Either/Or

            It is always nice and satisfying when a designer does something different and (relatively) new for a label. Respect for a brand’s characteristic and heritage doesn’t have to be shown by doing the same, obvious thing over and over again. As long as the creation comes in high quality—which means conceptually clear and flawlessly executed—the brand’s distinctiveness should be safe.

            Marc Jacobs clearly understands that. What he does for Louis Vuitton is never limited within the box. Perhaps there isn’t even such thing as a “Louis Vuitton” box. Jacobs’s constant reinvention for the highly recognizable brand makes it hard for anyone to freeze Louis Vuitton’s characteristics.

What is quintessentially Louis Vuitton? Jetsetters’ luggage and polished head-to-toe look? Jacobs has done much more than that, even to the extreme point where he visited Bikini Bottom and dragged SpongeBob SquarePants to Paris Fashion Week for Spring/Summer 2008. But Jacobs isn’t without principle. In 2005, he did say that he has “pinned down who the Vuitton woman is: She’s someone who loves to dress up.”[1]

And the primary rule of liking to dress up is to never be afraid of putting on new looks on ourselves. To reinvent means to undergo trial and error. Try everything. Mix them and match them until you get the perfect harmony. Who knows what stunning new look you’ll come up with at the end of every experiment.

Jacobs had probably contemplated that when he finally envisioned what he would offer to the style-hungry, status-obsessed fashionistas around the globe for Spring/Summer 2009. And his intellectual discourse resulted in a collection that got both the stylish girls and cold critics in ecstasy. After undergoing a decline in satisfaction and praise last Winter, his Louis Vuitton Spring/Summer 2009 collection propelled Jacobs to the top of his game.

As if unaffected by the depressing newspaper headlines, the models came out parading playful mini-skirts, showing off some seductive legs with their confident walk. Even if your legs aren’t as skinny as theirs, the head-turning shoes would still make you center of attention. The platform-sandals came in multiple straps, feathers, and plastic panels forming African faces that cover the wearer’s insteps. If those aren’t stunning enough, they also come in bright, multi-tone of colors.

Above the half-naked lower part of the body, the models were equipped with padded-shoulder jackets covering some see-through tops. Some got their waists cinched with obis, and not one of them came out without drop-earrings and/or plunging tribal necklaces that are, oh yes, colorful and chunky as a surefire way to make some serious statements.

Beside the mini-skirts, there were also some peek-a-boos going on the tops. Some were partially, in triangular forms, see-through on the back. Even the covered front could expose your tits under a certain intensity of light, due to its thin layer of fabric. The finale was an orange (or a hue close to it) mini-dress crunched asymmetrically, with plunging neckline on the front and strappy back that reveals much skin. Floor-sweeping dresses were never Jacobs’s playground, and this finale mini-dress, worn by Sigrid Agren, simply marks Jacobs’s territory.

The show was successful and the reviews were unanimously positive, but will the selling-floor have the same fate? LVMH won’t take “No” for an answer, not when its golden boy managed to bring the best in the midst of critical times. And to advertise the clothes, there’s only one artist who could keep up with and tame this wildly creative collection: Madonna.               

            At first I thought Madge wasn’t quite right for the part. But then I figured who else could effortlessly pull off various colors in every bit of shape and much embellishment than the Material Girl herself? Her personality, chains of controversy, and history of tireless reinvention suit this collection with the perfect pitch of synergy (or is it the collection that suits her?).

Take a close inspection at the advertisements. Tribal inspired clothes and accessories, worn by a modern mega-artist that constantly changes, at a bar that seems classic and very European. Somehow, in a way that perhaps only a genius can track, the pieces fit together. Nothing seems incoherent or out of context. And the willingness to dress-up and be youthful and energetic in tough times that the collection and advertisements suggest would surely appeal to everyone.

More than two millennia ago Socrates, via Plato’s Republic, discussed about four cardinal virtues that have “pivotal role in human flourishing”[2]: prudence (practical wisdom), courage, temperance, and justice. Socrates suggested that “a person is prudent when knowledge of how to live (wisdom) informs her reason, courageous when informed reason governs her capacity for wrath, temperate when it also governs her appetites, and just when each part performs its proper task with informed reason in control.”[3]

This Spring, for those of us who have no time or interest to contemplate philosophical ideals, Jacobs have materialized those virtues in something that one is ready to put on without having to worry about headaches (as often occur after philosophical contemplations). The various bits of style in the collection serve our appetites with temperance, and wearing those heavily accessorized looks is simply courageous. The collection is prudent in suggesting us to never lose focus on looking great though squeezed under global crash, and that is doing justice to the flourishing of our soul.

The 21^st Century depression is here, but there’s no reason for us to embody it. That sums up the Socratic ideals of cardinal virtues for our current context.

- Adhi Putra Tawakal -  

            I don’t know how many decades have passed since the fight for equality between men and women started. Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797) made a mark of Feminism in history with the publication of her Vindication of The Rights of Woman in 1792, but some scholars have traced feminist ideas way back, centuries before Wollstonecraft publish what would become one of the “cookbooks” of feminine empowerment.

            What I do know is that feminists around the globe, both male and female, haven’t given up on their efforts to realize a world where men and women could be treated equally with equal respect for their rights, without any sexist prejudice contaminating their interactions. But clearly, making a global, radical cultural change isn’t as easy as 1, 2, 3.

            University academics and NGO-activists aren’t the only ones who are concerned with feminine empowerment. Artists, too, express their awareness and concern for the issue via media that they master. Even in the fashion industry, which sometimes thought to be exploitative towards women in general and discriminative towards certain race and body type, there are designers who genuinely feel the urgency of empowering women.

            Take Miuccia Prada, for example. For her PRADA Fall/Winter 2006 collection, Prada created head-to-toe looks that were clean, almost without print or any playful embellishment. The domination of black and other hues of dark color stripped the models of their innocence and cheerfulness. At that time, Prada said she was tired of being sweet, so she decided to project in her collection a woman who is politically-aware and takes social issues seriously.

            Three years later—in the face of multitude of problems like world-wide economic crisis, large-scale environmental damages, and seemingly endless political turmoil around the globe—Prada takes these issues seriously again with her Fall/Winter 2009 collection. (In between the two Fall/Winters I’ve mentioned, Prada had dazzled the fashion world with metallic turbans and micro-skirts, fairy prints on cheongsam tops, intricate laces on what could’ve been Prada’s vision of 21^st century Hausfrau, and unzipped pieces that are now taking women to an exciting age of primitivism.)

            For Fall/Winter 2009, the looks embrace similar ideas to those in 2006: feminine empowerment, expressed via monotony of dark hues, very minimal prints, and embellishments that have the faintest taste of femininity. As was the 2006 collection, the clothes look ready for boardroom meetings, courtroom dramas, and all those hardcore orgies of strategic idealism in the House of Representatives (something that rarely occur in Indonesia).

