Buku: The Orange Girl: Sebuah Dongeng Tentang Kehidupan (Jostein Gaarder)

Bandung, 6 Juni 2017

08:15pm

Hi readers, apa kabar semua?

Kali ini saya mau review satu buku lagi dari Jostein Gaarder yang berjudul The Orange Girl atau Gadis Orange. Novel filsafat ini cukup menarik karena membahas teleskop ruang angkasa Hubble dan tentu saja tentang kisah sang ayah bersama si Gadis Jeruk. Sub Judul buku ini adalah “Sebuah Dongeng Tentang Kehidupan”. Setelah saya baca buku ini sampai selesai, rasanya saya masih belum puas dan belum mudeng dengan ceritanya. Jadi saya baca ulang lagi buku ini. hehhehehe

Dalam buku ini diceritakan seorang anak bernama Georg Roed yang berasal dari Humleveien, Oslo; yang berusia 15 tahun tiba-tiba menemukan surat dari almarhum ayahnya yang sudah meninggal sejak 11 tahun sebelumnya (saat usia Georg 4 tahun). Menjelang ajalnya sang Ayah telah menulis surat untuk Georg di masa depan. Tidak ada satupun anggota keluarga yang tahu bahwa sang ayah menyimpan surat itu di kereta dorong Georg sekian lama. Sampai akhirnya Georg menemukannya saat usianya 15 tahun.

Dalam review ini saya tidak akan membahas banyak tentang si Gadis Jeruk, jika kalian penasaran silahkan langsung beli bukunya saja yah. Saya hanya akan sedikit menyinggung sedikit tentang si Gadis Jeruk.

Kisah Gadis Jeruk dimulai ketika ayah Georg berdiri diluar Teater Nasional di akhir musim gugur tahun 1970-an. Lalu ayah Georg melihat seorang gadis cantik berdiri di lorong sambil merangkul erat sebuah kantong kertas besar penuh dengan jeruk. Gadis itu mengenakan mantel kulit tua panjang berwarna orange. Nah… biarlah kisah Gadis Jeruk ini jadi misteri untuk kalian yang belum baca yah. Karena kalau saya ceritakan semua kok terkesan membocorkan rahasia buku ini. Etisnya beli dulu bukunya, bacalah, dan temukan yah. hehehehehhe

Saya akan bahas tulisan-tulisan ayah Georg tentang Teleskop Ruang Angkasa Hubble saja yah. Dalam buku ini, Jostein Gaarder seakan memuji-muji Teleskop Hubble, entah apakah ini bagian dari sponsor, politik, atau mungkin konspirasi tentang eksistensi alam semesta. Saya kurang tahu pasti, namun yang jelas kalau memang Teleskop Ruang Angkasa Hubble ini benar-benar dapat menangkap ribuan gambar di ruang angkasa, berarti saya harus yakin bahwa bentuk bumi itu bulat yah (bukan datar). Well, walau tidak bisa juga saya menyimpulkan dengan sangat sederhana semacam itu, tapi sekiranya novel ini seperti mengarahkan kita pada perspektif tersebut. ^_^

Teleskop Ruang Angkasa Hubble telah diluncurkan  ke orbitnya seputar bumi dari pesawat ruang angkasa Discovery pada 25 April 1990 dari Cape Canaveral. Para ahli menemukan bahwa ada masalah optik yang serius dengan cermin utama teleskop itu, namun kerusakan ini telah diperbaiki oleh para astronaut dari pesawat ruang angkasa Endeavour pada Desember 1993.

Image result for hubble telescope
Hubble Telescope

Gambar-gambar alam semesta yang diambil dari Teleskop Ruang Angkasa Hubble adalah yang terjelas yang pernah diambil. Ada gambar bintang raksasa Eta Carinae yang sebening kristal, yang jaraknya lebih dari 8.000 tahun cahaya dari sistem tata surya. Eta Carinae adalah salah satu bintang yang paling masif di Bima Sakti dan akan segera meledak menjadi sebuah supernova sebelum sebelum akhirnya mengerut dan membentuk bintang neutron atau sebuah lubang hitam. Ada juga gambar kabut gas dan debu raksasa di Nebula Eagle (M16). Teleskop ini telah mengambil ribuan foto galaksi dan nebula berjarak beberapa juta tahun cahaya dari Bima Sakti.

Related image
Eta Carinae by Hubble Telescope

Related image
Nebula Eagle (M16) by Hubble Telescope

Cahaya bergerak dengan kecepatan 300.000 km/detik. Cahaya dari galaksi-galaksi yang jauh butuh waktu miliaran tahun untuk dapat nampak dari tata surya. Teleskop Ruang Angkasa Hubble telah mengambil gambar-gambar galaksi yang jauhnya lebih dari dua miliar tahun cahaya.

Dalam novel ini ada tulisan yang menurut saya agak lucu, yaitu waktu Georg mengomentari teman-teman perempuannya yang sibuk dengan eyeliner dan lipstick, dan teman-teman lelakinya yang sibuk dengan sepak bola:

“Kenyataannya kita hidup di sebuah planet di ruang angkasa. Bagiku itu adalah pemikiran yang luar biasa. Sekedar memikirkan keberadaan ruang angkasa saja sudah membuat pikiran takjub. Tapi ada anak-anak perempuan yang tidak bisa melihat alam semesta lantaran eyeliner. Dan ada anak-anak lelaki yang matanya tidak pernah melebihi cakrawala lantaran sepak bola.”

