Absolute Truth?

 

In my humble opinion, everything can be viewed from more than one point of view. In one discussion with a loved one of mine, I like saying, "it depends bla bla bla."

 

He: "are you sure there is no truth in whatsoever?"

 

I: "in my humble opinion, there is no absolute truth in religion."

 

He: "how about in other than religion?"

 

I: "such as?"

 

He: "what do you think about 'killing'?"

 

When hearing that word, I automatically remembered one case called "honor killing"; one case that left me in horror. More than 20 years ago, I talked about this with someone living in the US, online, the first time I knew there was such a horrible disgrace. He condemned this for sure. This kinda 'killing' absolutely can be viewed from minimally two sides: first from the family who think that one member of the family has done something very shameful, therefore they think they have right to kill the one who has done shameful thing; such as a girl having sex with her boyfriend, in order to keep the family's dignity. Second, from those who think that the girl 'just' has sex with her boyfriend to show some love.

 

In this case, the so-called honor killing can be justified if it happens in some certain countries (especially Islamic countries) , or even in some certain family, although perhaps the family lives in a western country, such as the US. The family will think that other people do not have right to interfere the family's decision. They believe that the dignity of the family should be prioritized more than just a disgraceful daughter.

 

However, my loved one in fact gave another example (which is even easier to digest): "I am terribly poor, my kids need money to go to school. I think I'll kill my neighbor to grab his belongings."

 

Well, of course in such a case, the killer is wrong. He should have done his best to look for a job, to get money to support the family, not 'just' to take that impossible step: killing the neighbor. Although of course when someone is dying due to hunger, and he/she lives in a community, isn't it the responsibility of the community to take care of the hungry neighbor who lives in poverty? But killing a neighbor to take the belongings is absolutely wrong all the time. Killing is acceptable only when someone accidentally does that when defending himself/herself.

 

Another case he gave was: some years ago when some members of FPI forced to close down food stalls that were open during Ramadan month. They did not only close down the stalls, they also sometimes took the food and threw them away plus beat the diners. If we view this using FPI's point of view, the act was supposed to be acceptable because FPI did it in order to make people respect Islamic teachings.

 

In the world of 'it depends bla bla bla', my loved one thinks that we cannot force other people to accept our way of thinking whatever it takes. Therefore, the idea 'it depends' is dangerous.

 

On the contrary, I am of opinion that whatever we think, we are not allowed to make other people in harmful situation. Because of thinking 'it depends' does not necessarily mean we tolerate crime. Closing down food stalls, throwing away edible food, and beating people are included into crime. Killing other people is always a crime, even in a case such as honor killing, except as I wrote above: when someone kills another accidentally when defending himself/herself.

 

Furthermore, my loved one cited what Bertrand Russel said:

 

To summarize: Our decisions must be made on truth; not wishful thinking, and we need to learn to be tolerant of people whom we disagree with or we will end up destroying one another. It’s simple advice, but it bears repeating.  (I cited it from this link)

 

Talking about 'truth', I remember around a decade ago, I discussed 'truth' in 'Religion' class. Truth can be divided into five categories:

 

• Aesthetic truth
• Historical truth
• Moral truth
• Scientific truth
• Religious/spiritual truth

 

He asked, "are those 5 truths all not absolute?"

 

He then said history is said to be written by the winner. However, later on, when the winner becomes culprit, the history then changes. In Indonesia, the case of '30 September 1965 PKI', was Suharto really a hero? And Sukarno a culprit? When the New Order regime collapsed, people view 30 September 1965 differently.

 

Scientific truth also can change during the course of time. Remember long time ago people thought that the Earth was the center of the universe? When I was a little, my teacher taught me that atom was the smallest particle. You may look for other examples by yourself.

 

While aesthetic/moral/religious truth must be very flexible, it depends on whose point of view.

 

PT56 12.12 27.09.2023

 

Men from Mars, women from Venus?

 

Men from Mars, women from Venus?

 

I just watched (again) Sex and the City episode 7 from season 2; the title is "The Chicken Dance". In short, the episode tells us about Carrie who gets fed up with Big's inability to pay attention to her; Miranda inadvertently sets her interior designer up with a long-distance would-be boyfriend, and they marry after only four weeks. Charlotte has a "warp speed" relationship with a guy she meets at the wedding. Samantha is upset when she experiences "déjà-screw": sleeping with a guy she previously did fifteen years ago.