            But the 2009 look is more brutal, though. And by “brutal”, I mean brute, uncivilized. The 2006 look portrayed women who are still willing to converse, debate, and retain some patience in waiting for a political institution to morph into its desired form. Those traits are lost in the 2009 look. The models who walked down the PRADA runway got their hairs frizzed-up and their skins paled-down, picturing women who are ready to burst when faced with another moral pretense. Cannibalism was all I could think about when I first saw them on the internet. Prada had probably realized that the present days are tougher than three years ago, so the look must be stronger without any trace of fragility that others (men?) could exploit to break a woman.

            But does it really have to be so?

            When Hillary Clinton backed out of a cover photo shoot for the February 2008 issue of US Vogue over concerns she would look to feminine in designer outfits, Anna Wintour (US Vogue’s Editor-in-Chief) criticized her by saying that “the idea that a contemporary woman must look mannish in order to be taken seriously as a seeker of power is frankly dismaying. This is America, not Saudi Arabia.”[1]

            Inspired by that remark, I feel the urgency to address an important question to Prada’s 2006 and 2009 creations and to the notion of “feminine empowerment” in general: must a contemporary woman look mannish in order to be empowered and taken seriously? I suppose the answer lies within the look itself.

            What is it about mannish look (on women) that instantly grabs others’ serious attention? Is it because of the stereotype that only men are capable to function in the public sphere and so are to be taken seriously? Perhaps, but that’s still not about the clothes or why women should look mannish. A reputable politician could easily turn into a laughing stock were he be seen by his peers wearing floral-printed shirt. That example suggests that look plays vital role in determining who would be taken seriously and who would be taken as a joke. So it’s not all sexual determinism.

            I hypothesize that mannish look, which is almost always plain and simple, drives others’ attention away from the look itself (which has nothing to be focused on) to the wearer’s words (provided the speaker has crucial points to address). Whereas female clothes—with all its decorations, spectra of colors, and distracting skin-revealing cuts—traps others’ attention to the wearer’s body and much less on her words or brain (despite the other’s not being a total pervert).

            Some female power-seeker are still fashion-conscious and won’t let go of their individual, non-mannish style (and they shouldn’t). But sometimes to counterbalance the distracting effects of their clothes and accessories, these women have to become mannish. They become difficult, cold, bossy and domineering, traits that are often attributed to men. While these women’s looks keep them women, their mannish attitudes only got them labeled “bitch”.

            Given all these symptoms of male-imitation, it is important to note that PRADA’s seasonal angry women isn’t the only version of power-woman the fashion world has to offer. Donatella Versace, for instance, is universally known for creating the look of confident women who are consciously vampy and willing to use their sex appeal. That’s powerful, too. After all, the notion of “power” doesn’t always imply anything brute and straight-to-the-point. Power could be exerted smoothly, paralyzing the target until its system collapse on its own.

            If we take power to mean “an ability or capacity to yield some outcome”[2], then the answer is clear: women don’t have to look mannish to feel empowered and be taken seriously. If being empowered means being endowed with a capacity to yield some outcome, then being mannish is just one among several options. Women could be and feel empowered and able to exert influence to get what they want by dressing-up to their best. Just because one relies on one’s brain doesn’t mean one has to neglect one’s look. However, one must remain conscious of one’s autonomy, of one’s decisions, of how one presents oneself, and of one’s responsibility for the consequences of one’s own decisions.

            Every woman should have the prerogative to decide for herself whether she wants to be mannish, vampy, or something else. She should be able to decide whether she wants to attain power with her brain, her tits, or something else. Only individuals who know what would work for each of them. True empowerment comes when one could decide for oneself and be responsible, especially to oneself, for one’s decisions.

- Adhi Putra Tawakal -           

Sebagai seorang perancang yang relatif muda, Frida Giannini tidak takut untuk membuat pernyataan tegas akan visinya mengenai GUCCI. Sejak memulai debutnya melalui koleksi womenswear Spring/Summer 2006, Giannini tak ragu untuk mengambil alih kendali kreasi, secara aktual dan secara konseptual. Statusnya sebagai Creative Director GUCCI tidak sebatas “hitam di atas putih”, namun juga mewujud secara nyata dalam apa yang ia ciptakan bagi GUCCI selama 4 tahun terakhir ini.

Dengan segera Giannini keluar dari bayang-bayang Tom Ford, sang megastar-designer ikonik yang kepergiannya dari GUCCI sangat disayangkan oleh berbagai jurnalis. Dalam usaha menegaskan identitasnya, Giannini mewarnai GUCCI dengan berbagai print cerah yang memberikan para perempuan tampil segar, muda, dan mewah dalam waktu yang sama. Gaun-gaun kreasinya pun memberikan tampilan yang seksi dengan cara yang cerdas dan tidak terkesan … slutty. Semua itu kontras dengan kreasi monumental Ford yang, meminjam istilah Thakoon Panichgul, “oversexed”.

Berbeda dengan ilmuwan laboratorium, Giannini telah menyempurnakan formulanya sejak percobaan pertama. Selain permainan print dan tampilan-tampilan yang tidak mengumbar seksualitas, secara konsisten Giannini menghadirkan pilihan ready-to-wear yang actually ready to be worn tanpa perlu membuat kita berpikir “what the … How would I look good in that?!”. Dan koleksi Spring/Summer 2009 ini bukanlah pengecualian. Semua yang ditampilkan di runway September 2008 lalu, dan yang hadir di butik GUCCI favorit anda di Grand Indonesia Shopping Town, begitu masuk akal, wearable, dan dapat diadaptasikan untuk berbagai occasion.

Getaway ke Nusa Dua, gathering eksklusif orang-orang terpilih, atau sekadar kunjungan rutin ke Grand Indonesia, you name it, this collection will effortlessly fit you in. Print yang cerah untuk di pantai? Check. Gaun glamor untuk “menampar” sosialita lain? Check. Celana yang nyaman untuk hari yang sibuk? Check. Brand yang dengan setia memberikan anda tampilan distingtif? Check. Semua itu bisa anda dapatkan dari koleksi ini bersama dengan rasa aman dari going out of style.

Bila selama ini anda cukup berani untuk tampil eksentrik, jauh dari apa yang digandrungi para fashionista Jakarta, maka mungkin sikap pragmatis Giannini merupakan problem bagi anda. True, Giannini semakin berhasil mencetak personalitasnya pada citra GUCCI, namun ia melakukannya dengan cara yang relatif jauh dari resiko. Selama 4 tahun terakhir, formula Giannini untuk Spring/Summer diaplikasikan secara ketat dan cenderung predictable. Di lain pihak, kreasinya untuk Fall/Winter lebih fluktuatif, seolah ia belum menemukan formula yang tepat untuk musim fesyen yang asing di Indonesia ini.