Sontak saya tertawa membaca tulisan diatas, entah karena itu lucu, entah karena mungkin saya merasa bahwa saya adalah salah satu wanita yang juga sibuk dengan eyeliner dan lipstick. hahahhaa Namun perkataan Georg ada benarnya juga. Manusia dibuat sibuk dengan apa yang ada di daratan bumi, dalam arti sibuk dengan penampilannya, sibuk dengan kehidupan sosialnya dan sebagainya; sehingga jarang sekali ada manusia yang berpikir tentang alam semesta, atau jarang sekali ada manusia yang takjub melihat, memikirkan, ataupun mempelajari alam semesta. Padahal kita hidup di suatu sistem Bima Sakti, di mana kita tinggal di salah satu planet yang ada di ruang angkasa bernama Bumi. ^_^

Dalam buku ini ditulis arti kata teleskop adalah “melihat sesuatu yang jauh”. Tujuan menempatkan sebuah teleskop di ruang angkasa jelaslah bukan untuk mendekati bintang-bintang atau planet-planet yang akan diteliti oleh teleskop itu. Ide yang melatarbelakangi pembuatan sebuah teleskop ruang angkasa adalah untuk mempelajari ruang angkasa dari sebuah titik di luar atmosfer bumi.

Teleskop Ruang Angkasa Hubble membutuhkan waktu 97 menit untuk mengorbit bumi pada kecepatan 28.000 km/jam. Teleskop Ruang Angkasa Hubble mempunyai dua sayap yang terbuat dari panel-panel surya. Panjangnya 12 m dan lebarnya 2.5 m. Panel ini menyediakan tenaga sebesar 3.000 watt untuk satelit itu.

Teleskop Ruang Angkasa Hubble diberi nama oleh seorang astronom Edwin Powell Hubble. Dialah yang membuktikan bahwa semesta itu mengembang. Pertama dia menemukan bahwa Halo Andromeda sebenarnya bukan sekedar sekumpulan partikel debu dan gas di dalam galaksi kita, melainkan merupakan sebuah galaksi yang sama sekali terpisah di luar Bima Sakti. Penemuan bahwa Bima Sakti hanya merupakan salah satu dari banyak galaksi merevolusi pandangan para astronom alam semesta.

Penemuan Hubble yang terpenting dilontarkan pada 1929 ketika dia mampu memperlihatkan bahwa semakin jauh sebuah galaksi dari Bima Sakti, laju pergerakannya akan tampak semakin cepat. Penemuan ini merupakan landasan dari Teori Dentuman Besar. Menurut teori ini, yang diterima oleh hampir seluruh astronom, alam semesta tercipta oleh sebuah ledakan besar sekitar 12-14 miliar tahun yang lalu.

Menurut Georg, ayahnya sangat mengerti tentang Teleskop Ruang Angkasa Hubble, betapa teleskop tersebut sangat penting bagi umat manusia. Setelah berusia hampir 15 miliar tahun, barulah alam semesta mendapatkan alat yang begitu fundamental seperti mata untuk melihat dirinya sendiri, yaitu Teleskop Ruang Angkasa Hubble yang disebut juga Mata Semesta.

Oh iya, sekali lagi saya masih belum paham kenapa Jostein Gaarder mengangkat tentang teleskop Hubble. Apakah ada kaitannya dengan konspirasi alam semesta antara Globe Earth vs Flat Earth? Saya belum berani berasumsi banyak soal ini. Dan saya pun masih belum mengerti apa kaitannya kisah si Gadis Jeruk dalam novel ini dengan teleskop Hubble? Well, sepertinya akan lebih seru kalau kalian juga baca bukunya dan bisa saling share disini yah. ^_^

Dalam buku ini, Jostein Gaarder menyebutkan lagu Moonlight Sonata dan Unforgettable. Diceritakan ayah Georg seringkali memainkan lagu Moonlight Sonata (Beethouven) dengan pianonya dengan harapan kiranya permainannya dapat terdengar hingga ke seluruh galaksi ruang angkasa.

Sementara lagu Unforgettable disebut dalam buku ini untuk memberikan pengantar bahwa kisah dalam buku ini tentang seorang ayah yang menjelang ajalnya menulis surat untuk Georg di masa depan, sehingga pada saat Georg menerima surat tersebut seakan dia menerimanya dari almarhum sang ayah. Lagu Unforgettable adalah lagu yang dinyanyikan oleh Nat King Cole yang sudah meninggal dunia dan direkam ulang oleh Natalie Cole (anak perempuan Nat King Cole), di mana Natalie akhirnya dapat bernyanyi duet dengan almarhum ayahnya melalui lagu ini.

Well readers, kiranya dua lagu indah tersebut dapat menambah mood kalian jadi lebih baik yah setelah membaca ini. Cerita tentang alam semesta adalah topik yang selalu menarik dan selalu membuat kita penasaran tentang hal-hal yang sulit dilihat dan dijangkau oleh manusia di Bumi. Mari kita berhenti sejenak dari rutinitas kita dan sempatkan diri untuk memandang ke langit dan takjub akan indahnya alam semesta ini.

Thank you for reading…

Sumber:

Gaarder, Jostein. 2016. The Orange Girl. Bandung: Mizan.

You also can follow me on instagram: naomiindahsari

or add me ass friend on facebook: Naomi Indah Sari

 

Whether or not I believed in God

Bandung, February 19th 2017 

6:25pm

Hi readers, I copied the article below from another blog that I follow. He wrote his thoughts about what matter for being a religious or what matter for joining a religion is nonsense. Whatever… Just read it…. 😉 

#############################

I remember around the age of 16/17 being asked by a friend at school whether or not I believed in God. I responded by saying that it would be crazy not to, but I did not believe in God in the way we are taught through the varying religions. So at one level I was saying yes to God but at another level I was denouncing all of the organised religions that I knew. I grew up having been to schools heavily influenced by the Catholic religion and whilst I liked some parts of the teachings, there were far too many discrepancies that I did not agree with and which did not make any sense to me.

