aforisme status update (part 3)

biarlah hujan terus berguruh menggelegar. meneriakkan kegelisahannya akan luka sengat matahari. biarlah hujan terus menjeritkan petirnya. melumat kepongahan manusia tamak. biarlah hujan terus berkilat marah. agar ia puas mengadu menyuarakan getir hatinya. biarlah hujan terus menyemburkan tangisnya. aku akan menatapmu dalam fana tafakurku.

tak kuasa ku melihat pesona indah wajahmu biarlah ragaku tertarik menyatu ke Maha Magnet terlepas dari belenggu fisik nan fana kan kutanggalkan jasad maksiat aku rela terlebur ke dalam dirimu --/^^^-^-^---^----------_______ .................. ....... ... .

nafasku berhembus tanpa kendali, menderu dengan pisau-pisau lena, merajam sadarku atas hadirmu, adamu tak tercerap penuh oleh batas sadarku. aku terlanjur larut dalam lupa terlalu lama. maka kumohon maafmu di tiap lenaku.

Lalu kau berkata “maka mengemislah kepadaku agar dapat kudengar merdu kidungmu.”

“ciumlah sandalku agar dapat kau rasakan betapa nikmatnya bercinta denganku.”

ku memandang getir dirimu saat kau melangkah untuk sebuah kepastian. ketiadaan akan dirimu meninggalkan sayatan yang dalam. kau terlanjur menghujamkan kisah hidupmu di sini. maka tercerabutlah hatiku bersama kepergianmu. kini aku berusaha menumbuhkan kembali sisa-sisa jejakmu. jejak yang takkan pernah lekang dan kan selalu abadi.

di tiap hentakan kutiupkan rindu, di tiap tabuhan kutitiipkan salam, tabuhan itu semakin menghentak kalbu, tak kuasa ku menahan dentuman-dentuman rindu. meledaklah isak tersenggal di kerongkongan. kelenjar air mata tak mampu lagi membendung isinya. salam ta'zhim salam rindu, ditengah gersangnya kepentingan penuh keegoisan, tak kutemukan lagi hadirmu menebar kasih sayang.

aku rindu saat-saat dimana dalam khusyu' doamu, kau sebut namaku.

hatiku tersumbat cintamu, hingga tak mampu lagi menampung meski setitik benci. lihatlah wajahku, jika masih tak kau temukan rindu di semburat galaunya, tataplah kedua matanya. bening lensanya mengantarkanmu menembus curam lembah hatinya. di sana takkan kau dapati kebun asmara, kecuali kau akan terisak memandangnya. tertangkapkah olehmu sesosok badan? tak pernah lelah mulutnya mengucap satu nama, hanya satu nama

selalu begitu..... saat singgah dalam mimpiku, ku merasa kita bisa melawan hukum alam, memutar waktu dan merekayasa kehidupan. maka menyesallah diriku setelah sadar merayap, bayangmu lenyap bersama ekspektasi hampa. aku ber-asa saat-saat seperti itu kan terus terulang menemani tiap tidur sepiku.

tanyakan padanya masih adakah sebersit rindu, walau hanya tertawan oleh angin malam mengantar mimpi, katakan padanya aku tak lagi memikirkannya, hatiku sudah berkali-kali tertampar api kecewa. tapi tak perlu memintanya belas aku sudah melupakannya, aku tercandu oleh tamparan mesra menggiringku menuju ekstase abadi.

aku rela akuku. tapi, entah kenapa sembelit pilu kalbuku masih terasa melihat kau tak bergeming atas sahutanku kucoba tuk lebih rela kubiarkan kau bercumbu entah dengan sepi atau mungkin telah tentram bersamanya mungkinkah aku bebas dari cengkraman cintamu atau mungkin lebih tepatnya dari hayalan cintaku tentangmu

aku rasuk dalam sebuah alam tanpa batas waktu dan ruang. memanggil kembali kenanganku kepada murninya mitsaq. meski terantuk-antuk, aku sungguh menikmati saat ku mulai tersedot. hilanglah sadarku akan arti sebuah ada. karena adamu telah memenuhi sadarku. dengan penuh sadar ku bersaksi untukmu.

ku kan coba tuangkan secukupnya susu pada pekatnya kopi di pagi ini. kuaduk hingga kelamnya benar-benar hilang untuk mencerahkan pagiku yang hilang. siapakah yang mau menjadi secercah susu untuk menerangi kopiku?

engkau datang sekedar untuk menjengukku atau hendak menjemputku? Kini mataku matamu, mulutku mulutmu, telingaku telingamu, kakiku kakimu. karena kehendakmu adalah kehendakku.

aforisme status update (part 2)

Tersentak driku dari alam keterasingan. Kucoba mencari dan meraba kebenaran diantara sathohat-sathohat kegilaan.

Dzikirnya tak hanya terucap. Dia tersirat dalam setiap gerak dan nafasnya. Dia terukir di setiap serat ototnya. Dia terpatri erat dan menghujam dalam hatinya. Jantungnya pun memompa pena darah yang mengukir kaligrafi indah di setiap pmbuluh darahnya.