 

I want to focus on Carrie's case. At Jeremy's wedding (Jeremy was an old 'friend' of Miranda who moved back to New York after living in London for some time. During their communication via emails, both of them were flirtatious, therefore, Miranda expected that they would eventually become couple. However, after Jeremy came to NY, he even fell in love with a woman who decorated Miranda's new apartment, and proposed her to marry him only after four weeks.), Big agreed to accompany Carrie to attend it, one thing that made Carrie very excited. Especially because Big wanted to hear Carrie reading love poem for the bride and the groom. Unfortunately, Big didn't want to sign the card inserted in the wedding gift. Moreover when Big even left the wedding venue when Carrie was reading the poem, because he got an important business call.

 

Before writing this, while browsing some info, I found an article where Chris North said:

 

"Big was what he was. One of the things I tell people is that he never tried to pretend he was anything other than what he was. It was [Carrie] who tried to pretend he was something he wasn’t,”

 

“He was always honest about himself — he never cheated on her. The relationship just didn’t work, and he went on to get married while she went on to — how many boyfriends did she have?"

 

Well, Big didn't cheat on Carrie, but he cheated Natasha. If he did love Carrie, why didn't he marry her? Instead of marrying Natasha but then cheated her?

 

As a woman, I understood what Carrie wanted from Big, she wanted people to know that she and Big were couple so she asked Big to sign the card. (what's wrong with that?) And because Big liked teasing Carrie when she took time writing the poem, why didn't he postpone answering the business call?

 

One loved one of mine sometimes teases me by saying, " For men, it is really difficult to understand a woman," and I think it also happens on the way around, it is not easy for women to understand a man. When you are busy, just tell what makes you busy and don't leave your loved one in the dark. It is as simple as that.

 

MS48 20.25 19.09.2023

 

You perhaps will find the synopsis helpful.

 

Embracing Differences

 

At the moment I am proctoring a written test. There are 13 students, 4 boys, 9 girls. From the 9 girls, there is one girl wearing senior high school uniform, short sleeves and no headdress (read => jilbab). I took a glance at the badge of her uniform: one well-known state high school.

 

And just like that I missed the old days when I was teaching at a school where there was no one wearing headdress; no students no employees (teachers as well as administration staff). Well, there was a certain academic year when there were a group of international students -- from Libya -- who came to Semarang to study there. The girls were wearing jilbab. But they didn't stay long. Their fathers moved to another city, so the children followed to move out of town.

 

Very rarely have I had female students who come to the English course where I teach does not wear jilbab recently, either they are still high school students or college students or employees. Especially high school students, because I have often heard that there is somewhat repression from the environment for Muslim female students who choose not to wear jilbab when going to school.

 

When Angie went to school, there was no such repression (yet). Angie and many other Muslim female students who studied English in my workplace didn't wear jilbab. She graduated from high school in 2009. In that year, there was still strong debate about RUU APP. After graduating from college, and Angie had somewhat 'reunion' with her old schoolmates, she in fact became the only Muslim mate who chose not to wear jilbab. Did she get any repression from her old mates? She once told me, "X said that she saw me no longer a Muslim." Another said, "Are you sure Ngie, you will stay not wearing jilbab?" Nevertheless, she didn't take it to her heart. She took it easy.

 

*****

 

Some weeks ago a biking buddy and I had a conversation. He mentioned some old biking buddies of ours who used to wear no jilbab but now they are wearing one. He said something cynical about it. So I told him, "Let us respect what they choose to wear. It is because I want them to respect others' choice not to wear jilbab too. Respecting each other is what we had better do, let's embrace differences, and no need to be nosy.

 

MS48 17.49 19.09.2023

 

Second Puberty 2

 

This morning I accidentally stumbled to this old post of mine. I wrote it 17 years ago and I was less than 40 years. Still very young, I suppose, lol. In this writing of mine, I would write what I questioned myself back then.

 

By the way, when browsing pictures of 'second puberty' to be inserted in that post, I came to this link, and I was interested in the article. It says that people may start having their second puberty at 20s. They may experience psychological and emotional changes, reach the peak of their bone mass and muscle strength. Second puberty at 30s will make people undergo bone and muscle strength decrease, and less fertile than when they are at 20s. People of 40 years of age and above will get natural aging process.

 

This is interesting because I even think that I reached the peak of my bone mass and muscle strength in my mid 30s when I was diligent to do workout -- I did some jogging too when I was at my 20s but no swimming or workout at gym yet -- I joined one fitness center where I did my workout regularly every day.