This led me to the following conclusions about organised religion:

  • I grew up thinking that religion was something outside of me, where I had to go to a church or a priest to have access. This meant sitting in a cold church on uncomfortable seats, listening to things that in the main did not make much sense to my life!
  • It was something you had to go to on a regular basis. If you did not, you were seen as being bad.
  • You had to renounce your sins and somehow they would be taken away at confession. This starts with the premise that you have sinned and are already bad. It also implies you can get away with anything so long as you confess it afterwards.
  • That in order to be closer to God you needed to be a monk or a priest. This put God out of personal reach.
  • You had Heaven, a state of nirvana or bliss to look forward to at the end of your life… if you lived a good life, otherwise you would end up in hell. This led to a feeling of always trying to do the right and best thing whilst not wanting to own up to or admit mistakes. It led me to try to be a perfect boy growing up – polite, attentive and not saying what I truly felt.
  • You had to prove yourself in order to get to Heaven and that life needed to be hard and arduous. So I could not simply be myself, I was always trying to be someone else, someone better.
  • That you would go to war over your religion. The sheer amount of bloodshed that has been caused over religion is inconceivable. We were told we are all equal, yet those who are not in the religion are perceived as sinners and will go to hell.
  • Illness and disease are punishments from God. This takes away all responsibility for our own actions… leading to us blaming and resenting God and other people.

Now all of those can seem fairly obvious examples of what put me off religion but for me the most insidious one was actually being repulsed and turned off by the word religion itself, so much so that I would run a million miles away from it. When I came across The Way of The Livingness I found it very hard to accept the fact that it was about a religious way of life, and that I already am a deeply religious person. So whilst I struggled internally with this fact, although I knew it to be true, I began to feel how I had stopped fully claiming the relationship with myself, with God and with other people.

I have been almost ashamed or fearful of using the word religion because of its many connotations and so have shied away from using the word in my life. I have even shied away from really opening up about The Way of The Livingness to others, in case they may take it the wrong way. It is crazy in a world where we are led to believe in freedom of speech that I have stopped myself from speaking about the one thing that I hold very dear to my heart.

There are many tenets of The Way of The Livingness which cannot all be listed here, but here are some, which for me show the real and true sense of the word religion:

  • Everything is within me, no one is greater or more special than I am.
  • We are all the equal Sons of God and are born with a knowing of this fact.
  • There is no building you can go to, to be closer to God.
  • We are returning to the love we are and not going anywhere and so are able to live this love no matter what.
  • Access to God or Heaven is not restricted – we simply have to make a choice to connect and live in a way that supports this choice.
  • We are responsible for all of our choices and what happens to us.
  • The doors are always open and no one is ever excluded or judged for their choices.

As I say the list can go on but more is not needed here – this quote says it all:

Honouring the love you are in full and bringing that into full human life forms the basis of a new worldly religious way known as The Way of The Livingness.

(Serge Benhayon, Esoteric Teachings and Revelations, p 648)

It has been a very freeing experience to no longer feel shackled by thoughts that say I am not religious. It is also very freeing to claim that everything I could ever want is already within me.This has taken off a lot of the strain and pressure of wanting and thinking that I need to get somewhere and then, only then, can I let go and be myself.

So yes, I can not only claim that I am religious, I can in fact state that I am deeply religious.

Do I shout this from the rooftops? No, for there is no need.

Do I need to convert people with my words? No, for they will see the way that I live.

Does it matter what anybody else thinks about me? No, for if I am living the love that I am then this is more than enough confirmation for me.

By James Nicholson BNat, Design Consultant, Frome, UK

Source:

Am I Religious? – http://wp.me/p2F6Uc-1jC 


You also can follow my instagram: naomiindahsari 

My facebook: naomi indah sari

Starlight Children: Indigo, Crystal, and Rainbow 

​Bandung, December 20th 2016 

Hi readers, suddenly today I’m wondering about “indigo”, when I searched and read some articles abut this, I found three different types which called “starlight children”, there are indigo, crystal, and rainbow.

Sometimes I’m wondering are those children who indicated as starlight children real or not. If they’re real, why them, who had been chosen? How the parents know, how the children know,  and how the people around them realized if they are starlight children?

Why are they special? Why are they different from other children? I’m also curious about it. Are you one of them?

Happy reading…
Many children being born today are quite unique and different from prior generations. These new children are more connected as they remember our spiritual connection. Each child expresses and experiences it in unique ways. And as a group, they are a more intuitive, more telepathic, more sensitive generation.


Indigo Children

There are older Indigo’s (known as Indigo Scouts) and younger as well.  But the largest number of Indigos came from 1970 through 1995.

They have indigo auras which are connected with the Third Eye’s frequency; these children are creative and some have heightened psychic abilities of clear seeing, hearing, feeling and knowing.


These abilities allow them to hear or see spirits/angels; detect dishonesty; or have accurate inner knowing about events, situations or people. They are sensitive and intuitive.

Indigo’s are Intelligent, quick learners, technologically orientated and often have amazing memories. They are very academic in situations and are direct, determined and confident

Many display warrior temperament yet easily get frustrated with routines, rituals, rules and regulations and are often misunderstood, they can be rebellious and non-conformist as they only accept authority with free-will and respect, They also come across as hyperactive, impatient, in-considerate and direct, BUT, This relates to their high level of creative energies. 

It is therefore important to help Indigo children to divert their energies to creative pursuits such as music, creative writing, arts and craft or even sport to keep them in focus.

Indigos are natural leaders. They are wise old souls returning to lead us into a new age of cooperation, creativity and functional society where there will be no corruption and deceit.

Crystal Children


Crystal Children are here to show the way to peace and acceptance, hence they are also called “The Peacemakers.” Crystals love water, animals, plants, nature, and rocks. They are generous, highly affectionate and forgiving.  Also, extremely sensitive to everything in their environment.

Crystals are highly telepathic, they can read minds and people’s energy.   They tend to communicate with their parents telepathically (sometimes, even before birth).  