Saya rasa sikap pragmatis Giannini tidak perlu menjadi masalah untuk kita. Pragmatisme sendiri masih dominan dalam kultur kita, termasuk dalam cara kita berbusana. Hal ini semakin mudah dimengerti, terutama di saat semua orang tersentak oleh krisis ekonomi global seperti sekarang ini. Masa resesi ini bukanlah waktu untuk bermain dengan resiko. Krisis kepercayaan terhadap segala sesuatu yang kurang memiliki prospek untuk berhasil dan bertahan sedang melanda dimana-mana. Untuk menghadapinya, kita harus selalu membuat pilihan bijak dan memastikan bahwa hasil yang kita petik adalah maksimal.

Koleksi Spring/Summer 2009 GUCCI adalah pilihan yang cerdas dengan value yang maksimal, terutama saat ini. Brand-nya memberikan anda eksklusifitas dari kaum massal, sementara koleksinya tidak membatasi ruang gerak anda pada kesempatan tertentu saja. Saat ekonomi sedang melamban, semua orang harus mengeksplorasi segala kesempatan untuk bisa hidup dengan aman dan nyaman. Every day is getting more significant, and we want to explore each day’s potentials in the most stylish manner possible. How? Jawabannya berbunyi G-U-C-C-I.

- Adhi Putra Tawakal -      

“Never be the last to leave a party. That’s for Debbies. ‘Debbies’ equals ‘desperate’”, begitu ungkap Paris Hilton di episode pertama ‘Paris Hilton’s My New BFF’, mengucap sebuah prinsip yang wajib dipegang teguh oleh mereka yang haus pesta, pergaulan, dan citra sebagai bintang paling bersinar dalam konstelasi pesta dan ajang pergaulan ibukota. Terapkan prinsip ini secara konsisten, bersama dengan “never be the first to arrive at a party”, dan anda dijamin akan tampak “penting” di mata biang pesta lainnya.

Really? Mungkin tidak. Sepasang prinsip di atas dapat menjadi bumerang bila tidak anda terapkan secara hati-hati dan tepat konteks. Bilamana anda tak bersikap cermat dan sadar timing, anda justru akan dianggap tak menghargai orang lain. Mengapa begitu? Karena anda tidak berpesta dan bergaul dengan robot, melainkan dengan manusia yang juga memiliki penilaian yang bisa berubah.

Ada beberapa motif dari kedua prinsip di atas. Saat kita menerapkan keduanya secara sadar, kita memiliki ekspektasi bahwa orang lain akan melihat dan menilai kita sebagai sosok yang sibuk. Dengan kata lain, kita ingin melahirkan anggapan bahwa kehadiran kita juga dibutuhkan oleh banyak orang lain sampai-sampai kita sulit datang tepat waktu atau berlama-lama dalam sebuah acara. Selain itu, tidak menjadi orang pertama yang hadir di sebuah perkumpulan membebaskan kita dari rasa bosan dan kesal menunggu anggota lainnya yang terlambat. Siapa yang suka menunggu? Nobody. Siapa yang suka menjadi orang yang ditunggu-tunggu? Everybody.

Lantas mengapa bertahan di sebuah pesta hingga (menjelang) akhir membuat anda terlihat desperate? Well, to put it simply, that would make you look like you had nothing else to do. It would also make you look like you had a boring, meaningless life and staying in a party for as long as possible is the only way to satisfy your thirst for entertainment. Itu yang membuat anda terlihat desperate. Citra anda pun akan semakin jatuh bila anda bertahan meskipun orang-orang yang anda kenal telah meninggalkan pesta dan anda berusaha untuk nimbrung dengan sekelompok orang asing yang tersisa.

Bila anda memang hanya peduli pada pesta, pergaulan, dan citra sebagai biang pesta maka kedua prinsip tersebut patut anda pegang teguh. Namun kualitas relasi sosial selalu rentan terhadap fluktuasi. Persepsi orang lain akan anda sebagai orang “penting” dengan lingkaran pergaulan terluas dapat luntur sebagaimana toleransi orang lain terhadap keterlambatan dan keengganan anda untuk menghabiskan waktu lebih lama di suatu acara juga memiliki batas. Bila anda terus me-nomor-dua-kan relasi anda di bawah kebutuhan untuk tampil “penting”, pada akhirnya anda justru terlihat menyepelekan para teman anda dan pihak penyelenggara pesta.

OK, kalau kita hanya bicara soal pesta di club, dimana anda berdesakan dengan complete strangers dan anda tidak berkewajiban untuk datang pada waktu tertentu, maka kita tidak punya masalah. Namun datang terlambat telah begitu membudaya di Indonesia, bahkan telah di-cap sebagai karakter orang Indonesia (oleh orang Indonesia sendiri!). Datang terlambat, dan actually menganggap bahwa itu dapat terus dimaklumi, adalah gejala seorang yang tak bisa menghargai waktu dan kepentingan orang lain. Begitu orang lain menyadari bahwa anda lebih mementingkan citra diri dan status sebagai orang-yang-ditunggu di atas quality time bersama mereka maka anda tidak akan lagi menjadi penting. Siapa yang ingin berbagi momen dengan seseorang yang menganggap momen tidak tidak penting?

Kapan waktu yang tepat untuk tiba dan meninggalkan suatu acara sangatlah relatif terhadap kepentingan kita masing-masing. Menerapkan kedua prinsip Hiltonian di atas jelas dapat melambungkan status sosial kita. But in my opinion, penerapannya tidak tepat pada segala acara atau social gathering. Menerapkan prinsip tersebut saat kita bersama orang-orang yang lebih dari sekedar stranger atau kenalan-sambil-lalu justru dapat merusak hubungan sosial. Perhatian pada citra diri tidak perlu kita abaikan, namun kita harus tahu kapan perlu mendedikasikan quality time dengan orang-orang yang sesungguhnya penting. 

- Adhi Putra Tawakal -

Anyway, of all the great brands out there, PRADA is definitely my favorite. For me, there’s no other brand that I crave so much like PRADA. I like everything in every collection. I can totally identify myself with the minimalistic design, which totally express my (desire for) modesty-cum-intellectual-sophistication.

Before writing this note I browsed through the collections on men.style.com, and there was almost none that I dislike. Everything was just perfect. Gosh…when can I get my hands on those shirts, suits, pants, bags, shoes, accessories and everything spawned from Miuccia Prada’s brilliance?!

I’ve always loved nice stuff, which most of the time happened to be expensive. And I don’t think that there’s anyway I would ever give up my dream of becoming a PRADA fanatic. I could totally see myself shopping only PRADA and be identified by my peer as PRADA worshipper. And if I had to choose between luxury car (like Mercedes-Benz CLS 350 that I totally dream of driving) and a closet (equal in size to Oprah’s) full of PRADA items, I would definitely choose the latter. I could settle for a modest car.

You know what, I’m gonna work on that. I’m not letting this one slip away. It’s not just about the utility, design, or even superficial luxury. It’s more than that. The symbolic utility of having accomplished so much is contained in it, and it far exceeds the practical and aesthetic utility of the items.

OK, if you ever think of giving me a present, you know what to give me. Please bear in mind that the counterfeits would be least appreciated. Even worse, I would consider it an insult, he..he..

