Acceptance

It took a while
for you
to realise that the world
isn't flat

but it might take longer
for you
to accept that the world

isn’t round

either

Limitation

Limitation


Limitation is what people always turn the blind eye to. Limitation is undesirable. It is something people don’t like because it represents, show, and assure human’s “inability”.


All the time, human try to find ways to improve their ability in doing things. So what they will hate the most is the opposite side of doing so—limitation.

Academic Blog

Academic Blog

Blogs are written because, first of all, there are some things that people want to express. Blog is the solution of this expression in ways that in functions as a place or a space for expressions of and about things. What expressed in blog can be anything. From raw to defined. Impossibility to inexistence.


The origin of blog apart from the content itself is composed of two elements mainly. First is the “free” virtual space called “world wide web” along with its immediate access giving the “power” of free expression to those in need of expression. Second is the unsure feeling of being refused by the set of “standards” required by “the other place” available for expression particular types of expression of particular groups of people.


Therefore, not only does the blog function as a place for expression that is free of rules or tight standard to be fulfilled, also is it a place for an escape!

Blank

Blank

There is no absolute emptiness and nothingness in this world; there is only a being of emptiness within which almost everything is possible. The fact that it is called “emptiness” or “nothing” is only another limitation of language which works as a guardian against fear and dreadful uncertainty.

The easiest example for this would be that a “thing” is not an opposite word of “nothing”.

History II

HISTORY II:

Parallel History

Termed right at this moment by the Dibrinian concept, PARALLEL HISTORY is the two stories about the same event with different angles which can be totally opposite to each other.

For example, the events in the history of one country may not be the same thing in the history of its neighbouring country. It can even be offensive to them in case of occurring conflicts, if any.

The Parallel History is a good demonstration of interpretations, judgements, and prejudice involving in writing stories. This proves once again that history isn’t any more credible than those we have heard of.

Another angle that Dibrini would like to think about the Parallel History is that when a story is a “history” to one group of people, it might be only a rumour or even a false story to other group of people. The world has its own history, the story of human races and animals and cultures and civilisations. On the other hand, human see the story about aliens and lives outside the planet earth as something that still has to be proved true. They might not see it this way (if there is a “they” out there”). Everything that has been written about those outside the earth can best be only “a fiction” or a little better “a science-fiction”—it can never be a history.

Do human know that their history, the story about themselves, can only be a Parallel History for “the others”?

HISTORY

HISTORY

There are so many things in this word. Origin, development, directions, innovation, evolution, change, metamorphosis, power, race, gender, domination.

First of all, not everyone gets to write the content of history. Only important persons get to write history; as the matter of fact, only what they think should be history are recorded as history. In the process of history formation (by those who get to write it), topics are “selected” out of many others that are “less” important. Here, there lies a considerable amount of judgement on what are more and less important than others that should be written as history. It is not only the judgement itself but the judgement of a group of people (not everyone involved in the content of history).

It is fair to say then that history is only another kind of story like such things as bedtime story, ghost story, and rumours. It is not always true. It may be not true at all in some cases. Like all other stories, it is up to our own judgement (again) what to believe or not to believe. Human may praise history over other types of story but really there is no rigid evidence that history is more credible than all those we have heard.

Parallel History
Human essences

DICTIONARY

Dictionary

Here is the place where things are defined with human language tools that has been built to ease the exchange of understanding. However, this purpose of this tool limits the understanding of the ultimate reality by building a perceptual wall against one.


Therefore, dictionary based on the construction of language is the where the limitation of interpretation and understanding of reality and things in it is “clearly” defined. It frames what should be seen and what shouldn’t about things. There are so many examples around human activities of this Dibrinian claim. For example, human call the used meaning outside their dictionary of a word inside the dictionary “a slang”. Not long after that, they realise that they have to include that meaning in their dictionary for reason that they WANT the dictionary to be the place where everything is defined. Now the dictionary either gets fatter and fatter, or grows into many categories of dictionary such as scientific dictionary, music dictionary, Shakespearean dictionary, dictionary of slangs, etc.


When human have too many types of dictionary, they start to compare the meaning of the same word from different dictionaries to see if they fit the meaning human are looking for. And none of those does. And there comes yet another slang to be included into one of those dictionaries in the near future. After a while, they will need “a dictionary of dictionaries”.


So, having gone through this one might be able to the INABILITY of setting things in place one of which is defining meanings of things. It is when human can get across their line of ego. And only then is when their true truth becomes visible.

Communication II

Communication II:
SUBCOMMUNICATION




Because of at least one component of communication is uncontrollable, the whole communication is made uncontrollable. Dibrini would like to call this uncontrollable component SUBCOMMUNICATION.