It is not uncommon for Crystals to wait until they’re 3 – 4 years old to begin speaking, especially if they communicate easily with their parents without using words. Cystals show an intuitive understanding of spirituality and energy healing.

Born into the Gold Ray of Incarnation and Evolution, which means they have access to gifts of clairvoyance and healing. They are born on the sixth dimension of consciousness, with the potential to open up rapidly to the ninth dimensional level of consciousness, and then from there to the thirteenth dimension, which represents universal consciousness.

The first thing you will recognize about Crystal children is their forgiving nature. They are very sensitive, warm, and caring. Don’t mistake these characteristics as a sign of weakness as Crystal children are also very powerful.

The Crystal child is incredibly sensitive, which stems from the ability to feel universal consciousness. You won’t be able to hide anything from these. You won’t be able to lie to them either, as they will know immediately what the truth is. 

It is important to mention that Crystal children know what is in your thoughts and even more importantly, what is in your heart. This is another reason why they are so sensitive.

Children with a crystal vibration have the ability to reflect things back to the universe that are of no importance to them. Not only will they reflect this energy back, they will reflect it in such a way that it is stronger than when it was taken in.

The trouble comes about when the Crystals are judged by medical and educational personnel as having “abnormal” speaking patterns. It’s no coincidence that as the number of Crystals are born, the number of diagnoses for autism is at a record high.

Rainbow Children


The rainbow children are the third generation of special children that have come to help humanity evolve. The Rainbow children are generally born in the year 2000 and above. 

In some cases, there might also be a few scouts that came to earth before 2000. The few Rainbow children that are here today are born from early Crystal scouts that were born in the 1980’s.

Born on the ninth dimension of consciousness, the dimension of collective consciousness.

As many people might have experienced it, the Rainbow children bring joy and harmony to their families. Unlike the Indigo and Crystal children, the Rainbow child is born to smile, which is accompanied by their huge hearts that are full of forgiveness.

Rainbow children generally recover from a state of negative emotion quickly. This is also an important key that they hold, emotional mastery. Rainbow children are psychic and have the ability to read people’s feelings. This gift is usually revealed, as they grow older.

They have strong wills and strong personalities. Their gifts do not stop there. Known to be natural healers and instant manifesters. It is said that whatever they need or desire they can instantly manifest.

They also resonate with the colors around them. Drawn to color, colorful surroundings and brightly colored clothes. Their energy is expressed in other ways too, as they are high-energy children. Their enthusiasm is demonstrated in their creativity. The Rainbow children are thought to be the builders of the New World, using Divine will.

 

Thank you for reading… 

Source: 

http://humansarefree.com/2014/07/the-new-children-of-planet-earth-indigo.html?m=0

You also can follow my instagram: 


naomiindahsari 


Or add me as friend on facebook: 


naomi indah sari

Religions and Philosophies

Is (or was) Stoicism a religion? I would say no, because there are substantive differences (though there is also overlap) between religions and philosophies, and Stoicism was (and is) primarily a philosophy. It is certainly the case that Stoics can be religious or not — this sort of ecumenicism is one of the main reasons I like Stoicism. It is also true that most if not all the ancient Stoics believed in a god, though they embraced a materialist, pantheistic conception of the divinity, something that moderns can somewhat easily accommodate in the guise of Spinoza’s(sometimes referred to also asEinstein’s) God.

But it wasn’t sophisticated philosophical arguments that recently reinforced in my mind the distinction between religion and philosophy. It was, rather, the simple art of traveling and paying attention to what you see around you.

I have spent four months during the Spring in Rome, writing my forthcoming book, not at all by chance entitled “How to Be a Stoic” (out for Basic Books in April of ’17 or thereabouts). I also then took a side trip to Turkey, part work, part vacation, and ended up in the middle of a coup d’etat. Two episodes during this period are germane to this discussion: seeing the (alleged) chains that bound Saint Peter in Jerusalem and Rome, and admiring a tooth and hairs from the beard of the Profet Muhammad in Instanbul.

Let’s begin with Rome, where my apartment was near the Colosseum and the Roman Forum, but also not far from an unassuming church that contains two major historical and artistic pieces worth seeing. First, San Pietro in Vincoli (literally Saint Peter in Chains) houses a reliquary with the famous chains:

Nobody knows whether the chains are really that old, and much less so if they actually held Peter at any time. I’m pretty sure that the miraculous story of how the chains fused together is not true. According to legend, the empress Elia Eudocia (V Century CE) received one set of chains from the patriarch of Jerusalem. She sent them to her daughter, who in turn gave them to Pope Leone Magno. The Pope already had the similar chains that had allegedly held the Saint when in captivity in Rome. When the two sets were brought near each other, they suddenly and miraculously merged into the single chain we see today.

Ever since, pious Christians come to San Pietro in Vincoli to see the chains, which to them certify a supernatural occurrence that reinforces their faith.

Compare this to the very different second reason to visit the church: the Moses sculpted by Michelangelo in 1513-15, part of the sepulcher of another Pope, Julius II:

People (including, during my stay in Rome, yours truly, several times) go to see the statue not because of its religious meaning (Julius was an interesting Pope, but certainly not worthy of eternal worship — he was justly called the “fearsome” and the “warrior” Pope), but in admiration of the immortal art of Michelangelo.

(Did you notice the two “horns” on Mose’s head? They are apparently the result of a translation error: Exodus tells the story of Moses returning from Mount Sinai with the Commandments for the second time. The phrase “his face was horned from the conversation of the Lord” was translated in Latin by using the word for actual horns, rather than the original Hebrew term “karan,” which means something like shining, or emitting rays, but is similar to “karen,” which actually does mean horns. Talk about being lost in translation!)

So here I was, a non religious person more or less regularly coming to visit the church, not for the reliquary (which I saw once), but for the art.