Kau berkata
"cintailah aku!" akupun mencintaimu. Mereka bertanya "apa alasanmu
untuk mencintainya? aku menjawab "cinta sejati tak butuh alasan kawan."
Kau pun tertawa mendengar jawabanku. aku bertanya kenapa kau tertawa?
kau menjawab "ternyata benar, cinta itu buta sayang."

aku tak mampu berdiri, maukah kau mecebokiku anakku?

tahukah kau? saat kau tertatih menapakkan kaki ia dengan tulus menuntunmu sehingga kini kau bisa berlari darinya ketika ia memanggilmu.

aku
bertanya "kenapa tak kau usir lalat-lalat yang mengerubungi tubuhmu?"
dia menjwab "aku merasa dicintai oleh oleh mereka, maka pantaskah
bagiku untuk mengusir para pecinta?

kenapa tak kau beli sekerat roti itu? aku mnjawab "perutku kuajak untuk memerangi nafsunya." ia menyalak "bukan untuk kau makan tapi sekedar untuk membuat penjualnya tersenyum dan bersyukur."

ia mncercap urat leherku, kemudian dengan bibir manisnya ia tiupkan nafas pengetahuan kedalam pembuluh darahku. akhirnya aku menjadi tau segala yang ia tahu.

tak ada yang mutlak di dunia ini. Termasuk waktu. Ternyata waktu juga bisa relatif dan mengalami dilatasi.

Surga bukan tempat orang beriman, surga hanyalah tempat orang yg bruntung.

Kini aku hanya bisa memandang-Nya dari neraka.

Apa yang tampak sebnarnya hanya memantulkan segala definisi dan sifat dari sebuah esensi dzat yang bernama cahaya. Jika cahaya tak ada maka, semua pun tak akan wujud, termasuk benda yang tak kasat mata, ia bisa terdefinisikan karena ada yang kasat mata. Padahal yang kasat mata itu sendri tak dapat mewujud jika tanpa cahaya. Dan esensi cahaya sebenarnya adalah Allah SWT. Allahu nurun al-samwati wal ardhi...

Ketika eksistensi kita sendri tak wajib adanya, masih pantaskah kita menuntut adanya eksistensi lain utk mlayani kita? Mungkin hnya wajibul maujud yang dapat menjawabnya... Bisakah kita hidup tanpa menuntut?
potong kepalaku dengan segala keakuannya, potong leherku dengan segala kecongkaannya, potong urat nafasku dengan segala kelalaiannya, potonglah segalanya dari diriku hingga tak tersisa sedikitpun melainkan cintamu di hatiku.

aforisme status update (part 1)

manusia terlempar ke dunia dsambut oleh jeratan kterpaksaan lingkungan tanggalkan segala belenggu identitas jika ingin bebas menuju nihilisme abadi tanpa kamuflase identitas aku baru sadar bahwa ia juga bagian kamuflase abadi akankah suatu saat dapat kuraih sebuah kepastian???

aku ingin dari balik tirai itu kau sekedar mengintip memancarkan gelombang kasih lewat teduhnya pandanganmu memuaskan imagiku akan sekelebat perhatian atau setidaknya aku bisa mencuri pesona rona wajahmu. akh, aku mulai gila akibat tafakur liarku

aku hadapkan wajahku kepadamu. kuharap kau tak berpaling dariku.

dan dibalik kemarahanmu, aku akan tertawa. menikmati sarkatis kebodohan yang kupuja. meski aku tahu, kau benar-benar mengintaiku. aku terlanjur larut dalam ekstase apatis. maka saat itu pula aku menjadi skeptis sejati. termasuk tentang eksistensimu

aku lelah menunggu kau beranjak mataku tak sanggup lagi mengikuti polah gemulai langkah malas asaku terhempas keacuhanmu kuputuskan untuk menerabas nilai-nilai cipta batas puaslah kini aku bercita menertawakan gelimang tubuh lemahmu

akan kugadaikan kejenuhanku untuk menebus rindu kepadamu lalu kau tertawa mellihat ketidak berdayaanku aku hanya bisa tesenyum di ambang nadir sadarku.

tak pernahkah kau berfikir tentang kebahagiaan
kesedihan tak lain hanyalah ketiadaan akan ia.
carilah jejak-jejak rasa dalam hidupmu
sedihmu ternyata hanya bagian dari sekelebat ego
napak tilas langkahmu tak pernah berhenti menghantuimu...
jika tak segera membunuhnya kau akan terabsen dari ketidaksedihan.

kubiarkan keegoisanku menguasai kesadaranku. aku ingin bebas tanpa terpengaruh apapun dan siapapun. namun akhirnya, kalam nafsiku menjerit dan meronta untuk bebas dari keegoisanku sendiri. sampai sekarang aku masih terkekang dalam alam ciptaan ide.

terkadang aku ingin terbebas lepas dari dimensi ruang dan waktu, aku ingin terpelanting terbang tanpa mengacuhkan batas ruang, tanpa diburu keniscayaan waktu. persetan dengan rumus-rumus dan hukum-hukum keparat ciptaan alam. tergilaslah diriku dalam ekstase pemberontakan.akhirnya kubiarkan kalam nafsi mengumpat dalam kesenyapan. djan***

kuhancurkan sangkar ego
luluh lantaklah semua hasrat
kutebar semua rahasia dosa
kusebarkan virus-virus cinta dalam udara kehidupan
kupaksa mereka menghirup kamuflse kesengsaraan