A Subcommunication can be the hidden message(s) within the main (obvious) message sent and received on the surface of communication. This is a level of robotic communication in human communication. However, another level of human communication is the Subcommunication in which there are several of messages floating to be detected by communicators’ ability of interpretation.



Subcommunication is uncontrollable because, first of all, one cannot control others and, second, one does not seem to have a total control over oneself. This results in that the message and its hidden contents are not totally controlled by the sender, that how the message is sent is not controlled, and that the interpretation of the receivers cannot be controlled by the sender. Even in the simplest form of communication, all of these then generate Subcommunication.

Communication

COMMUNICATION

The most recent exemplification of communicational behaviour of human is BIG BROTHER, the most intense communication scenario that can be thought of in all time.


In BIG BROTHER, the contexts, environment, and habits of communication are captured and forced to perform in one intense circumstance in which all the “communicators” are not able to avoid these elements of their communication. This is because the nature of the game itself is that the one who communicates the best wins. Not only all the communicators have to communicate to one another, but have they also to communicate with the public who is watching on outside as well.


Many communication games seen in the BIG BROTHER show includes groupthink syndrome, social loafing, majority vote, domination, resistance, game-playing, conflict resolution behaviour, being in or under the radar, and many more. The situation there in the show becomes intense because of the fact that everyone is aware of the communication game they are dealing with. In the game, they expect the sincerity and living a “genuine” type of communication as much as possible. Whereas in normal life human communication game does not require full-time attendance from the communicators, the communicators have their time out from being game players.


Dibrini looks at communication as something that can’t be explained or defined because of its interactions with human behaviour and psychology.


Therefore, communication game obviously cannot demonstrate or experiment the mechanism of communication. As the matter of fact, it has been something yet to be explored at all time.

Art

ART

Art is the not of the nature;
art is only what created by human.
And because the word ART is defined in the pleasant and praiseworthy term,
ARTs therefore can only be things that are accepted and admired
by at least a group of human of the importance,
the discourse,
and the reality that ART possesses.

Chaos

Chaos

“In mathematics and physics, chaos theory describes the behavior of certain nonlinear dynamical systems that under specific conditions exhibit dynamics that are sensitive to initial conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, the behavior of chaotic systems appears to be random, because of an exponential growth of errors in the initial conditions. This happens even though these systems are deterministic in the sense that their future dynamics are well defined by their initial conditions, and there are no random elements involved. This behaviour is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.”


Earlier was the definition of the “chaos theory”. Now, for the practical part, it seems that what really obvious of the Chaos Theory in Human society has been those “post-” things as counter-actions against the things that come before them. This happens because the level of sensitivity toward one another and the way they react to one another according to the level of sensitivity based on the interconnectedness of things.


One of the most beautiful “reactions” of human towards things seem to be the symptom in which human see the process of their own reactions as BEAUTY, or a form of ART. The fact that human create things, see it, admire or be disgusted by it, and react to it, and also the fact that the whole process goes over and over again make human admire their ability of creation and steal the essence of NATURE as their own creation termed “art”.


Human reactions and the process of on-going reactions are the essence of all beings within the Nature of this world. Just like animal mutations and the evolution of plants. Human race itself originates from animal mutation. But unfortunately, human is desperately proud of their discovery of this process of reactions within themselves, their own race and others’. What is call ART and BEAUTY is not the process of the reactions itself but the discovery of this process.

It is poor that an artwork is being admired by the wrong essence.

Complexity

COMPLEXITY

It all starts from many different things having relationships to one another in forms of INTERCONNECTEDNESS.



One thing works with the other generating the another thing, which works with another two things one of which is similar to the first thing that has generated the one it works with. This relation is then similar to another relation of another set of things in terms of its relation to one another in the reverse order, which create another thing that represents this view of relationship that looks opposite to the other thing that is similar to the thing that created it. And blahhhhh . . .



These complex relationships between things together form up the complexity.



Complexity in communication is seen as the realm in which beginnings and endings do not exist; rather, communication ALWAYS takes place unnoticeably upstage, downstage, middlestage.

BEAUTY [II]

Beauty [II]:
No Beauty

To prosecute the concept of BEAUTY, Dibrini quotes . . .


Beauty is commonly defined as a characteristic present in a person, place, object or idea that provides a perceptual experience of pleasure, meaning or satisfaction to the mind, arising from sensory manifestations such as a shape, color, personality, sound, design or rhythm. Beauty is studied as part of Aesthetics, Sociology, Social Psychology and Culture. Beauty, as a cultural creation, is also extremely commercialized. . . .