What does that have to do with philosophy, and Stoicism in particular? Well, that brings me to the second story: my visit to Topkapi Palace. Inside the palace one finds the Chamber of the Sacred Relics. If you visit it, you will see the cloak of the prophet Muhammad, his sword, one tooth, a hair of his beard, his battle sabres, an autographed letter and other relics that are known as the Sacred Trusts.

Entrance to Topkapi Palace, photo by the author

Quite obviously, lots of people visit the chamber in Topkapi as tourists, like I did, but a good number go there as worshippers of the faith began by Muhammad.

Again, compare this to a very different sort of pilgrimage, which I had just done a few days earlier, to modern day Pamukkale, in Turkey. That’s the site of ancient Heirapolis, where Epictetus was born. I walked through the gate of the city (the standing wall is Byzantine, though, not Roman), and visited the splendid theater where Epictetus probably never set foot, since he was a young slave there, before being bought by a better master and moved to Nero’s court in Rome.

The author, walking through the city gate at Hierapolis

I did not go to Hierapolis because I worship Epictetus, or because I have developed a religious feeling for Stoicism. I went there out of curiosity for Greco-Roman history, as well as out of reverence for an intellectual giant that has influenced me personally. And that, it struck me, is the most important difference between a religion and a philosophy.

Religions, of course, incorporate their own philosophies, meaning that Christianity, or Islam, do present their practitioners with philosophical precepts, both in terms of metaphysics and, of course, in terms of ethics. But the worship of a transcendental entity of some sort is a crucial component, without which we wouldn’t recognize them as religions (which is why, for instance, some versions of Buddhism cannot be labeled as such).

When I visited Hierapolis I was in awe of the ancient site, being mindful that Epictetus walked along those streets when he was young. And I did meditate on several passages of the Discourses during my trip. But I don’t think of Epictetus as anything more than a really interesting man. As much as he was famously proud of his philosopher’s beard (Dis courses I.2), I would think it very odd if someone set up a museum featuring some remaining hairs from that beard.

More importantly, I am ready to argue with Epictetus, and Zeno, Chrysippus, Posidonius, Seneca, Marcus, and all the others, because I think they were wrong on this or that. Epictetus leaned too far toward the Cynic spectrum of things, for example, and Seneca’s sexism is downright insufferable, even though it wasn’t at all uncommon at the time. I can do that in good conscience because I am a human being capable of reasoning for myself — and because I don’t think of them as gods to be worshiped. 

Source:

On the difference between religions and philosophies – http://wp.me/p5PZkx-vg


You also can follow my instagram: 


naomiindahsari 


Or add me as friend on facebook: 


naomi indah sari

Shakespeare Vs Donald Trump

Bandung, November 24th 2016

06:00pm

I copied this article from another blog that I follow. Haven’t heard about Shakespeare for so long, and this article is interesting.

Happy reading….😁

I’ve been preoccupied with two people this year. The first, of course, is William Shakespeare. The other, alack, is Donald Trump.

I’ve avoided writing about the latter. It’s not that I don’t see the man everywhere in Shakespeare’s plays. I see him in Richard III’s Machiavellian machinations. In Richard II’s incompetence, overreach, and rashness. I see him in Iago’s Janus-faced manipulations. In Timon of Athen’s extreme egotism. In the glib sexual presumption of Falstaff as he appears in The Merry Wives of Windsor.

It’s that I’ve wanted to keep the two separated. Maybe because I’ve felt the connections were too pat, that discussing today’s politics would be such an obvious, unoriginal move. Maybe because I haven’t wanted to talk about him – because he’s all we ever talk about anymore.

You don’t get to ruin Shakespeare, too, damnit.

Or maybe it’s because, in spite of my efforts to make sense of my mundane life in 2016, I’ve ended up seeking escape in the Bard, trying to locate, somehow, even my self-divulging, self-indulging reflections in a kind of sacrosanct timelessness I want unsullied by the small, groping, orange hands of the 45th president of the United States. You don’t get to ruin Shakespeare, too, damnit.

But if there’s one thing I’ve learned from Shakespeare, it’s that all politics is personal.

***

I’m shocked. I’m angry. I’m scared. I’m eager for action – no,  this middle-class white guy isn’t pretending this essay on Shakespeare makes a meaningful difference. But I’m also longing to understand. To understand my country. To understand people I know – family, for God’s sake – who cast their vote for a bigot. To understand “what happened,” as we’ve been widely referring to Trump’s election.

And it’s this “what happened” that I’ve been stuck on when it comes to Trump and Shakespeare. “What happened?” we ask, bewildered, when Othello kills Desdemona. “How the hell did this happen?” we ask when Lear cradles a dead Cordelia. “Why in God’s name did we end up here?” when ask, beholding Macbeth’s bloodbath. “What happened?” millions of America’s are asking, dazed and gobsmacked, since November 9. The aftermath all seems so unlikely, so improbable, so dramatic. Too dramatic. Laughably dramatic.

What Leontes wreaks is catastrophic, but his original sin is all too ordinary.

Like in The Winter’s Tale. In this romance play, Leontes, King of Sicilia, sees his wife, Hermione, innocently clasp hands with his lifelong friend and King of Bohemia, Polixenes. He becomes paranoid. He silences his advisers. He plots to kill Polixenes. He imprisons his wife, who is pregnant and gives birth while jailed. He wants the newborn burned until deciding to have her abandoned in the wilderness. And, oh my, the ways he talks about women: hagharlotcallathobby-horse,thing. (I’d like to say I’m fishing for Trumpian comparisons here, but no. It’s all there.) And Leontes causes so much terror and stress it ends up killing Leontes’ dear son and Hermione.

How did this happen?

The events are so hyperbolic that we tend to attribute it to larger-than-life personalities and passions, to outsized faults and flaws. Celebrities and Shakespearean villains – they’re just not like us. But we confound the outcome with the cause. What Leontes wreaks is catastrophic, but his original sin is all too ordinary: “I have too much believed mine own suspicion,” Leontes plainly sums it when he first reckons with the death of his wife and son (3.2.149).