:p

Kalau memang respon yang muncul murni respon terhadap isu kemanusiaan, SEHARUSNYA ADA SESUATU YANG DIKATAKAN OLEH PARA FIGUR PUBLIK INDONESIA, TERUTAMA DARI KALANGAN MUSLIM, TENTANG KORBAN-KORBAN DI ISRAEL, TENTANG ORANG-ORANG YAHUDI DI SURABAYA YANG RUMAH IBADAHNYA DISEGEL SECARA PAKSA OLEH DEMONSTRAN MUSLIM (PADAHAL ORANG-ORANG YAHUDI TERSEBUT TIDAK TERLIBAT KONFLIK GAZA), DAN JUGA TENTANG BOIKOT PAKSA YANG DILAKUKAN PARA MAHASISWA ULTRA BODOH KEBANGGAAN INDONESIA TERHADAP KFC DAN MCDONALD’S (YANG PENGUSAHA DAN PARA PEKERJANYA TIDAK TERLIBAT DALAM KONFLIK GAZA PULA)!!!

Saya muak dengan segala wacana Yahudi versus Islam. Saya, dan anda semua, tidak punya sangkutan apapun dengan sejarah Yahudi-Islam, jadi buat apa kita melibatkan diri dalam peperangan yang tidak menguntungkan siapapun itu? Buat apa anda terus-menerus mengutuk orang Yahudi dan mempromosikan sikap anti-Yahudi DI SAAT ANDA BERTEMU ORANG YAHUDI SAJA TIDAK PERNAH. Apakah seseorang menjadi pembunuh karena ia Yahudi? Bukan! Apakah Amrozi cs. menjadi pembunuh karena mereka muslim? Juga bukan! JADI BERHENTILAH MENGHAKIMI SESEORANG HANYA KARENA AFILIASI IDENTITAS YANG KEBETULAN IA MILIKI.

OBAMA ADALAH OBAMA. IA HARUS DINILAI DARI PERBUATANNYA, BUKAN DARI KUNJUNGANNYA KE ISRAEL, BUKAN DARI NAMANYA YANG BERASAL DARI “BARUCH”, BUKAN DARI AFILIASINYA DENGAN DEMOKRAT YANG KONON MEMILIKI REKOR KEMANUSIAAN LEBIH BURUK DARI REPUBLIK. PENILAIAN SEMACAM ITU ADALAH PENILAIAN KOLEKTIVIS DAN RASIS. PENILAIAN SEMACAM ITU ADALAH PENILAIAN YANG SAMA YANG MENYEBABKAN RIBUAN ORANG MATI SIA-SIA DI GAZA, TERPAKSA BERHENTI BEKERJA KARENA KFC DAN MCD DI BOIKOT, DAN TAK BISA BERIBADAH KARENA RUMAH IBADAHNYA DISEGEL SECARA PAKSA DAN ILLEGAL.

I SPIT ON THE WHOLE HISTORY OF JEWS VS MOSLEMS, SO SHOULD YOU!

-Adhi Putra Tawakal-

Sewaktu saya pergi ke rumah kakak dan kakak ipar saya di Ames, Iowa, USA, saya sedikit mengalami culture shock. Saya dikejutkan bukan oleh kultur Amerika secara general, namun oleh sikap kakak ipar saya yang orang kulit putih dan sikap kakak saya yang tertular budaya Amerika. In a nutshell, I was surprised by how straightforward they were. Sebagai contoh, saat saya sibuk “menyendiri” di kamar saya di ruang bawah tanah, instead of socializing with them and their friends, they asked me: “Why are you being antisocial?” I was like “wow, why am I being confronted like this at dinner?!”

Similar thing happened at my part-time work at Bali Satay House, an Indonesian restaurant in the city. To put it simply, people there didn’t hesitate to say what they wanted to say. Mungkin, secara cepat-cepat, kita bisa menganggap bahwa mereka acuh terhadap perasaan lawan bicara mereka. I was hurt at first, but I guess it takes time to understand why they acted like that.

Saya mencoba memahami straightforwardness semacam itu sebagai ekspresi dari kebiasaan mereka untuk mengubah keadaan menjadi lebih baik. Kontras dengan sebagian orang Indonesia yang doyan membiarkan problem berlarut-larut dengan berdiam diri, memendam perasaan, dan, eventually, menggerutu di belakang.

Kemudian saya mendamba straightforwardness semacam itu dalam relasi pertemanan saya. Saya berkali-kali bilang pada teman-teman saya: “kalau kalian punya masalah dengan saya, bicara saja langsung pada saya”. I looked forward to that, and I tried to model myself like that. Mengapa? Karena dengan kita bicara tegas kepada teman-teman kita tentang apa yang kita rasakan, kita bisa menyelesaikan permasalahan yang ada, menyingkirkan segala gundah yang mengganjal dengan segera.

Bila kita memang mencintai hubungan yang kita miliki dengan teman-teman kita, maka tidakkah straightforwardness itu sesuatu yang desireable? Tidakkah memendam rasa, menggerutu di belakang justru membunuh relasi kita secara perlahan?

Unfortunately, banyak orang belum terbiasa dengan relasi yang blak-blakan seperti itu. Kesulitan untuk menerima straightforwardness pada dasarnya adalah kesulitan untuk menerima kejujuran. Sulit untuk menerima kejujuran saya bahwa saya punya masalah dengan anda, bahwa ada kualitas pada diri anda yang tidak membuat hubungan kita mutual. Beruntung, saya tidak punya masalah untuk menerima kejujuran orang lain.

Anda pikir saya sok pintar? Tell it to my face! Anda tidak suka dengan cara bicara saya? Tell it to my face! I don’t mind and I’m not gonna feel bad.

Tak bisa saya pungkiri bahwa saya pun acap kali memendam rasa dan menggerutu di belakang orang yang terhadapnya saya seharusnya bicara. Ada setidaknya 2 alasan mengapa saya belum menanggalkan kebiasaan ini sepenuhnya: 1) Saya takut straightforwardness justru memperburuk keadaan karena orang tersebut tidak bisa menerima straightforwardness saya. 2) Saya tidak berminat memperbaiki keadaan dengan orang tersebut, tidak berminat menyelenggarakan klarifikasi atas problem yang saya atau kita alami. In other words, hubungan dengan orang tersebut tidak lagi valuable untuk saya.

It’s sad actually. Saya percaya bahwa relasi kita akan lebih mudah seandainya kita mudah berbicara apa adanya di depan, bukan di belakang. Jujur, dan coba anda refleksikan sendiri, tidakkah problem yang kita pendam membunuh relasi kita dan momen-momen yang kita cherish perlahan-lahan?

In an interview with TV One (aired on January 22, 2009), Bahtiar Effendi, an observer of Middle Eastern politics, stated that Israel’s retaliation to Hamas’s missile attack was disproportional. Mr. Effendi argued that Hamas’s initial attack only killed 1, 2, or 3 people on Israel’s part, while Israel’s bombardment on Gaza killed more than a thousand, injured thousands more, and left approximately 20,000 people homeless. Of course, the damages inflicted on Gaza’s infrastructures don’t require precise measurement. It’s obviously serious.