Roland Barthes: Semiotic, The Collapse Of Meaning Authority

At the first time, semiotic was introduced by Ferdinand de Saussure through dichotomy of atomistic sign system: signified, signifier/ signifie and significant. This concept saw that meaning will be appeared if there is associative relation between what signed (signifier) and what to be signed (signified). Sign is unity from a signifier and idea or signified. A signifier will be meaningless without signified, and cause of that it’s not called by sign. And on the contrary, a signified cannot be extended without signifier. Signifier and signified couldn’t be separated, both of them is sign itself, they thus are a linguistic factor. “Signifier and signified are unity like two sides of a paper sheet” said de Saussure.
Roland Barthes is one of de Saussure followers who has opinion that a sign system reflected assumptions of certain society in certain time. Semiotic or semiology basically wants to study how humanity signifies things. In this case, to signify cannot be mixed with to communicate. Signify means those object want to communicate and also constitute structural system of sign.
The important thing which Barthes penetrated in his sign study is about the role of reader. Even connotation is original attribute of sign, also need reader activity to be functioned. Barthes explain clearly what he often called by second meaning system that built on other meaning system before. This second system is connotative. And semiotic approach is located in this second stage or in signified stage, then the message will be whole understood.
Roland Barthes made a systematic model to analyze the meaning of signs. His attentions more focus on two order signification concept. The first signification relation between signifier and signified in a sign toward external reality. He called it by denotation, that’s the real meaning of sign. Connotation is Barthes’ term to call the second signification. This describe the happen interaction when sign meet reader’s emotion and his culture values. Connotation has subjective meaning, at least inter-subjective meaning.
In this case, denotation is associated by closedness of meaning. As a reaction to against oppressive of literal denotation, Barthes try to refuse and eliminate it. For him the only exist is connotation. While denotation is the first and the real meaning of text that is untouched by human mind and its area is only in metaphysic world (maybe like idea in Plato term). And what is spread in human understanding is just connotation.
A few comments:
I saw his though is like other poststructuralist or postmodernist, like Derrida and Michel Foucault, then his theory destiny will be not far away from his other same philosophy genre. His though build anti-establishment. A text will be loosed his meaning in reality, because no one has a right to justify the real meaning of the text, even its author. Consequently, there are no differences between a beauty literature works and the bad one. All of it are fused in a universal text, that’s mythology. This concept is really unfinished solving.

walLahu a’lam….

Jacques Derrida: Deconstruction, Desacralization of Text

When we claimed that our scripture is the right one and the best scripture, and we admit that no other texts can equal with it, nothing else like it, just now we did what Derrida call by logosentrism. Logosentrism at least has two characteristics. First, the present procedures must be admitted as the most general orientation. Second, those procedures couldn’t be debatable and questionable.
It’s the main concept of his thought that he defined it based on semiology perspective, in practical interpretation discourses, language became very important. Derrida prefer emphasize to written language rather oral language. He argues that all of thing that able to be claimed in written language –like it’s just derivative and only refer to other signals- actually also cold be applied in oral language. So, written is able to be seen as footstep, trace sole of foot which we have to research it continually until we find the foot master (what we call by the quested meaning). The thinking, writing, and creating process based on footstep principle is what Derrida call by differance.
“Difference” is France word that its pronunciation is exactly same with “difference”. This world derived from differer that has meaning of “different” and “delay or tow” all at once. We can’t distinguish differance and difference only with hearing oral language because they have same pronunciation. This is special treatment of written language which evidence written superiority than oral language as he believes.
He state loudly that trace precedes object. Actually trace is not effect but cause of. This concept enables to think the presence as effect of trace. Thereby the presence is no more original thing, but derivation of trace. He give an example, maybe people said a trace which is leaved by a drinking glass indicate to the glass as presence. But for Derrida, the glass must be seen as a trace also which can indicate to tea, kitchen or drinker. Then, tea, kitchen and drinker indicate to something else, and soon.
This trace network is what Derrida called by text or fabric. He return this word to its original language (Latin language) texere that mean wove. For Derrida, there are no existents out of text. Actually reality is nothing, because all of realities are constructed by culture, language or history, those are only text. Because of that, reality consists of a lot of texts by plural truth. There is no universal truth. He strips the truth claims from philosophic discursive system and metaphysic. He did all of it to release interpretation from meaning burden.
a little notes:
After all of realities were deconstructed, until there are no more identities but text that is considered as trace, and to interpret a trace, we must always epoche (tow, take caesura), finally deconstruction concept will bring us to uncertainty. A condition where an identity is not admitted by its owner because all understanding about text always circulate on a playing interpretation. Since all of text interpretations is only game, we has no right to claim something is better than other. Even though it’s possible, what we claim is not certainty acceptable. Because if what we admit is accepted by many people, will be a new logosentrisme also. The ironical consequence of deconstruction isn’t?