Shakespeare, in that extraordinary way the playwright takes us into that interior stage of the mind, lets us glimpse how ‘it happened’ for Leontes. As he works himself up into a frenzy, Leontes rampages:

…Is whispering nothing?
Is leaning cheek to cheek? Is meeting noses?
Kissing with inside lip? Stopping the career
Of laughter with a sigh? – a note infallible
Of breaking honesty. Horsing foot on foot?
Skulking in corners? Wishing clocks more swift,
Hours minutes, noon midnight? And all eyes
Blind with the pin and web but theirs, theirs only,
That would be unseen be wicked? Is this nothing?
Why then the world and all that’s in’t is nothing,
The covering sky is nothing, Bohemia is nothing,
My wife is nothing, nor nothing have these nothings
If this be nothing. (1.2.286-98)

What happened? How did we get here? It was a whisper. It was nothing.

***

We read Shakespeare, we often say, because of how profoundly he probes and depicts human nature. We try to distill his characters down to raw elements: jealousy, ambition, power, hesitation, arrogance, suspicion. Yes, these, but I think Shakespeare ultimately strikes a deeper vein: irrationality.

It seems Shakespeare had something in common with the Founding Fathers: a belief in self-government, and just how radical an experiment it really is.

We, as humans, like to think we’re rational actors. That we make decisions based on the best available evidence. That we weigh choices based on risk and reward. Which is why Shakespeare’s Lears and Macbeths and Leontes evoke so much outrage, pity, and pathos. Why wouldn’t Lear just listen to what Cordelia was saying to him? Why did Macbeth carry out his assassinations in spite of his persistent moral reservations? How could Leontes let his suspicions get so out of hand and so quickly? If only they could see what they were doing, all the suffering, all the loss, all the grief, all the blood and gore would have been avoided. I would never act like that, we tell ourselves as Lear roves the heath and Macbeth talks to imaginary daggers. This is not what I would have done, we say as Leontes, foaming with self-feeding, despotic jealousy, justifies his anger.

Which is precisely why Shakespeare’s tragic figures are so horrifying. Because we do act like them. Because we’re irrational. We turn petty grievances into catastrophes. We let slights fester into disease. We take revenge on others because we are small, broken, needy beings. All for appearing right, to be recognized, not thinking ahead to, and never actually really wanting, the wreckage our egos leave in their wake. We feel guilty when we finally get what we say we want.

As Paulina, Hermione’s faithful attendant, stands up to Leontes:

…Thy tyranny, together working with thy jealousies –
Fancies too weak for boys, too green and idle
For girls of nine – O think, what they have done,
And the run made indeed, stark mad, for all
Thy bygone fooleries were but spices of it. (3.2.177-82).

We’re Leontes, ruled by the petty, childish tyrannies of our unreason – and our blind insistence otherwise – that bemonsters, Hulk-like and Hyde-like, whispers into so much woe. It seems Shakespeare had something in common with the Founding Fathers: a belief in self-government, and just how radical an experiment it really is.

***

Leontes repents. Sixteen years later, magically, it turns out his baby daughter, Perdita, had survived and was raised by a shepherd in Bohemia, where Polixenes’ son, Florizel, has fallen in love with her. But Polixenes will not have his son marry some country girl and responds with all the tyrannical violence of Leontes. The lovers flee to Sicilia, where Leontes reunites with his daughter and discovers Paulina, Hermione’s attendant, has been keeping the queen alive as a statue all this time.

It’s romantic idea, America, but is it a Romance play, where what’s lost is found, what’s divided is reunited? America’s going to need some repentance. It’s going to need some time. It’s going to need a whole lot of self-government, and that starts with checking our inner, irrational autocrats.

Some fairy-tale magic wouldn’t hurt, either. “It is required / You do awake your faith,” Paulina tells Leontes’ court when Hermione’s statue comes alive (5.3.94-95). But we should remember that while Leontes cried in the chapel everyday for 16 years, Paulina was attending to the statue of her Queen every day. That doesn’t just take faith. It takes commitment  and discipline – which require self-government.

And it’s not lost on me that the person who stands up to the tyrant, who puts in the work, is a woman.

Source: 

Shakespeare, Trump, and radical experiments of self-government: The Winter’s Tale – http://wp.me/p76JYn-z1

You also can follow my instagram: 


naomiindahsari 


Or add me as friend on facebook: 


naomi indah sari

Alpha Female is NOT easy!

Bandung, November 20th 2016
10:45pm
Hi readers, right now I’m sharing you some points of alpha female’s characters. I heard about alpha character from my special friend. She gave me an ebook about alpha female character, but actually I still have no time to read it; until an article which written about it appeared on my facebook wall. Based on the explanation below, I think I’m an alpha female; but I shouldn’t be confident about it, I need to do some test to get to know wheter I’m an alpha female or not.

​Some men like their women submissive, sweet, feminine, and nurturing – and hey, there’s nothing wrong with that. But those character are certainly not an Alpha Female.
Alpha Females are badass bitches, it takes a very particular man to be able to handle them. Yes, they might as well admit it now: they are a handful.

Potential Alpha Female Lovers: don’t say you weren’t warned. You best know your woman before you fall head over heels for Miss Independent:

1. She will challenge you.

Not only she will challenge you, but she probably won’t forfeit too easily; she will be persistent and insistent. She will debate with you over anything from the Blasio’s new policy, to the actual color of a tennis ball (green? or yellow?), and she expects to win. Some advice: challenge her back.

2. She doesn’t need a man to make it happen.

If you’re the kind of guy who loves to feel needed all the time, this girl just isn’t for you. She is fiercely independent and prides herself on being self-reliant and self-sufficient: Miss Outta My Way. The great thing about being with an Alpha is that you won’t feel tied down because she doesn’t need you, she wants you.