If Mr. Effendi’s statement was meant only to speak of the situation descriptively, then his statement is true. The numbers of casualties on both sides are disproportional. But there is something philosophically wrong in his statement, something that doesn’t put Mr. Effendi in a better position than Israel, Hamas, or any other murderer in mankind’s history. Can you identify what it is?

First of all, let me hasten to state that one of the roots of Gaza conflict, and the evil hidden far beneath Mr. Effendi’s unconscious realm that prompted him to make such statement, is collectivism. Collectivism is the doctrine that individuals don’t matter. It tells you that you, as identified by your proper name, is dispensable for the sake of the collective. It tells you that what matters is the collective identity—be it cultural, national, tribal, religious, or racial affiliation—in which you are a member. It tells you that what needs to be upheld as the “good” is the collective desire, its preservation at whatever expense, including your interest as an individual.

Only collectivism, which has no respect for individual rights and freedom, could tell us that 3 victims matter less that 1,300. Mr. Effendi told us precisely this. Israel’s bombardment was disproportionate to the relatively “small” damage inflicted on Israel by Hamas, and if Mr. Effendi tried to suggest that it was an injustice then what form of retaliation would Mr. Effendi propose that Israel should have had taken? Killing 3 Palestinians instead of 1,300?

Only with a perspective that appreciates individuals’ rights, freedom, and worth could we understand why it is ethically disproportional to make 1,300 pay for the deaths of 3 (especially when most or all of this 1,300 is “innocent”). But Mr. Effendi didn’t adopt such a perspective. He adopted the contrary, the collectivist one, and you can tell that he did by how he spoke about the casualties on Israel’s part.

Tell me, what is the fundamental difference between killing an innocent and 10? If you think there’s none, then how about between 10 and 1,000, or 10,000 and 1,000,000, or even 1 and 1,000,000? I don’t know how you would answer now, but I’m still on ‘none’. There is no fundamental difference between killing an innocent or 1,000,000 of them. Killing an innocent is killing an innocent, numbers do not matter. Killing an innocent is no less vicious than killing 1,000,000: it is not ethically disproportional. However, Mr. Effendi suggests the contrary when he spoke of how Israel had only 3 casualties before the retaliation was initiated.

Mr. Effendi’s suggestion that Israel’s strike should’ve been more proportionate to the damage inflicted on its part assumes that Hamas’s attack was aimed at those 3 victimc, as if those 3 were precisely the target of Hamas’s missile. This assumption is naïve and sadly mistaken.

Hamas wasn’t targeting those 3, it was targeting Israel in a collective sense regardless to where the missile lands and who it hits. And so was Israel when it, intentionally or unintentionally, bombarded Palestine in its attempt to destroy Hamas. Each was attacking a nation, and they were two collective bodies, one goes by the name ‘Israel’ and the other goes by the name ‘Hamas/Palestine’. Each was a body of collectivism attacking another body of collectivism. Hamas wasn’t launching its missile to kill 3 specific persons, each with proper name A, B, and C. It was trying to kill ‘Israel’, regardless to which member of that collective body its missile kills. The same account applies to Israel.

Now suppose that Mr. Effendi didn’t mean his statement to suggest an ethical disproportion between numbers of casualties, but merely to suggest a measurable disproportion of damages. That would be less controversial. However, Mr. Effendi wasn’t disinterestedly stating a state of affair. He stated a problem that (he) demands solution. If the solution is to bring proportion between the damages on both sides, then either Hamas should kill more people and destroy more buildings in Israel, equal to the number on its side, or Israel should’ve had killed less Palestinians, equal to the number on its side. That would solve Mr. Effendi’s problem of disproportion. But does that do justice to each and every victim (which I assume to be innocent)?

Let me go back to Mr. Effendi’s statement. Though it doesn’t suggest ethical disproportion, it does suggest disproportion in magnitudes. This disproportion resulted from the objective disproportion of damages, and then magnified by the disproportionate exposure by the media. The media is definitely biased in this matter, but not in a sense that (some of) it favors Palestine (although such bias is very possible) but in a sense that there are more information about Palestine than about Israel. We, the hearers, get a disproportionate picture of the matter through an imbalanced publication of sides of the story. This is undeniable, and it is quite natural.

It is natural that the deaths of 1,000 have more magnitude (inspire more discussions, draw more attentions, etc.) than the death of 1. It is natural that the death of a megastar like Marilyn Monroe has more magnitude than the deaths of 10 unknown poor (perhaps unless they were sadistically murdered in an unprecedented way). But disproportion in magnitudes isn’t disproportion in ethical urgency, and if we agree that it makes no difference whether you kill an innocent or 1,000,000 of them then the relatively small number of Israeli casualties is no less important than Palestine’s 1,300. To neglect the victims with less magnitude is to do injustice to them.

If humanity is really our concern then we shouldn’t discriminate between the innocent victims. But such discriminating is what some Indonesians, including Mr. Effendi with the implications of his statement, are doing. Recall the illegitimate boycotting and sealing of KFC and McDonald’s by some college students and the sealing of a synagogue(?) in Surabaya by some Moslem protesters. Like the victims in Israel and Palestine, the restaurant owners and workers and the Jews who used that synagogue also had their human rights violated. It wasn’t the right to life that was violated but property rights which make the right to life has a meaning. (How could you continue to live when you’re banned by force from utilizing you own legitimate property?)

Yes, the magnitude of those boycotts is less than the magnitude of 1,300 people losing limbs and bleeding to death. But to suggest that it is ethically less important is to do injustice to the victims of the boycotts. I’ll bet that you can’t name any intellectual or politician in Indonesia that paid attention to and condemn those boycotts as much as a Moslem fundamentalist would pay attention to and condemn the massacre at Gaza. It’s sad, especially when you realize that all are victims of the same evil: collectivism.

Recall that collectivists would blame an individual on account of her affiliation to some collective identities. KFC and McDonald’s were blamed and boycotted on account of their affiliation to the West, the United States which in turn is affiliated to Jews, exploitation, oppression to the Third World, etc., and to Israel. The Jews in Surabaya were banned from praying in their synagogue on account of their being Jews like the Israelis are. Whether KFC, McDonald’s, or Jews in Surabaya did take part in the massacre of Palestinians or not makes no difference to these anti-West and Moslem collectivists. For them, you deserve condemnation when you’re Jew or siding with the West. If you need proofs that this is the case with them then recall how there were minimal reactions from these collectivists to 9/11 and to Bali bombings. I think these anti-West collectivists were happy to see World Trade Center falls and hundreds of Caucasians blown into pieces in that event and Bali bombings. Now, are you still telling me that you believe these collectivists’ pretentious love for humanity?

The other root of Gaza conflict is what inspired collectivism in the first place: racism. What is racism?