 

When reaching the age of 40s, my health was also at my peak, so I thought, because I did a lot of biking. As far as I remember I started feeling degeneration in my body when nearing 50s. This makes sense, do you agree?

 

Now, going back to what I wrote in my old post.

 

Well, the term 'second puberty' is more popular here in Indonesia than 'midlife crisis' while in fact what I described in that post referred to midlife crisis: people who somewhat lose their confidence that they are good-looking and still attractive to be seen by others.

 

Luckily (or 'unluckily'?) when I reached the age of 40s, I was already active in social medias besides blogs. As other users, I used the social medias to expose my narcissism, lol, either I posted pictures of writings. Flirting people online was more acceptable than what my ex private students did, as I wrote in the post. Hahahahah …

 

I am of opinion that midlife crises are kind of psychological problems, whatever the cause is. Psychological problems can be solved by, let's say, confiding in someone (or some ones?) In 2006 -2010 the universe sent someone to my life -- my Abang that I dubbed as my 'Guardian Angel'. I was at the brink of my divorce back then and I had to get away from my ex safely. I really needed someone to talk to, someone who would listen to me whole-heartedly. Besides, as I sometimes write anywhere in my blogs that writing is curing. I write for blogs also in my diary.

 

MS48 17.56 18.09.2023

 

Truth & Tolerance: Bertrand Russell’s advice in the modern world

 

Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) was a British philosopher, mathematician, essayist, and recipient of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1950. In addition to being one of the founding fathers of analytical philosophy, “Encyclopaedia Britannica” cites him as a public “campaigner for peace” and activist for many moral, political and social ideas.  

 

In a 1959 interview with BBC, Russell was asked to outline the advice he would give to future generations, and his answer is extremely timely for ours: 

 

I should like to say two things, one intellectual and one moral. The intellectual thing I should want to say to them is this: When you are studying any matter or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted either by what you wish to believe, or by what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed. But look only, and solely, at what are the facts. 

 

The moral thing I should wish to say to them is very simple. I should say love is wise, hatred is foolish. In this world, which is getting more and more interconnected, we have to learn to tolerate each other, we have to learn to put up with the fact that some people say things that we don’t like. We can only live together in that way. And if we are to live together and not die together, we should learn the kind of tolerance which is absolutely vital to the continuation of human life on this planet. 

 

To summarize: Our decisions must be made on truth; not wishful thinking, and we need to learn to be tolerant of people whom we disagree with or we will end up destroying one another. It’s simple advice, but it bears repeating.  

 

Of course, this common-sense approach to truth and tolerance seems out of reach considering the current social climate of the United States. A disturbing amount of messages seen by millions of Americans bear little relationship to scientific, historical or social facts. Take, for example, the unfounded yet widely spread message earlier this year that drinking water could help prevent COVID-19 infections. Even though most people are aware of so-called “fake news,” inaccuracies are so numerous that it becomes nearly impossible to distinguish fact from fiction.  

 

Moreover, the United States is navigating a polarizing political divide which has sparked much intolerance among opposing ideological groups. One only needs to spend a few minutes browsing Reddit forums or YouTube comments to find examples of hate speech. Unfortunately this intolerance spreads beyond the internet as well. It is not uncommon to hear of politicians and common citizens alike labeling others as “deplorables,” “snowflakes” or “racists” and to have some go so far as to commit crimes against those who disagree with them. Facing these circumstances, how can we heed Russell’s advice to discern the truth and tolerate others? 

This prescription for humanity is much easier said than done. But we must not give up on truth and tolerance. Because, as Russell mentions, they are “absolutely vital” to society. Adhering to this advice is not a passive process. It requires a daily commitment to open-mindedness, empathy and a willingness to change our thinking in light of new information.  

 

We must be critical of the messages we see on a daily basis, and resist the spread of messages that contain inaccuracies. In order to refine our truth-seeking skills, Sarah Blakeslee, of the University of California’s Chico’s Meriam Library invented the CRAAP test to evaluate sources for credibility. Whenever reading or viewing something, you can remember to fact-check based on Currency (When was the information written and last updated?), Relevance (Who is the intended audience?), Authority (Is the author qualified to write on this topic?), Accuracy (Where does the information/evidence come from?) and Purpose (Is the purpose of the information to  inform, teach, sell, entertain or persuade?). 