3. She will be straight-up with you.

If your Alpha has a problem, you will most likely know about it. You can’t expect her to be too gentle with her words, so hopefully you’ll understand that she isn’t trying to be mean – this is just the way she is. But, hey, you won’t need to deal with the typical passive-aggressive bullshit that most girls pull!

4. She’s a do-er, not a talk-er.

Alpha’s take action, so if she says she’s gonna do something – you bet your ass, she’s gonna do it. She probably expects the same in return: if you say you’re gonna do something, you sure as hell better follow through. And if you don’t, she will…so don’t miss the boat, Mister. Hop on!

5. She doesn’t wear her Alpha on her sleeve.

Chocolates? Flowers? One of those Hallmark cards are cute. You can show how much you love her. Yeah, these things will probably make her vom a little in her mouth before it makes her heart melt. Not that she’s a total cynic, but she’s used to the doting – the lovey dovey crap that every girl wants – and in order to get her attention, you’ll need to come up with something a little more original.

6. She’s not easy.

If you think loving an Alpha Female is easy, you’re wrong. She’s difficult, competitive, and probably complicated. She gets off from being free, being in power, and will step on any man who gets in her way. She is, in fact, ab. So. Lute. Ly. Impossible.

7. But she’s definitely worth it.

Her my-way-or-the-highway attitude and complete self-competence will, at times, make you feel small. Instead, let it empower you. Let it strengthen your weaknesses, and let it feed your drive to success. She will help you learn about yourself; she will push you; she will change you; she will impact you. Overall, she will make you a better man.

Point number 1, alpha females like challenging you. But it doesn’t mean they are stubborn. They only want to know how you respon something, what’s your perception about something.

I think point number 2 is representing me. I don’t understand, but I feel uncomfortable when a man acts like I should need him all the time. I need boyfriend, yes, but I don’t like if I should act like I need him so much & depend on him. I really wanna do anything with my own way, of course with full of respect I would ask my boyfriend about something I wanna do. When I act too independent, it doesn’t mean I don’t need partner. I only need & want him understand that I’m different. So don’t treat me like other women.

And I also agree with point number 3, that alpha females don’t do “suck up” to make people happy. Alpha females like telling you the truth. If it’s right, they will say it’s right. If it’s wrong, they will stand for the right thing and don’t ever you argue with them. It doesn’t mean that alpha females are rude, maybe the exact word to describe them is “idealist”.

Point number 4, alpha females don’t talk boolshit. They will say something usefull and also do something important. Don’t talk to much boolshit to them if you don’t want them to leave you.

Point number 5, alpha females are not too cool to not recieve chocolates or flowers. Anthing you called romantic stuffs are ok. The problem is the way you give those stuff. Alpha females will be so happy to accept it, but don’t act like a “drama king”.

Point number 6, why alpha females are not easy; It’s because they want you to respect them. They want to discuss anything with you. So don’t push her to do this or that, because they have their own choices. They are not easy because they want you realize that they are worthy enough for you.

Point number 7. I bet you won’t regret having alpha females as your girlfriend or wife. They know what to think, they know what to speak, they know how to act. What you need to do is, be a great partner for them! Don’t be too careless, but also don’t be too exagerate.

Well readers, are you an alpha female? Don’t worry. Enjoy it. Enjoy your relationship, enjoy your life, enjoy everything. It’s kinda cool being an alpha female right? We have the standard, we have the values. We only need someone who will understand us that we need to love them as who we are. We’re not too feminin, we’re not too boyish. We’re just a bit different from those women. ^_^

Thank you for reading….
With Love,

Naomi Indah Sari
Source:

7 Important Things To Know Before Dating An Alpha Female

You also can follow my instagram: 


naomiindahsari 


Or add me as friend on facebook: 


naomi indah sari

Good Head, Good Character

Victorian phrenology: “To find a good wife, you have to ascertain she has a good head”

A phrenology model showing where on the skull certain character traits are believed to come from. © Bridgeman

Some time in the mid-19th century, the popular musical Florodora declared: “You must choose your wife with phrenological care. For the realm beneath her bonnet has your future mapped upon it.”

Today, the idea of young men basing their choice of future wife on what lies “beneath her bonnet” – ie the dimensions of her head – may seem more than a little ridiculous. Yet 150 years ago, Florodora was offering male suitors some serious advice. The world was in the grips of a phrenology craze, and the ‘science’ of phrenology – which declared that the best way to read an individual’s character was through the shape of their skull – was making major waves. Prison colonies were being built on phrenological principles and none other than Queen Victoria herself was asking phrenologists to inspect her children.

Phrenology was pioneered by physicians such as Franz Joseph Gall (1758–1828), who believed that the brain is made up numerous organs, each linked to a faculty such as benevolence and destructiveness. As such, a protruding forehead – where the ‘perceptive’ organs resided – could indicate an impressive intellect, whereas a bump on the crown was the sign of a strong sense of morality.

These ideas certainly struck a chord. Phrenological societies sprang up from New York to Calcutta, and audiences were soon flocking to lectures on the science of the skull. These people genuinely believed that phrenology could make the world a better place. Read on to find out how…

An illustration from 1883 shows the phrenology chart of the skull. Phrenologists believed that the brain is made up of a series of organs that govern a person’s character. © Getty

 

How phrenology was used to…

Find the perfect wife:

For the Victorian bachelor, picking a wife could be tricky. Most were no doubt after someone who would conform to a male-dominated society: looking after the children and home, and taking an interest in her husband. But how could you be sure you were getting ‘the one’? Help came in the form of phrenology. Published in 1841,Coombe’s Popular Phrenology helpfully explained: “One of the first requisites in a good wife is to ascertain that she has a good head.”