“It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage … Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.
“Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control … Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes … appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men …
“Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination …
“The theory that holds “good blood” or “bad blood” as a moral-intellectual criterion, can lead to nothing but torrents of blood in practice. Brute force is the only avenue of action open to men who regard themselves as mindless aggregates of chemicals.
“Modern racists attempt to prove the superiority or inferiority of a given race by the historical achievements of some of its members …
“Just as there is no such thing as a collective or racial mind, so there is no such thing as a collective or racial achievement.” (Ayn Rand, Racism.)

To make it more relevant to our case, and to what I wish to state, let me add that there is no such thing as a collective or racial crime. What happened in Gaza was particular persons, who happened to be Palestinians and Moslems, killed by particular others, who happened to be Israelis and Jews, and vice versa. What happened wasn’t Jews killing Moslems or vice versa. Even if it was, I would have to require anyone who says so to identify which Jew and which Moslem, and vice versa.

If you agree with me that the Jews in Surabaya and the workers at KFC and McDonald’s didn’t deserve to be treated the way they were treated by some protesters, on account of their non-involvement in Gaza conflict, then you would have to affirm that it is important to start stripping any collectivist and racial presuppositions from our judgments about an individual’s ideas and actions. It would be self-contradictory to refuse my proposal while holding the idea of “innocence”. You can’t label someone in a group “innocent” unless you have discriminated her personality from the collective identity upheld by other members of the group, unless you have stripped her actions from her collective affiliation.

Many judgments made on Gaza conflict, and everything and everyone related to it, are too clouded with prejudices. These prejudices are the reason why our concern for humanity haven’t reached completion. Some people in Indonesia condemned Israel for what it did to thousands of Palestinians. But these same people might have kept silent (and I believe they did) when they saw their fellow citizens in Bali scream in panic and horror as their motels and restaurants, their sources of living, crumble and turned to ashes by a catastrophe they had never thought would occur, initiated by a friend they had never thought would betray. Do you still believe such people when they preach about humanity? I certainly don’t.

Why did we blame Amrozi cs. and thought they should be punished? Because they killed innocent others and damaged innocent others’ properties. Period. We didn’t blame them because they were Moslems, nor did we think that the Australian victims of Bali bombings deserved to die because they were Caucasians. But didn’t some of us—especially those who sealed the synagogue in Surabaya and those college students who boycotted KFC and McDonald’s who, by the way, do not deserve to be praised as Indonesia’s future leaders—think that Israel must be condemned on account of their being Jews, on account of whatever had happened between Jews and Moslems in history, on account of all those things that have nothing to do with our (each one of us) individual history?

My primary concern is not with what locally happened in Gaza, but with what happened on the perimeter as affected by the core conflict. I believe you are aware that this conflict transcends geographical boundaries as made possible by the media. That’s relatively OK. What’s not OK is if this conflict transcends the boundaries of the present, if this conflict travels through time to that bright, promising future that we build with our hard work and then inspire another bloodbath. Gaza may be peaceful one day, but the spirits that chained and suffocated its people to death would live to haunt us. Those spirits are collectivism and racism, perpetrated by those who refuse to take a closer look on the forest and start examining each individual tree.

It is highly improbable to completely annihilate collectivism and racism from the face of this earth, but I see no reason to give up in advance. Evil can only win by default on the side of the good. Collectivism and racism will win at the end if we stop speaking against them. And who is to profit from collectivism and racism’s triumph over individual rights and freedom? Those who desire to use others as means to their ends, coercively. Collectivism is a myth, there is no such thing as a collective body. A nation, for instance, is nothing but a grouping of significant number of people. When someone talks about national interest, or any other collectivist interest, it is highly probable that he talks about the interest of a particular group, covered up as a national interest.

Someone once told me that Jews are destined to be brilliant, that Christians are destined to be prosperous, but it is Moslems that are destined to receive salvation from God and be taken to Heaven. I have to spit on that myth since it embodies the demons that I need to exorcise. You are not a good person or an evil one because you were Jew, or Christian, or a Moslem, so I refuse to believe that God discriminates His/Her creations on such superficial basis. If S/He did (supposing that S/He does exist), then S/He is the grand spirit that definitely has to die.

I would like to express my sympathy to the workers at those boycotted KFC and McDonald’s and to those Jews in Surabaya whose synagogue was coercively sealed. Their pain may mean nothing to them, to you, or to the victims at Gaza, but the injustice they underwent is no less serious. I would like to let them know that an attention was paid, however insignificant it is.

To be forgotten is worse than death. Those who died at Gaza, who got so much attention from the world for what they had to go through, is relatively lucky in that respect.

Cimanggis, January 22, 2009,

-Adhi Putra Tawakal-

1. Bagaimana caranya kita mengetahui bahwa suatu makhluk itu memiliki mind, atau memiliki belief dan desire yang menandakan adanya mind? Dennett menjawabnya secara instrumentalis dengan kembali kepada tingkah laku dari makhluk tersebut. Bila kita bisa menjelaskan tingkah laku dari suatu makhluk dengan referensi terhadap belief dan desire yang kiranya dimiliki makhluk tersebut maka kita telah mengadopsi apa yang ia istilahkan sebagai intentional stance. Sebagai contoh, bila saya mengamati seekor kucing yang sedang mengejar seekor kadal, saya bisa memperkirakan bahwa kucing tersebut lapar dan ingin makan. Si kucing melihat seekor kadal yang bergerak dan memiliki belief bahwa yang bergerak itu hidup dan yang hidup itu bisa dimakan, dan kemudian si kucing akan berusaha menangkap si kadal karena ia memiliki desire untuk memakannya dalam rangka menghilangkan rasa laparnya. Dari tingkah laku kucing tersebut saya bisa menyimpulkan bahwa tingkah lakunya memiliki intention, dan adanya intention ini sudah cukup, bagi Dennett, untuk menyimpulkan bahwa kucing tersebut memiliki belief dan desire. Cukup dengan intentional stance ini kita bisa mengatakan apakah sesuatu itu memiliki belief, desire, dan bahkan mind atau tidak. Intentional stance menandakan keberadaan mind karena, bagi Dennett, bila sesuatu itu memiliki belief dan desire maka sesuatu itu memiliki reasoning terhadap tingkah lakunya. Intentional stance bisa dilanjutkan ke design stance saat kita ingin memahami rancangan atau mekanisme yang ada pada sesuatu yang membuatnya bertingkah laku tertentu. Design stance ini bisa kita pahami melalui penjelasan-penjelasan studi psikologi dan biologi. Bila Dennett mengatakan sesuatu yang memiliki intention memiliki belief dan desire pula, maka bisa dikatakan bahwa sesuatu itu mampu merepresentasikan atau memanipulasi representasi dari dunia. Sesuatu itu bisa berupa hewan, tumbuhan, anak kecil, ataupun manusia dewasa. Lalu apakah itu berarti hewan memiliki kapasitas mind yang sama dengan manusia? Tidak, karena, seperti yang dikemukakan Dennett, ada yang dinamakan second-order representation dimana sesuatu bisa mengintrospeksi representasi yang ia miliki atau mengarahkan intentional stance kepada dirinya sendiri melalui aktivitas "berpikir". Second-order representation ini hanya dimiliki oleh manusia karena manusialah satu-satunya yang bisa menggunakan bahasa. Kapasitas untuk merefleksikan representasi inilah yang disebut dengan kesadaran. Dennett juga menerapkan sifat deskriptif dari intentional stance terhadap kesadaran. Praktek dari kesadaran, dalam pandangan Dennett, adalah mengarahkan intentional stance kepada diri sendiri, yaitu mendeskripsikan belief dan desire yang dimiliki dengan menggunakan bahasa. Hasilnya justru bukan observasi ke dalam a la Cartesian melainkan kesadaran adalah aktivitas menceritakan tentang diri kita. Cukup masuk akal rasanya bila ini yang dimaksud dengan kesadaran yang hanya dimiliki manusia karena kenyataannya memang hanya manusia yang mampu menceritakan tentang dirinya sendiri. Hewan X atau tumbuhan Y tidak bisa menceritakan siapa diri mereka karena mereka tidak berbahasa dan tidak bisa mempraktekkan second-order representation. Inilah kiranya awal mula pemikiran Dennett sebelum ia sampai pada pendapat bahwa dibutuhkan metode baru yang ia namakan "heterofenomenologi" untuk memahami kesadaran. Heterofenomenologi juga sama dengan fenomenologi yang telah ada sebelumnya sebagai sebuah analisis dan deskripsi dari kesadaran. Saya rasa Dennett menambahkan awalan "hetero" karena fenomenologinya, dengan bantuan intentional stance, bisa diarahkan bukan hanya kepada kesadaran subyek melainkan juga kepada kesadaran-kesadaran atau mind lain. Hetero pula karena fenomenologinya menganalisis dan mendeskripsikan beliefs dan desires yang ada secara heterogen dalam suatu mind.       