The subjective experience of "beauty" often involves the interpretation of some entity as being in balance and harmony with nature, which may lead to feelings of attraction and emotional well-being. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is a common phrase attributed to this concept. . . .


In its most profound sense, beauty may engender a salient experience of positive reflection about the meaning of one's own existence. An "object of beauty" is anything that reveals or resonates with personal meaning. Hence religious and moral teachings often focus on the divinity and virtue of beauty, and to assert natural beauty as an aspect of a spirituality and truth. . . .


The characterization of a person as “beautiful”, whether on an individual basis or by community consensus, is often based on some combination of inner beauty, which includes psychological factors such as personality, intelligence, grace, and elegance, and outer beauty, which includes physical factors, such as health, youthfulness, symmetry, averageness, and complexion. . . .


Researchers have found that good looking students get higher grades from their teachers than students with an ordinary appearance. Furthermore, attractive patients receive more personalized care from their doctors. Studies have even shown that handsome criminals receive lighter sentences than less attractive convicts. How much money a person earns may also be influenced by physical beauty. One study found that people low in physical attractiveness earn 5 to 10 percent less than ordinary looking people, who in turn earn 3 to 8 percent less than those who are considered good looking. Discrimination against others based on their appearance is known as Lookism. . . .


Beautiful people usually enjoy an image-based and/or financially-based prestige which enhances their aura of success, power, and beauty. [source]


Now that’s beauty, which shouts that there’s no such thing as BEAUTY in this spinning globe.

Colinisation of Discourse

Colonisation of Discourse


Mr Fairclough (some years ago) defines the Colonisation of Discourse as the event in which some particular discourses—topics of consideration—are paid attention to over other discourses for particular reasons other than the worthiness of those particular discourse themselves.


Why? That’s simple! The one who speaks first wins. Because the one who speaks first gets heard first, and the thing spoken becomes the matter first. Likewise, for people around him, what heard first becomes the matter first and perceived the first priority for considerations. This is because the perception of human itself ARRANGES things in its own timeline and put forward different levels of importance to different positions in that timeline.


Thereafter, the positions on the psychological timeline affect its surroundings in ways that, first of all, there comes juxtaposition of different positions of discourse which brings about appropriate reasons for being in different positions. What Dibrini sees is that human always try to rationalise things in front of them, and only things in the front of them—mind the POSITION. Then, for that appropriate reason of the discourse position, human concern for the contexts of each and particular discourse and think those contexts make different positions of discourse. Why? It’s HUMAN ESSENCE!


So, the Colonisation of Discourse is actually the colonisation of human interpretation regardless of what the contexts of discourse are, regardless of whose, when and where the discourse is, and regardless of what those discourses are all about.


Only when human stop concerning with other contexts and irrelevant variable (which they think is relevant) of discourses, then there would be no more Colonisation of Discourse.

BEAUTY

Beauty


Beauty can be goodness or perfection not only for visual perception but any kind of perception that human are capable of.


Beauty for different people can be different things even though there seem to be some standard forced to what beauty really is. For example, the Sleeping Beauty seems to represent the standard beauty of all women. At the same time, this standard of beauty dominates other aspects of beauty with its elements.


Beauty is actually the colonisation of discourse. Because what counts as beauty and what doesn’t is determined by the hegemonic group within a society, the voice of the other group in the society with less power on discourse doesn’t have its say about what beauty is.


For example, Beauty in communication is considered to the “two-way symmetrical” communication. J. E. Grunig is the father of the two-way symmetrical communication who defines his invention as the communication in which the needs of both (or all) parties are equally satisfied. On the other hand, E. L. Toth may argue that beauty in communication is the stage in which communication produces the most cash value for the communicator. Now whose communication is a beauty?


Therefore, beauty, like reality and the scientific and philosophical core essence of the world, is again not static but shifting and unstable in regards to human interpretation which is also unstable in regards to many thing else around them.

Sleeping Beauty

Sleeping Beauty


In the Sleeping Beauty, Beauty seems to represent the standard beauty of all women. At the same time, this standard of beauty dominates other aspects of beauty with its elements.


Beauty is actually the colonisation of discourse. Because what counts as beauty and what doesn’t is determined by the hegemonic group within a society, the voice of the other group in the society with less power on discourse doesn’t have its say about what beauty is.

REALITY

REALITY

Is everyone living in the reality?

There are two types of reality found juxtaposed: “the real reality”, shaped by the use of language, becoming “the media reality” perceived by the publics. Language upon culture has a “decisive influence”. This influence determines our judgement on similarities and differences of things

The language use could create media reality or “hyperreality” termed by Deetz or “hypertelia” termed by Baudrillard. Human language, the world human live in and are unable to get out of, actually calls for reinterpreting what is known or believed about the world in order to make sense of the words; Mr Miller claims that “it challenges your pedestrian assumptions about reality”.