Two phrenological organs were important: ‘Philoprogenitiveness’, which produced affection for children and ensured that your future wife would be a good mother; and ‘Amativeness’, which controlled sexual desire. Too little, and the wedding night might suffer. Too much, and you were at risk of being cuckolded.

In a society in which it was believed that female sexuality should be carefully regulated, phrenological manuals on marriage proved incredibly popular.

 

Rehabilitate criminals:

Every week, a phrenological lecture was held at the women’s prison in New York. The matron, Mrs Farnham, decided that the Bible wasn’t doing the inmates much good. Instead, she started reading aloud fromThe Constitution of Man, George Combe’s classic exposition of the merits of phrenology. Soon, fellow reformers in Europe and Australia were also turning to phrenology in a bid to rehabilitate the growing prison population.

This was all part of a broader change in attitudes towards crime in the 19th century. Many started to see physical punishment as ineffective, a relic of a bygone era. Rather than executions and whippings, criminals needed to be reformed. New prisons became the markers of a modern civilised society.

But what characterised the criminal mind? And how could it be fixed? Enter phrenology. Mrs Farnham explained how the development of the brain distinguished criminals from the rest of the population. A large organ of ‘Acquisitiveness’ (just above the ear – see illustration right) increased the temptation to steal. This was particularly problematic if combined with a bump around the area associated with ‘Conscientiousness’. The warden hoped that once the inmates understood how their brains worked, they could practise more self-control.

 

Educate the ‘weak-minded’:

The world’s first ‘phrenological school’ was set up in Calcutta in 1825, the brainchild of East India Company surgeon George Murray Paterson. He was obsessed with the malleability of the brain and suspected that education could change the physical organisation of the mind.

Each morning the Bengali pupils had their heads measured with a pair of callipers. After six months Paterson found that the areas of the brain associated with intellect – at the front of the head – had apparently shown great improvement. This supposedly supported the typically racist colonial belief that Indians were degenerate and weak – it was thought only British education and culture could turn them into civilised subjects.

 

Campaign for the abolition of slavery:

Charles Caldwell was a slaveholder and a phrenologist, which wasn’t unusual. Phrenology found supporters right across the US in the 19th century, and particularly among southern plantation owners. It provided an apparent justification for slavery, one allegedly grounded in the latest scientific theories. Most disturbingly, skulls of murdered slaves were even sold to phrenological collectors.

Caldwell, a Kentucky physician, helped popularise the subject in the south. In the 1820s he travelled down the Mississippi river to New Orleans on lecture tours. According to Caldwell, Africans had small intellectual organs. These, combined with large animal organs, rendered them unfit for freedom.

What is fascinating, however, is the response from abolitionists. Rather than rejecting phrenology, many abolitionists thought it could be used to help their cause. According to them, African heads showed signs of “improvement” when slaves were given a proper education. This contradicted the claims of men like Caldwell who argued that Africans would never reach “an equality with the Caucasian”. Still, for those on the receiving end of slavery, even the abolitionist argument sounded pretty suspicious. Why bother with phrenology in the first place?

The African-American James McCune Smith, born a slave in New York, put it best. White abolitionists and slaveholders, he wrote, were just as guilty as each other, both subscribing to the “fallacy of phrenology”.

 

Start a revolution:

Gustav von Struve was the editor ofZeitschrift für Phrenologie, a phrenological journal published in Heidelberg, Germany. In the 1840s, Struve linked phrenology to his impassioned political campaigns. He wanted to bring democracy to Europe and end the stranglehold of the despotic princes. By 1848, Struve decided that he was tired of waiting.

This was the year in which a wave of revolutions swept across Europe. Struve joined the Hecker Uprising in Baden, determined to bring about political change by any means. “Phrenology is at the bottom of all my doings,” Struve explained in the middle of the violent rebellion. For him, this new mental science proved that all men and women, rich and poor, were subject to the same laws of nature. As such, men like Leopold I, the Grand Duke of Baden, had no right to tell the masses what to do. Phrenologically, the people of Europe were entitled to rule themselves.

Struve wasn’t the only revolutionary phrenologist. In France, supporters of the 1830 July Revolution founded the Paris Phrenological Society. In 1870s India, phrenology was taken up by anti-colonial nationalists, rallying against the injustices of British rule. And in the early 20th century, the first Chinese phrenological books were published in the wake of the 1911 revolution.

 

Entertain the masses:

Over 6 million people visited the Great Exhibition in Hyde Park in 1851. The Crystal Palace housed all the triumphs of the Victorian age. Those interested in the sciences could also see a complete collection of phrenological busts. They were the work of an artisan named William Bally, a popular lecturer based in Manchester. Bally’s busts were unique because they were manufactured as miniatures, small enough to fit in your pocket and take home as a souvenir.

The collection included something for everyone, from busts of painters, poets and famous Greek philosophers, like Aristotle, to criminals.

Phrenological lectures and museums also drew big crowds. The phrenologist George Combe conducted a two-year tour of the United States, selling out venues in New York City and Philadelphia. In Paris, visitors paid to see Pierre Dumoutier’s phrenological collection on rue de l’École-de-Médicine. The museum housed plaster busts of Pacific Islanders and West Indian slaves. For the French proprietor, the prize exhibit was a bust of Napoleon Bonaparte.

Exhibitions like these transformed phrenology into a social and political movement. Phrenology was a science of the people. It had something to offer no matter what your background – whether you were a working-class labourer or Queen Victoria herself.

Dr James Poskett is a historian of science, race and print at the University of Cambridge. He is the Adrian research fellow at Darwin College 



Source:

http://m.historyextra.com/article/premium/find-good-wife-you-have-ascertain-she-has-good-head?utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=bitly&utm_medium=facebook


You also can follow my instagram: 


naomiindahsari 


Or add me as friend on facebook: 


naomi indah sari