2. Kesadaran, atau biasa disebut consciousness atau awareness dalam bahasa Inggris, sering dipahami sebagai pengalaman terhadap pengalaman. Pertama kita mengalami suatu goings-on di dunia ini, dan kita kemudian seperti melakukan "introspeksi" terhadap pengalaman kita tersebut. Saat sesuatu bisa melakukan introspeksi tersebutlah sesuatu itu dikatakan berkesadaran. Sebagai contoh, saat saya menekan ujung sebuah meja dengan jari saya, kesadaran saya bekerja saat saya menyadari adanya ujung meja yang saya tekan atau saat saya menyadari sensasi tekanan yang terasa pada jari saya tersebut. Obyek dari kesadaran tidak melulu eksternal melainkan bisa pula internal seperti, misalnya, saat saya menyadari bahwa saya sedang memikirkan sesuatu. Kesadaran dikatakan sebagai konsep yang holistik karena kesadaran memang mencakup beberapa segi. Kesadaran itu bersifat subyektif karena sang subyek pemilik kesadaran hanya bisa merasakan dan memahami secara akurat pengalamannya sendiri. Sebagai contoh, subyek A bisa saja melihat subyek B menangis dan memahami bahwa B sedang bersedih, namun A tidak akan tahu seperti apa rasanya kesedihan yang dialami B karena A tidak merasakan secara aktual kesedihan yang dialami B. Subyektivitas ini menunjukkan bahwa kesadaran terhadap pengalaman memiliki kualitas yang berbeda-beda antara kesadaran yang satu dengan yang lain. A dan B bisa saja meminum teh dari gelas yang sama namun berbeda mengenai kemanisannya, dimana A menganggap bahwa teh itu belum cukup manis namun B merasa bahwa teh itu sudah manis. Kualitas "seperti-apa-rasanya" dari pengalaman yang disadari ini disebut qualia. Kesadaran itu selalu tentang dan terhadap sesuatu, dan itu berarti bahwa kesadaran juga memiliki segi intensional. Sekalipun kesadaran itu tidak diarahkan pada benda eksternal namun diarahkan pada pikiran si subyek sendiri, seperti yang dilakukan Rene Descartes pra-cogito ergo sum, tetap saja itu menunjukkan bahwa kesadaran harus selalu diarahkan pada sesuatu atau pengalaman akan sesuatu. Kesadaran yang kita miliki juga ada yang pusat dan ada yang periferal. Dalam contoh menekan meja tadi, bila saya mengarahkan kesadaran saya pada sensasi tekanan yang saya rasakan pada jari saya maka kesadaran akan tekanan itulah yang bersifat pusat, sementara kesadaran akan ujung meja yang saya tekan bersifat periferal, begitu pula sebaliknya. Kemana saya mengarahkan kesadaran saya atau kesadaran pusat saya adalah suatu kesadaran yang aktif. Kesadaran seseorang dipengaruhi pula oleh segi mood dari pemilik kesadaran tersebut. Mood ini membuat suatu pengalaman yang sama, yang netral dari perasaan, bisa disadari secara berbeda bila dalam mood yang berbeda. Sebuah lagu yang sendu bisa membuat saya menangis bila saya memang sedang bersedih, namun tidak akan berpengaruh apa-apa saat saya sedang ceria. Mood ini membuat sebuah pengalaman yang disadari bisa terasa pleasureable atau unpleasureable. Adanya intensionalitas dan mood serta segi-segi lainnya ini membuat sebuah kesadaran selalu tersituasikan, dalam arti kesadaran terhadap sesuatu itu bukanlah sesuatu yang otonom dan fix. Itulah beberapa segi kesadaran yang menunjukkan bahwa kesadaran memang mencakup beberapa segi secara holistik.