 

As for learning to be more tolerant, we must try to engage with people that we disagree with. Answers do not come from silencing people who hold views in opposition to our own. We can learn to accept their reality, without having to accept the perceived justification of their views. From this starting point, progress is much more possible. Out of disagreement, as journalist Brian Cronan wrote, “is where the beauty and nuance of human discussion and intellectual progression emerges and blossoms.”  

 

Though the methods which will heal the cultural fragmentation of our society can and should be diverse, there are several key principles which can help to center us during this time of relative turmoil — two of them being Russell’s advice for truth and tolerance.  

 copied from this link

Man = a cheater?

 

Kim Cattral as Samantha Jones

“Men cheat for the same reason that dogs lick their balls—because they can. It's part of their biology.” Samantha Jones, SATC.

 

Once upon a time, I was just a naïve girl. Then this female friend came into my life. She told me things like what Samantha said to her 3 friends, Carrie, Miranda, and Charlotte. Of course the trigger was not because Carrie, Miranda and Charlotte were as naïve as me, lol. The four friends were talking about 'cheating curve' that there was possibility for everyone to cheat.

 

Carrie: Well, I think maybe there's a cheating curve. That someone's definition of what constitutes cheating is in direct proportion to how much they themselves want to cheat.

Miranda: That's moral relativism!

Carrie: I prefer to think of it as quantum cheating. I wanted to tell him that I was afraid he could never love me the way I wanted to be loved. I was afraid that maybe he didn't really have the capacity to love anyone but himself. I was afraid that given the chance, he'd break my heart again.

 

In the episode, they were talking what things could be defined as cheating: for some people, only to flirt with someone else was already categorized into cheating. For some others, perhaps only flirting was just okay, as long as the partner didn't involve physical actions, such as kissing, necking, petting until intercourse.

 

In that episode, Charlotte caught her (new) date kissing another woman, and he asked for an excuse by saying, "We were just kissing." Miranda then said one of her ex-date who said that fuck*ng was not cheating. In this part, Samantha responded, "Men cheat for the same reason that dog licks their balls."

 

As someone who was raised in a rigidly religious family, I grew up being naïve and I absolutely never thought of cheating. I, in fact, once considered that sex was something filthy even among married couples. Doing something religious was much more respectful for both parties.

 

And this friend came to my life, 24 years ago, to tell me, "Trust me mbak, sex is the first thing on men's mind, during day and night! So if you want to keep your husband to stay loyal to you, give him what he wants: sex." (Note: I was married back then.)

 

 

Then when I continued my study at American Studies Graduate Program, I got to know Toni Morrison, whose novel -- SULA -- was discussed in one subject. What Morrison illustrated in the novel strengthened what my dear friend said to me, "Men want sex. When they don't get it from their wives, they'll look for it outside." Plus, Morrison seemed to have the same opinion with Samantha too: "Men cheat because they can, it's part of their biology."

 

Of course I know that not all men are like what Morrison wrote in SULA. At least I have one role model for this: my own dad. (Bless my mom and dad in heaven.) But I think, I sometimes still feel naïve.

 

PT56 13.59 14.09.2023

 

 

V u l n e r a b l e

 

To be vulnerable or not to be vulnerable? That is the question.

 

We’re afraid to let our guard down and show who we really are. We hide our weaknesses and mask our shortcomings for the fear of being judged, the fear of being rejected and above all, the fear of getting hurt.

 

What if he thinks less of me? What if he doesn’t understand? Think about it this way: The person who is right for you won’t judge you for being real. It’s okay to say you don’t have it all together. Nobody does. Every single one of us is a work in progress until the day we die.

 

The ability to take off the mask shows courage. Being vulnerable isn’t a weakness. It’s a strength.

 

It’s only when you stop pretending and start being real that you can connect in a deep and meaningful way with another person.

 

Take me for example. Writing my book is the ultimate act of vulnerability. I’m sharing the most intimate parts of myself with the world. Yes, I’ve had moments when I debated finishing it because I was afraid of being judged and rejected. On some level, I still am. But it hurts so much more not to write it. This is who I am. Thinking of how much I can help people in their lives far outweighs the risk of rejection.

 

When you feel the self-doubt start to creep in, ask yourself: What’s worse: rejection or regret? What are you more afraid of? Picturing the rest of your life fearful of putting yourself out there, isn’t just a scary thought; it’s a tragedy. No rejection is more painful than the regret you will feel of time wasted and opportunities lost.

 

 Copied from this link.