Michel Foucault: Power Relation, The Order Truth

Power isn’t possession or ownership but strategy. Usually power is identified by ownership. Power was considered by something could be got, saved, divided, increased or decreased. But in Foucault opinion, power isn’t be possessed but it’s practiced in somewhere there are many strategic positions that related each other and always shifted. So power is not authority which is possessed by certain subject or class like Marx’s conception. However power is an entity that is spread and modeled by everyone in social space and all of it is led by knowledge system.
Something necessary to observed specially is relation between power and knowledge. Knowledge isn’t disguised expression of power relations but knowledge is in power itself. Power produce knowledge not just because knowledge is useful for power. Certainly, knowledge especially science supplied power (science is power, like what Francis Bacon said). However, Foucault intended it to more general thing: there is no knowledge without power. Thereby, power and knowledge building never became independently. Power and knowledge like two sides of currency. Both of them cannot be separated, even leaning into identical.
Because of its soft form, the power/ knowledge always make individual cognition as its main target. This knowledge individualization produced individual identification based on the logic of binary opposition, a thought model which always positions everything into two contradictive poles. In this stage, the term of “we” and “they” is mapped. Then, which one is normal and deviation are determined. Of course, the identity of “we” always on normal pole and the opposite position always refers to “they”.
Every action and every historical event is seen by Foucault as an exercise in the exchange of power. He has spent a large bulk of his career analyzing the ebb and flow of power in different situations and with relevance to different aspects of human life. Structure organizes and broadens the web of power. The overall volume of power rises with each individual involved in the play. The society is a huge web, and much of the power tends to be concentrated toward the higher echelons. Foucault sees the exchange of power in very active terms: "isn't power simply a form of warlike domination?" It is difficult to sort out just who is fighting the war, since Foucault seems to lean toward the "war of all against all" notion. Power flows simultaneously in different directions and different volumes according to the various forms of "power relations" in the "network" of power exchange.
Each society creates a "regime of truth" according to its beliefs, values, and mores. Foucault identifies the creation of truth in contemporary western society with five traits: the centering of truth on scientific discourse, accountability of truth to economic and political forces, the "diffusion and consumption" of truth via societal apparatuses, the control of the distribution of truth by "political and economic apparatuses," and the fact that it is "the issue of a whole political debate and social confrontation." Individuals would do well to recognize that ultimate truth, "Truth," is the construct of the political and economic forces that command the majority of the power within the societal web. There is no truly universal truth at all; therefore, the intellectual cannot convey universal truth. The intellectual must specialize, specify, so that he/she can be connected to one of the truth-generating apparatuses of the society.
Because of this, Foucault sees "the political problems of intellectuals not in terms of 'science' and 'ideology,' but in terms of 'truth' and 'power.'" The question of how to deal with and determine truth is at the base of political and social strife.

A few comments:
Well, his power relation theory is very interested concept. I almost agree with all of his opinion. What he sparked is happened in reality because his theory based on his research almost entire his life. However, after thinking of his though more deeply, I find negative effect of his theory.
I remember a mythos said a supernatural person will be loose by his own weapon. I try to apply this mythos to his theory. Finally, what he sparked will be boomerang for himself. He said truth is only construction of society regime so there is no universal truth. This will take effect an understanding that truth is nothing but only power of regime. Therefore someone will free to do what they want even criminality. I can’t imagine if all of people in this world follow his thought. There are no more values and morality although there are some moral people. I think not all his theory could be applied in reality. Maybe it’s only a discourse to remember us that what we call by truth is relative and could be changed.

Jean Paul Sartre: Re-questioned the Existence of God

It is taboo thing in our society when we try to “playing our thought” in God area. Even there is a fair feeling to do it. Because the religious ideology was engraft not to brave to think about it. Who has a doubt about His existent, he was apostate. Even to think about His essence is forbidden. If as this religion teaching is contradicted by its mission to human. Religions required human in order to worship God, but in other side religion forbid them to think about what they must to worship. This condition continually became big problem in all religion.
The ironical thing also influence many of philosophers thought. They also oriented their thoughts to confirm this teaching. Facing this condition, Sartre doesn’t satisfied with their thought, by adopting and adapting the methods of phenomenology Sartre sets out to develop an ontological account of what it is to be human. By his existentialism theory he want to against rationalism that pioneered by Rene Descartes. He defined existentialism as a teaching which causes the being of human live. Man is nothing else but what he purposes, he exists only in so far as he realizes himself. Beside it, he defined existentialism as a teaching affirmed that every truths and actions contain an environment and a human subjectivity. It’s also called by a human universality of condition.
Existentialism cannot be separated by consciousness, because consciousness is the cause of existence. Self consciousness is being in itself (etre-in-soi). Being in itself is necessary and enough requirements for consciousness. We’re not need to Transcendental Subject or Absolute I as what Idealism understand. And etre-in-soi is awareness of something else. When I aware of something, it means I’m not that thing. If I saw a picture on wall or a glass on table, therefore I’m not the picture and the glass.
Meanwhile nothingness emerges with human by etre-pour-soi (being for itself). Human is the carrier of nothingness. The special activity of erte-pour-soi is “to nihilate”. To ascertain being or nothingness of Pierre in restaurant, firstly, we must saw restaurant, table, chair, guest, air etc as background of being-nothingness of Pierre. This is the “nihilation”, when we saw restaurant, table, chair and whose presence in that place as not Pierre. The nothingness of Pierre is only confirmed by “nihilate” beings (other Pierre). So nothingness emerge by “nihilate” world. Nothingness always haunt being, cannot be separated. From this concept, he analogize the nothingness of God.
He pulled down Descartes’ subjectivism theory. Descartes and his followers said cogito ego sum (I think therefore I am), which mean essence precedes existence, he loudly said the opposite of proper theory “Existent precedes essence.” Usually the previous existentialist said in order to make a table, the artisan must first have a conception of the table. Sartre argues not so with human being, if Allah isn’t exist, at least there is a creature which its existence is being before its essence, a creature that exist before he was determined by many of conceptions about his existence. That’s human.
We come into the world existent but without a nature, without essence. We define ourselves while existing. We are the sum of our experiences. So man simply is. Stand on this radical statement he always yell out the freedom of human being by his popular dictum “human condemned to be free.” There is no one can force us when we do something. What we do is our choice. Even, extremely for him life is choice. I cannot not choose, if I do not choose, that is still a choice.