3. Teori representasional dari mind adalah teori yang menganggap bahwa mind adalah sebuah mesin semantik dimana mind mampu memanipulasikan simbol-simbol dalam bahasa dan merefleksikan relasi dari simbol-simbol tersebut sesuai dengan prinsip-prinsip formal dan sintaksis terlepas dari apa makna simbol tersebut. Aturan formal dan sintaksis yang dimaksud adalah aturan logika dari tata bahasa. Mind adalah sebuah proses mental yang berisi operasi-operasi terhadap simbol-simbol. Teori representasional menganggap bahwa mind adalah sesuatu yang bersifat fungsional dengan kemampuannya memanipulasi simbol. Kata "representasi" menunjukkan bahwa simbol-simbol yang ada di mind kita adalah representasi dari keadaan di dunia yang data-datanya kita dapatkan secara sensorik. Keadaan di dunia itu direpresentasikan secara simbolis oleh bahasa. Tentu saja bahasa yang dapat memberikan representasi itu adalah bahasa yang kita mengerti. Bahasa yang tidak kita mengerti tidak akan memberikan representasi apapun kepada kita. Masukan sensoris itu kemudian menjadi simbol dalam apa yang disebut sebagai "belief box". Sebagai contoh, saat saya melihat sebuah apel merah, apel merah tersebut akan menjadi simbol yang mengekspresikan sebuah proposisi dalam belief box saya bahwa "apel itu merah". Kemudian bila saya ingin memakan apel itu, itu berarti bahwa saya memiliki simbol dalam "desire box" yang merepresentasikan bahwa saya harus berjalan ke arah apel tersebut, mengangkatnya, dan kemudian menggigitnya. Singkatnya, masukan sensoris akan menjadi simbol dalam belief box saya yang bila bertemu dengan desire box, atau saya memiliki simbol dalam desire box yang cocok dengan simbol di belief box, maka keduanya akan menghasilkan tingkah laku. Inilah cara kerja dari mind dalam pandangan teori representasional. Setiap mind berisi akan belief box dan desire box, sekalipun simbol-simbol yang muncul dalam boxes tersebut bisa berbeda antara mind yang satu dengan yang lain. Perbedaan dari simbol ini dan bagaimana simbol tersebut dimaknai adalah hal yang wajar bagi teori representasional karena makna sebuah simbol tidaklah intrinsik dalam simbol tersebut sebagai sesuatu yang terberi, melainkan bergantung pada bagaimana simbol tersebut dipergunakan oleh sang agen atau sistem yang mempergunakannya. Sebagai contoh, kata "apple" tidak intrinsik bermakna "buah apel" melainkan bisa bermakna "merek elektronik". Makna-makna dari simbol tersebut dan juga language of thought kita bisa berubah secara kausal seiring dengan perubahan goings-on di sekitar kita. Ini berbeda dengan perubahan makna dalam mesin semantik seperti komputer yang diprogram oleh manusia. Kelebihan dari teori representasional dalam memahami mind menurut saya terletak pada ilustrasinya tentang cara kerja mind yang melibatkan belief box dan desire box. Belief box menunjukkan kepada kita bahwa data-data sensorik tidak datang kepada kita secara obyektif melainkan disimbolisasikan secara kontekstual oleh mind kita. Sementara desire box menunjukkan bahwa tingkah laku kita selalu berlandaskan pada simbol-simbol yang ada di dalam mind kita pula. Kekurangan dari teori ini menurut saya adalah anggapannya bahwa mind mampu memanipulasikan simbol-simbol secara logis melalui aturan sintaksis tanpa mengetahui makna dari simbol tersebut. Teori ini terlalu menyamakan kerja mind manusia dengan kerja program komputer. Karena diprogram terlebih dahulu oleh manusia maka komputer bisa memanipulasi bahasa dan data-data yang diberikan secara benar hanya melalui aturan sintaksisnya, sementara mind manusia tidaklah diprogram terlebih dahulu seperti itu. Tidak mungkin seorang Indonesia yang sama sekali tidak mengerti bahasa Mandarin bisa merangkai kata-kata yang diberikan dalam bahasa Mandarin menjadi sebuah kalimat yang benar dan logis tanpa menggunakan manual. Komputer bisa dibekali dengan manual tersebut saat diciptakan, sementara mind manusia tidak dibekali dengan manual itu saat manusia dilahirkan.   

4. Sebelum saya menjelaskan apa yang menurut saya "is" dari mind saya akan menjelaskan apa yang "is not" dari mind. Menurut saya mind tidak melibatkan persona seseorang karena persona atau kepribadian adalah sebuah pilihan dan bukan sesuatu yang terberi, sementara mind adalah sebuah fakultas atau kemampuan dari makhluk hidup yang terberi namun tetap bisa disituasikan dan dimodifikasi kapasitasnya. Tidak masalah dengan kepercayaan, ideologi, atau world-view apa yang saya anut karena itu tidaklah mengonstitusikan mind saya. Mereka bisa dikatakan sebagai isi yang diregulasikan oleh mind saya. Untuk mind ini saya juga sulit untuk berbicara secara sekuler dengan mereduksi mind kepada sekedar sistem syaraf, walaupun saya setuju bahwa mind memang terkait dengan sistem syaraf. Saya sadar ini tidak terdengar filosofis namun fenomena mistis seperti hantu membuat saya kesulitan untuk mengingkari teori tentang keberadaan jiwa yang menurut saya terkait dengan mind. Dengan begitu saya juga tidak setuju bila ada pandangan bahwa mesin juga memiliki mind hanya karena mesin mampu melakukan operasi yang sama dengan manusia, seperti misalnya hitung-menghitung. Mesin bisa berhitung bukan karena mesin memiliki mind secara natural namun karena mesin diprogram oleh manusia untuk bisa berhitung. Konsepsi mind yang saya pegang adalah bahwa mind adalah fakultas yang merasakan, mempersepsikan, berpikir, berkehendak, dan melakukan penalaran. Apa yang saya rasakan, pikirkan, kehendaki, dan bagaimana saya mempersepsi dan menalari memang sifatnya tersituasikan oleh, misalnya, ideologi saya. Namun ideologi itu sendiri, dan hal apapun yang bisa mensituasikan mind saya, bukanlah konstituen dari mind itu sendiri. Mind melayani sebuah fungsi. Sehubungan dengan fungsi ini saya menyetujui Daniel Dennett yang menciptakan hirarki mind, karena saya juga melihat ada hal-hal yang tidak bisa dilakukan oleh hewan dan tumbuhan, seperti berpikir dan berkehendak. Artinya, kualitas dan kapasitas mind manusia tidak sama dengan makhluk lainnya. Kemampuan-kemampuan yang ada dalam mind ini ada secara natural. Kemampuan ini tidak bisa diberikan kemudian oleh manusia seperti saat manusia memprogram mesin. Manusia hanya bisa membangkitkan dan mengasah potensi-potensi yang ada dari mind. 

When I die,

I don’t want to be buried under bricks and cement

Just a fertile soil and green grasses

I don’t want tomb with religious affiliation

Just simple stuffs, name, RIP, DoB, & DoD

When I die,

I would love to share my grave with my loved one(s)

Especially my wife, if I had any by the time I pass

Of course she could refuse to share

And I won’t be alive to painfully know her refusal

When I die,

I want people to mourn me

Cry their hearts out as if they couldn’t live without me

I want my funeral to be attended by thousands

Just like Jean-Paul Sartre’s

Also broadcasted and seen by millions

Like Princess Diana’s

That would really make me feel special

(Yeah right, like I would still be able to feel)

When I die,

I don’t want to go to heaven

At least not to the so-called “better place”

I don’t need 7 angels, milk river, and golden gate

Nothing is better than being on earth with my loved ones

(I can say that for now…)

After death,

I think it’s either I reincarnate or end for good

So pathetic is the idea of heaven, a utopia of those dreamers

Who cannot accept pains and sufferings

Death,

An event, inevitable one

And yet we can prepare for it, having this and that in advance

Just to make it extraordinary

Like a play,

Death needs a spectacular ending

Precedented by spectacular acts from spectacular actor(s)

I’ve wished for spectacular end, but have I acted spectacularly?

Only the audience can tell