The use of language in this way alters, rather than just challenges, the reality regardless of what the real reality would be. This is how the media reality is intentionally created. If public communication is paired with the use of rhetorics and metaphors, to Miller’s assertion that “languages are not static; they grow and change to suit the needs of those who speak them”, a question on its effect on (the real) reality is worth putting forward. It is whether or not the reality—whichever perceived as reality—is static, whether reality can be changed and shaped to “suit the needs” or preference of those who use language to shape it, and even whether what we call “reality” ever exists.

Well now, what’s your answer?

Human Essence

Human Essence

What counts as being human? What do human do which non-human don’t? What do human possess which non-human don’t? These classifications may be human distinctions over other creatures.

But according to the Importance vs Unimportance Theory, human essence seems to include almost everything, no, it does include everything. Without other creatures and their essences, human cannot distinguish their essence from others’. Here, it can be said that human being is different in referring to other creatures.

Actually, human is NOT different from other creatures in terms of being world “creatures”. However, if we say human is different from other creatures in this world, then every creature is different from one another.

Question: is human really different?

CREATIVITY [II]

CREATIVITY [II]:
Avoiding Cliché

Creativity avoiding clichés, what is being taught about it in those educational institutes then?

Mr Dawson, Dibrini’s teacher not so long ago, emphasised avoiding clichés as one of the main learning objectives in Master of Creative Writing Program Dibrini has undertaken. Not only in the tools of presenting our stories but also in the genre of subject matters explored must the clichés be avoided. The class were taken into some “great” writings by some great writers, some of them were current, to see what style they used, what techniques are employed, and what critiques are put forward to avoid clichés.

For Dibrini, that was the first time exploring the newer literatures apart from those canons such as Shakespeare’s, Homer’s, and all those classics. First of all, Dibrini did learn from those writings what clichés were and what they did to avoid clichés. Obviously, Mr Dawson’s pedagogical strategy seemed to work.

However, Dibrini is going to say that what didn’t work was avoiding cliché itself. If creativity is avoiding cliché only, then creativity never exists. If everybody is trying to avoid cliché, then they are producing the same thing: a huge mass of jamming replicas of “avoiding cliché”.

In Mr Dawson’s class, we were assigned to writing a short novelette for our final assessment. Of course, the most important thing for everyone was to “avoid cliché”. What came out, however, was that everyone wrote the same thing: variety of forms, fonts, arrangement of scenes, multiple voices, multiple narrative styles, and that sort of stuff cramming in on everybody’s works. This is because (as I mentioned before that Mr Dawson’s pedagogical strategy seemed to work) everyone of us saw the clichés and because we were doing the same thing, that is, we were trying to avoid them.

Dibrini says this avoiding cliché doesn’t work for creating creativity because when we produce the same writing as we think that is “creative”, creative writing students in, say, ten years later who look at our work produced today would say all we did are clichés. Just like we say all those work in the past are clichés. Dibrini can only suggest for now that in order to be creative, DO NOT avoid clichés. Human can’t avoid clichés by avoiding clichés. This is because what goes on everyday is already cliché; that’s human essence. In spite of this, Dibrini is not going to propose a way of being creative because if it is proposed, it won’t create creativity. It will create yet another cliché.

What Dibrini has learnt from undertaking a Master in Creative Writing is that creativity is pureness. Creativity is raw, personal, and ambiguous. Dibrini has also learnt that human creativity is not creativity but only an acceptable cliché. The REAL creativity may not be acceptable for human; instead it may be considered as vagueness, misinterpretation, a lack of understanding in a particular issue explored, a nonsense, or even an insanity. This is because human perception is not ready (yet) for creativity. They deny their own inability to be creative by rejecting the pureness of creativity and define their creativity as “avoiding cliché”.

Dibrini hopes that one day human will be able to experience the real creativity that does exist in this world. It is a beauty. It’s beyond definition and some simple explanation. Some day. Dibrini hopes.

Interpretation

Interpretation

Yes. Interpretation is one of the human essences. Human always interpret. They interpret their lives. They interpret their thoughts. They even interpret their own interpretations.

This creates a realm of interpretation of which human think as REALITY. They believe the TRUTH is out there for them to discover. They invented the word “fact” for there brand new interpretation.

Human refuse to admit that what they discover is actually in their head. They discover every moment they think. The interpretation of their minds produces new essence, new facts, and new truths every minute. They just don’t admit that.

There is no such thing as REALITY.