A Few Apologies
Personally, I saw what Sartre did is so radical and extreme. In my opinion, if his aim only to release human being from their shackles is not must to ignore the existent of God. I also saw his theory about being and nothingness is more leaned to empiric concept. He didn’t believe God just because of His absent from sensory perception. I don’t know exactly whether this theory is only his disappointed expression to God because of his sufferings life.
I don’t blame his existence concept, even I’m in the same opinion with his existence precedes essence statement, but only in the way of thought not in the real reality. We are still creature, not The Creator. So in reality his concept only could be applied in God as a Creator.

Karl Heinrich Marx: Materialism: An Effort to Destroy Caste Screens

Marx confronted “what determine society development isn’t their consciousness isn’t what they think about themselves but their real condition that’s situation and condition of people life. So that’s not something abstract only in our mind, imagination, expectation, but the facts/ being conditions, the real life process. Human method to produce what they need to live is society condition. Thereby, society condition influenced not only people development but also their own consciousness.
What Marx called by society condition is productions and works of human. Human is determined by production, either its product or the way. This view is called by Materialism, it means the basic of human activity is human works. In this case, Marx accepts Feuerbach opinion that the last reality is sensory object which is understood by works or production. However, the difference from Feuerbach is sensory world around it isn’t something suddenly being, but universe is product of industries and society in universe meaning is product of history.
Term history refers to Hegel as dialectical process is accepted by Marx. But there is a difference understanding. History Marx definition is classes buffetings to realize freedom, not about actualization of Spirit Soul, also not about thesis-antithesis Subjective Soul and Objective Soul, but regarding life contradictions of society moreover in economic and production activity. So to understand human and his change is unnecessary to observe what human think, but by seeing everything about production.
Likewise human consciousness and his expectation are determined by their condition in society in this case in social class. The example is the worker (proletarian class). The absent of ownership from production tools make them perforce historically have not choice of action. The aim and their historical activities were destined in their life condition that dependent on the owner of production tools will. Because of this condition, the way of production determined the way human think. The logical consequence of this condition is the way of proletarian thinking is how to survive and the way of owner thinking is how to have greatest number of production tools. From those, cold down several things. First, the way of production can determine the being of social classes. Second, the membership of social classes determined people interest. Third, interest determined what be expected and what people consider about good and bad.
After all, what he firstly wants to struggle now became justification of brogues attitude. Even though he admits that he is not Marxism, it will always adhere on him. Thus, the brogues will always dominate and colonize proletarian. And his concept became basic of colonization around world. Therefore, it could be said that his effort was failed. Moreover he loudly defies all of spirituality form. It’s affirmed his though is oriented only into material thing.

Nietzsche: The Perfect Man/ Insan Kamil (Ubermensch) Nietzsche Version

At the first time hearing term Ubermansch remember me about perfect man concept that familiar in Sufi’s term. Almost Sufi has this concept as their spiritual experiences. I’m interested to research it, moreover after knowing that Ubermansch concept is inspired from Zarathustra, a Persian Prophet before century. Whereas Nietzsche said God was dead because we have killed Him.
Seeing from linguistic side, “Uber” in “Ubemansch” has determined role to shape entire meaning of Ubermansch which will to power as spirit to cope with self. Therefore, it will be proper if Ubemansch is defined as superman or overman.
Ubearmansch is human way to give meaning to himself without turning from existing world to across world. So, Nietzsche didn’t believe to all of highly values from human and this world. To give meaning could be attained through Ubemansch. Ubermansch is the human form which considers himself as value source. Who reach Ubermansch stage is someone who always says yes for everything and ready to face all of challenges and has attitude to affirm his life. Without it, Ubermansch never be created. So, Ubemansch will never abjure and fear in facing his gigantic life impulse.
Nietzsche believe that human way to reach Ubermansch and step to leave animal status is always is dangerous. And human is an incessance across and transition creature. He said human condition is existed in medium between animal status and Ubermansch.
In Ubermansch concept, the only needs are freedom and will to power. The success measure is feeling about increasingly power. However, Ubermansch is only reached by all individual capability of human. Power here isn’t mean brutal strength or domination toward others, but something similar with “the absent of afraid feeling” (fearlessness). When we are motivated to will to power, whatever we amazed or we will to emulate it must represent the power. Like (Nietzsche affirmations) self harmony, self control and self consciousness that he describe as calm attitude of Socrates when he drank a cup of toxic hemlock liquid.

