lies are political

Sometimes people don’t know how to deal with the facts that the pleasant things they knew are man-made lies. Perhaps, the lies are not crafted by purpose, it could be leaded by false signs of human senses.

What I want to say is, Levinas is right, face is a political interface. The subconscious is indeed very strong, its one of the main drive in human mind. It influence our words, signs, language and in every way we communicate as social beings. They are all created for one sole purpose: “socializing”. On the other hand, anthropologically speaking, socializing in groups is a part of human survival. In the end, the hormones that control our feelings are driven by this ‘survival mode’ which could led to ‘false sign’. ‘Survival mode’, made us political being. Lies, are nevertheless, political.

Posted with WordPress for BlackBerry.

the thoughts of beauty

A few days ago when I was trying to search reference on beauty philosophy for my Fantasy & Science Fiction class, I stumble upon this article HERE. The article explains very clearly on how to define beauty and how it stands in the world of subjectivity and objectivity (in Descartes terms). It also slightly points out, why people nowadays who had physical beauty as their first priority is in some sense, cracked head. As it is said in the article, that beauty is most likely “a secondary quality, mind-independent, but intersubjective.”

There are also some questions of beauty regarding preferences and taste in this article, for instance why someone likes red while another person likes green. I know someone who’s father likes biking and the son has the same hobby, though he probably didn’t know that, since his father passed away when he was very young, and at that time his father already quit his hobby. My sisters and I like the same color. Thus I could infer that this case most likely resonates with the possibility that our senses are very related with genetic factor, childhood and the surroundings (objects, people, etc). Though the main topic is beauty in the sense of the original, the beauty itself, but to answer the question why beauty is also about taste and preference, then in some sense the context of beauty has shift a little bit, especially because the perception of beauty in this matter is also influenced by the factor of cultural and clinical mold.

Nevertheless, if it’s in sense of art, the word beauty somehow should be redefined, since I personally think art has a different context of beauty, especially for the sole reason that this beauty is man-made. Moreover, if you refer to the article, art objects are existence with objective reality, but doesn’t possess formal (subjective) reality. Overall, by scrutinizing this article and the comments you may also notice that in terms of debating some ideas, double-checking the context of the arguments is essential if you don’t want it to be out of place.

thinking how to think

I am currently trying to pledge a new understanding upon my way of thinking. I need a breakthrough. Selecting and cutting of essential pieces from swarming information is not as easy as what Malcolm Gladwell wrote in Blink. Slice judgement is also the matter of the mindset. It’s not that easy to maintain and upgrade such thing. 

The book I’m reading reminds me of that. I’m reading about VR (Visual Reality). In fast forward mode, it’s probably pretty obvious that I’m also trying to gain more knowledge for the base of understanding 3D movie. But it didn’t came to my epiphany that by doing so, I would also have to understand the basic principal of tanagra theatre, or even further, Alberti’s window (in this case, in Cartesian point of view). This reminds me to my third semester when I learn that trains essentially change human’s food distribution because villagers had to manage their harvest time based on the train schedule, when do the train passes their city. 

This is a little reminder, that I should always try to expand my mindset. 


There is a ‘know’ in ‘knowledge’. Is knowledge then still a knowledge if what we know is what we think we know; a form of concept of thoughts in human’s mindset, of the original? (Say, I’m a Platonian and Voloshinov based person.) Then eventually, perhaps human’s knowledge never exist in the first place.
But alas, this is only a Parmenidean based semiotic mind game. The language itself in some sense is a blunderic human built system, where the synthome remains as the unknown most of the time.

Posted with WordPress for BlackBerry.

Further Note of Sexual Repression Analysis

Around three years ago I wrote about homosexual double repression hypothesis HERE. After I read what I wrote before, I had the intention to write the further hypothesis, hence I actually had the aim to elaborate the writing into one big picture. So this is just another further note of what I wrote before. I read several books and journals, it helped me a lot to capture the bigger frame of what is actually going on. In my previous work I wrote about homosexuality paradox in the modern era.
This post is functioned as a self note. I’m actually a little confused in what language I should write it down, since I wrote my previous work in Bahasa Indonesia (since it was due to personal class project submission – which has been commented by my lecturer as “too philosophical”) but it won’t stop me to write what I want anyway. To me philosophy is the basic thought to everything. Actually I suddenly had the idea of saving each of my writing under the same theme (yes, this one) to be gathered into one book. Very slow work I must say, since I just got the idea popped in mind, but well, better late then never.

Continue reading

more (silly) philosopher joke *loading*

The more I know you the more I know that I don’t know you | #ScrewedSocrates

I love you | you don’t even exist in my mind | make me exist then | eventually, becoming exist doesn’t exist at all | #ParmenidesOD

Wrote these two around Valjinxtine. Yes right, I don’t say Valentine. Oh I just said it. But no, I typed it.  Eeer…in essence, it’s actually the same. Oh crap *inner blasphemy*

Posted with WordPress for BlackBerry.

random (silly) philosopher joke

Some random things popped in my mind so I decide to tweeted them as a joke. Then I paste them down here plus the clue/explanation, in case you think my idea is too absurd :p btw I might tweet some more, here in my twitter acc: @judithchen

» If dumb ppl would listen to Thales’ speech, perhaps mini fridge will be a boom bang instead of blackberry.

→ because Thales said “everything is basically composed from water” mini fridge would be popular because the dumb might think everything would easily melt or vapor anytime.

» #whenDescartesMeetsTiffie | “hey, I don’t think you belong here. Who are you?” | “Tiffie” | *poof* (tiffie disappear)

→ Tiffie is a nickname to our famous *cough* Indonesian comm&info minister, Tifatul Sembiring

→ because Descartes said “I think, therefore I exist.” Tiffie doesn’t think therefore he disappears.

» Marry me? | eer…you think, no? | uhhh… | you don’t even exist, then | #descartesOD

→ clue: same with the above

» Marry me? | …. | hey don’t ignore me | why? It’s a bliss right | #platoOD

→ because plato said “ignorance is a bliss”

There you go. Hope you like it. Well, if I happen to write some more, I’ll post them here after I post them on twitter. Thanks for reading. See ya! 😉

Posted with WordPress for BlackBerry.