of robbery and then turned in to prison to the fake guards. The guards were told that it is the prisoner that is being experimented, while the prisoners did not know anything. The role play went really real when the guards—who can do anything they want except hurting the prisoners—turn cruel and hostile. The supposedly-fourteen-day experiment was stopped at the sixth day when the prisoners start breaking down, others rebel, and some others become passively resigned as if they deserved to be treated so badly. The prisoners were relieved when they were set free while, interestingly, leaving the fake guards feeling angry. A few weeks after the experiment, Zimbardo finds out that both the prisoners and the guards come back to their normal life.

The conclusion is that the aggressive behavior and hostility are situational—mostly, perhaps.

When a person was granted a certain power at a certain situation, therefore, his/ her personality is prone to be clouded and overridden.

Maybe, if I were a member of the house of representative, I would corrupt too; if I were given the opportunity, I would steal too; if I were a distressed Jedi, I would turn into Darth Vader too. 

I may say, ”I am not inherently evil. It is just the situation that forces me to.”

Still, I do not justify corruption, murder, thievery, terrorism, and all of those misconducts. 

We still have choices. What matters is the choice we make.

I do not believe in the assumption/ theory/ hypothesis that human are inherently evil—deceitful, bad, corrupted. I still can find some who stop under a red traffic light at 4 in the morning; or those who return a wallet when they could have taken it.