A little comment
If Ubermansch is compared with Perfect Man in Sufi’s term especially in Ibn al-‘Arabi and al-Jili concept, Ubermansch is sight more egoistic and individualistic. Ubermansch only focus on individual tenacity to survive and conquer hard gigantic life. Moreover, Ubermansch concept is built on will to power that susceptible often misunderstood by common people as brutal teaching to crush the poor people. It’s different with Perfect Man whose very humanity as medium of God and human who has reflected many of God’s attributes and names in his life activity.

Hegel: Dialectical Culture, the Fading of Traditional Culture

Triadic form of dialectic Hegel that’s thesis-antithesis-synthesis comes from philosophers before Hegel. Antinomy Kantian about numena and phenomena make unfinished opposition. Then Fichte with his theory of knowledge method still emerge controversy even though he rather overstep what Kant explain.
In other side, Hegel dialectic concept also synthesizes subjective idealism type of Fichte’s philosophy and objective idealism type of Schelling’s philosophy. For Hegel, Fichte’s philosophy is named as ‘thesis’ and Schelling’s philosophy is named as ‘antithesis’. Whereas Hegel’s philosophy itself is named as synthesis of both, so the dialectic of Hegel’s philosophy consists of three phases, namely, thesis-antithesis-synthesis. Synthesis as the mediator of thesis and antithesis internally still contains the truth value from thesis and antithesis. The famous proposition which then makes Hegel become more popular is: “all real things are rational and all rational things are real.”
Dialectic is intended also as the thought method to acquire union (synthtesis) of two contradictive things (thesis vs antithesis). With the term aufgehoben, the concept of “being” (thesis), and “nothing” (antithesis) get their union form in the concept of “became” (synthesis). In “became” concept, there are “being” and “nothing” concept, so both of them are canceled or considered nonexistent.
For Hegel, contradictive element is not appearing after we reflect it, but it was exist in object itself. Each thesis has antithesis in its form. Antithesis is included in thesis because both of them idea which related with higher thing. Both are raised and abolished (aufgehoben) in synthesis.
There are three essential elements in Hegel’s dialectic. First, thinking is think inner of himself to himself and by himself. Second, dialectic is result of thought continually about contradiction. Third, the unity of certainty about contradiction is sublimed in unity. That’s the nature of dialectic itself.
When Islam come into Nusantara, many of scholars spread it through culture way. Some of them use local poems, building architecture and include wayang. The first man use wayang as missionary tool is Sunan Kalijaga. At the first time he use wayang golek (wayang/ doll that has three dimensions) as original Javanese culture. However Sunan Giri disagrees with him, because wayang golek is like idol and he afraid what Sunan Kalijogo did will be ally of God. In Islamic teaching (antithesis) make something that is rivaled His creature is forbidden. Finally, based on Sunan Giri advice, wayang is reformed into two dimensions, that’s called by wayang kulit (synthesis).
Along with the progressing time, wayang kulit became thesis because it’s faced by theatrical drama like ketropak and ludruk (antithesis). Then, appear the synthesis one in form of movie. This dialectic will go on never ending. Because while human feel not enough with something he will search and create something new to fulfill the less one, whereas human will not satisfied by what he did and always want get more.
The logical consequence from this dialectical culture is the older tradition/ culture will be faded and leaved. Whereas, in older tradition there are something we couldn’t get it in new tradition. Ironically, we don’t care with our original tradition as our identity. We always prefer the new tradition from foreign country and leave our origin identity tradition. We just aware of it after other people grabbed it from us. In fact, Hegel’s dialectic concept brings the negative effects when it’s applied in society culture.
So, our condition now, based on dialectic concept, we are facing modernity (antithesis) that is impinged by our identity (thesis). Or our modernity habit (thesis) is rammed by our original culture identity. Because everything could be both of them, depend on the point of our view. In the same meaning with what Hegel said contradiction is sublimed in unity. Let’s find the synthesis one of our problem cultures.

Soren Kierkegaard: Religion and Existentialism

The resurgence of Germany idealism became a smack for individual person, because idealism philosopher only embraces “universal” problems. It means they build an epistemological system that is oriented to pure reason. Pure reason isn’t product of individual intellectual but the basic of all reality embryos. Thereby, it cold be said that idealism philosophers saw all of reality in universal and abstract perspective.
Starting from this reality, Soren Kierkegaard build a philosophical system which not wrestle with universal and abstract problems, but the concert and touching individual area problems. Because, according to Kierkegaard, those practical daily problems are concert and became existential human problem. For him, the concert one became starting point of new reflection about human existence meaning. From this foundation he sparked off existentialism concept.
Soren’s though, as critique of Hegel, emphasize subjectivism aspect. Remembering everything basically is manifestation of what Hegel said as soul phenomenology, then human individuality was reduced to be shoal. That will abolish individual responsibility ethically, even make individual existence to be vanish in fold of bevy. His stressing on individual existence will make him considered as the founder of existentialism that will famed by Sartre later.
He saw that the basic thing for human is his condition or his own existent. According to him, existence only applied in human being as concert individual. Because only the concert individual “I” that can existent which really being and presence in the real reality. According to Kierkegaard, to exist is not mean live in abstract and mechanic mode, but continually make new personal and subjective choices.
Soren is famous as religious existentialist because his concept is more inclined to religiosity. He placed human religious existent at the highest stage over other human existence process. He divided existence concept into three stages. First stage is esthetic, when human exist based on his sensory pleasure. The model figure of this stage in west civilization is Don Juan who always hunts the happiness. The second stage is reached by a flying jumping to a phase where human exist with consideration of universal moral in true and false framework. The example of this step is Socrates who immolated himself for the principle of universal moral. The last stage is the peak of faith which cannot be appraised by universal moral that meet with faith paradox character. The model of this stage is Ibrahim in case of his son slaughter. This division existence is also called by dialectical existence.

A little rebellion
As existentialism concept which yell out individual freedom, I saw his theory is halfway. He is still fettered by ethical, moral and religious construction. His theory is so melancholic and not brave enough. He was influenced by Descartes subjectivism, he more focus on human existence and consider that out of human couldn’t be existent. Consequently, he was trapped in dilemmatic subject-object views. So his theory could be classified into anthropocentrism that will be criticized by recent philosophers.

Rene Descartes: Rationalism, a New Mythos

There are two primary sources of knowledge which human got naturally, those are reason and experience. All of knowledge include philosophy always circulate in both of them. Some people prefer to emphasize experience, and the others prefer to reason as their foundation. Who choose the first teaching called by empiricism, and the second is called by rationalism.
Rene Descartes, besides he was called by the founder of modern philosophy he also called by the founder of continental rationalism. His famous concept cogito ego sum became first crossbar for new period of philosophy, that’s modernity. Through his concept he want to affirm that only reason something could be the basic of philosophy, the only one believable principle, not faith and revelation in the same manner as what people hold in middle century. The appearance of Galileo, who find truth through science, is the victory for reason over revelation. Then, since the time, reason is always applied in human problems as modernity foundation.
In this case, human existence is determined by “I” element. Being or nothing of human are influenced and established by I existence as thinking subject. Cogito (I think) is not found through deduction of general principles or intuition. Cogito is found by our own minds, something known through self, not through scripture, legend, people opinion, prejudice, etc. it’s indicate that rationalism exalt subjectivism and individualism. Subject became very central in life until it be consciousness basic of someone existence.
Specifically, Rene Descartes set forth that in order to reach absolute assurance and universal guarantee truth, philosophy included epistemology must use mathematic method as its idealism. Because, according to Descartes the only discipline subject which produce certain and proved cogitation is mathematic. It means if philosophy want to find the certain result or thought, philosophy should make mathematic way as its idealism.
Furthermore, the rationalistic-positivistic paradigm will take some effects in modern life. Some of them are the emergence of subject-object dualism. By centre upon rationalism, the modernity life will consider human as life subject and universe as life object. By this dualism, human became in only his own world, not in surge, but in gap. The relation of modernity human with his universe is definite only as separated observer, not as a part of his cosmos who grappled intimately in it. Human is posited as active subject who free to observe, research, exploit and take over it. While cosmos around is only passive object that freely could be observed, researched and exploited as if it has no relation with the observer itself. That’s the cause of modern human alienation with his own world.
Because of that, rationalism at the first emergence was functioned to accuse mythos, now it became new mythos precisely. The mythologization is happened because of the rational paradigmatic system that his followers make it the one truth and deny truths from other views. Rationalism became a singularity and negated plurality. In its methodological context, modern science basically only know one scientific method that called by observation and experiment. It means there are a lot of possibilities which have truth values also over rationalism.

Plato: Idealism, A Way to Reach the Real Truth

Idealism is often identified by spiritualism. Idealism means feeling all about, and spiritualism mean soul all about. Idealism is derived from idea, something presence in soul. Idealism is one of philosophy sect which glorified soul. According to him, feeling is original image that nothing other than spiritual and soul is located between original image (idea) and sensory world imagination. The meeting of soul and feeling utter an imagination that’s idea world. This sect considers that the only real is idea. Idea is permanent, unchanged and not shifted. Something move cannot be idea.
Idealism has a thought that the many kinds of reality essence came from soul or something equivalent with it, something shapeless and spaceless. The matter is only manifestation of soul. Even, matter actually is nothing. All of reality include human reality is soul. Soul takes over not only individual human but also human culture. So culture is actualization of idea world and that idea is soul. Because of that, this sect was besides called by idealism could be called by spiritualism sect.
Principally, idealism sect undergirds all of being. The real thing in universe is only idea, idea world is spiritual field which its form is different with the obvious world that visible and can be pictured. While its space has no limit and the last pillar of idea is arche. It is return place of perfection which idea world calls it as God. Arche is eternal and unchanged.
In idealism view, value is absolute. What said by true, false, beautiful or not fundamentally is unchanged from generation to generation. Truthly, value is permanent. Value is not created by human, but it is part of universe (cosmos). As an example he ever said beauty is not manifested as a face, hand or other physical things, it also not a discourse, knowledge or as form in living thing, earth, sky, or anything else, but it’s “existing itself by itself with itself” and always unique in “form”. While, all beauty of other thing participated appropriately with the “form” way.
Idea is the highest truth. And the highest idea is goodness. In religion term, the goodness idea is often identified by God. The duty of ideas is to lead human minds became example of experience. Who has taken over idea will know the certain way. Therefore he can use it as a tool to measure, classify and appraise all of daily things.
Beginning from idea eternity, Plato admits there is universal objective truth in this world, that’s idea itself. And the truth could be reached only by mind reason. Since that time, the ancient rationalism had emerged. Because of that, Plato was known by the founder of classical rationalism.
A few notes:
After reading all of Plato concept about idea, a glance I grasp some similarities with wihdatul wujud concept that introduced by Ibnu al-‘Arabi. He said there is nothing in this world but the One. There are no realities in this world but Him. All of visible thing are manifestation of His activity. But it’s just a speculative opinion from me.
What I re-questioned from this theory is about value. Idealism said that value is permanent and not created by human. Well, this concept later will be criticized by post modernists. In fact, values, whether good or bad, beauty or not are constructed by people. So there is no certainty in this world. All things include values will be changed. For example, previously, woman wear trousers is something taboo in our society, but now it be something usual even became a special trend.

Merefleksi Humor Nabi: Lelucon Sarkatis untuk Penguasa

Oleh: Warih Firdausi

Dalam sebuah perjamuan antara Rasulullah dan para sahabatnya, muncul ide iseng sahabat Ali ibn Abi Thalib kw yang kebetulan duduk disamping Nabi untuk mengerjain beliau. Semua kurma yang dia makan, bijinya dilemparkan ke depan Nabi. Maka menumpuklah biji kurma yang dimakan Nabi dan sahabat Ali di depan Nabi. Kemudian sahabat Ali nyletuk “ ternyata baginda Nabi makannya paling banyak sendiri ya…” sontak tertawalah seluruh sahabat dalam perjamuan itu. Tanpa berpikir panjang Nabi menjawab guyonan sahabat Ali “masih mending saya makan kurmanya saja, lihatlah Ali, ia makan sampai biji-bijinya.” Meledaklah tawa para sahabat melebihi tawa yang pertama tadi.
Mendengar kisah ini saya sangat terhibur, takjub, terharu sekaligus sedih. Terhibur karena humornya sangat lucu sekali. Takjub akan kecerdasan otak beliau yang luar biasa cepatnya membalas “serangan” sahabat Ali dengan jawaban yang tak terduga. Terharu, melihat kedekatan beliau yang nota bene seorang pemimpin dengan rakyatnya. Sedih, karena saya merasa keadaan Negara kita tersindir secara halus oleh humor sarkatis beliau. Nabi benar-benar manusia mulia dan sangat sempurna, sehingga dalam humornya pun sarat akan hikmah kebenaran, sesuai dengan sabdanya “inni laamzahu waushaddiqu (Sungguh saya ini juga bercanda tetapi dalam kebenaran).” Agaknya sunnah Nabi inilah yang diamalkan oleh guru bangsa kita almarhum Gusdur.
Dalam kondisi Negara kita saat ini, sangat sulit menemukan sosok pemimpin yang meneladani sifat-sifat luhur Nabi. Dalam sistem pemerintahan kita saat ini terlihat ada long distance antara masyarakat dan para pemimpinnya. Tampaknya para penguasa kita masih banyak yang menjaga jarak dengan masyarakatnya sehingga terjadi banyak miss-komunikasi antara keduanya. Tak luput presiden kita agaknya juga sedikit sensitif sehingga demo yang tujuannya untuk mengkritik kejumudan programnya dianggap melecehkan kedudukannya. Jika Negara diibaratkan sebuah tim kesebelasan, maka sebuah tim yang tidak memiliki komunikasi yang bagus antara pelatih, kapten dan seluruh anggotanya mustahil akan mencetak sebuah gol.
Ada hal lain yang membuat saya resah dan prihatin, yaitu keserakahan manusia mengeksploitasi alam. Maraknya illegal logging di bumi nusantara ini harus dihentikan. Apakah bencana yang timbul secara beruntun di Negara kita ini tak cukup untuk menyadarkan kita? Jika kekayaan alam kita kuras habis-habisan, mau makan apa anak kita duapuluh tahun kedepan? Mau jadi apa bumi ini limapuluh tahun lagi? Padahal dampak dari global warming saat ini sudah kita rasakan susahnya. Cukuplah Allah SWT mengingatkan manusia dalam surat an-Nisa: 9, “Dan hendaklah takut orang-orang yang seandainya meninggalkan dibelakang mereka anak-anak yang lemah, yang mereka khawatir terhadap (kesejahteraan) mereka. Oleh sebab itu hendaklah mereka bertakwa kepada Allah dan hendaklah mereka mengucapkan perkataan yang benar.”
Sebuah realita lagi yang membuat saya malu (jika mereka tidak malu atau memang tak tau malu) adalah kehendak para pejabat yang ingin dinaikkan gajinya, menuntut fasilitas-fasilitas mewah yang sangat kontras dengan kondisi masyarakat dan tanggung jawab mereka terhadap kewajiban yang mereka emban. Saya teringat pesan moral dari humor Rasululllah di atas, makanlah sewajarnya jangan serakah, sampai ke biji-bijinya kau makan pula. Mungkin juga senada dengan falsafah jawa “ngono yo ngono tapi aja semono” (begitu ya begitu tapi jangan sebegitunya).