Tanpa Dialog

Di tjinta kami tak ada kata-kata
Kerna kata-kata tak tumbuh
Kerna kata-kata melibatkan kenjataan shari-hari
Kerna kata-kata mendjelaskan bajangan
Ato kerna kata-kata
Merantjukan pertukaran
Dan sering gagal menjeimbangkan pendengaran and pembitjaraan

Di tjinta kami tak ada kata-kata
Kerna kata-kata tak tumbuh
Kami bertjakap bukan dengan bahasa
Dengan tatap dan tjinta di kmurnian jang sempurna
Kami bisa slaras walopun tak mengerti
Kami bisa bersama walopun berpisah
Memahami melalui kesunjian

Di tjinta kami tak ada kata-kata
Namun hidup keparat mengikat kami
Pada bumi dan tjara-tjaranja, pada waktu dan batasnja
Kalo kami terdjaga oleh kata-kata maka
impian terjoblos menetas mendjadi perdjuangan
Tanpa kata-kata, surga takkan hilang
Dan matipun kami mau
Bertjeraipun

Di tjinta kami tak ada kata-kata
Kerna kata-kata tak tumbuh
Kami adalah malaikat malaikat tjinta
Jang berstubuh di awang-awang
Djatuh kami mati
Lepas kami mendjadi tjahaja
Abadi dari bumi.

The Matrix

What's "real" ? How do you define real? If you are talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, taste and see ... then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain. (Morpheus to Neo - The Matrix.)

I guess if we collectively agree that a real event we experience is describable in the same manner, then it's relatively real enough. But, "collectively" ... how do I define that the people constitute the collection are real? It could be splinters of my own mind.

The Paradoxical God

Within the context and boundaries of our reasoning, the concept of an omni-god is laden with paradoxes. To accept it fully, we rely on 'faith'. But the paradoxes are so fundamental that it's not merely faith that is required, but absolute faith. But what is absolute faith? It's the total abandonment of reasoning. But with the total absence of reasoning, anything can be god - the choosing of which now becomes arbitrary. Also, the acceptance of any god is then by forsaking the existence of self - if self is defined through at least a presence of conscious reasoning. So if you don't exist per se, how could you claim that it is YOU who accepts the god?

So there's the dilemma. To accept an omni-god, you must abandon reasoning and hence forsaking your existence. By then, anything can be god and you are NOT you anymore.

God, help me.

O' Father, Where Are Thou?

One day, on a rather cloudy day, while listening to some bebop, he missed his dead father. And just like that, he felt like going after him, so he took all the hard liquors, spices and plenty of panadols, mixed them into a jumbo non-sense and drank them to death.

He entered a new universe and saw all white. Nothing, pure white. Then black, total absence of any other color. These two purest colors then altered before they merged creating levels of grey. No shape, no room, a one-dimensional existence except for his wandering mind. But as the greys grew sophisticated, his mind dwindled to a more black-and-white recollections. Finally, he was reduced to remembering his being there and ever-not being there. That was it, a clear sense of present but vague beginning.

He missed his father no more. He stood there deciphering the complexly growing shades of grey in reciprocal with his ever deteriorating mind. Quite amused. He stood there, and for an eternity he will exist as his mind will take infinite time to ever understand his new world ...

Existence is not dependent on time

In all my discussions about existence, I put a stress on memory. Memory relates to a timeline, something of the past. But then time is in fact not a divine-thing, it's a worldly thing. It's a dimension like space that wasn't there before the big bang. So, really, without this notion of time, the concept of memory also doesn't exist. In our current view of time, it looks as if I exist simultaneously in the past, present and future, or omnipresent. So existence must be defined free of the memory notion.  There must be something of essence about me independent of the worldly space-time dimension.

What is it?

I am who I am? Not really.

Without my memory, I have no continuous existence. If I am to have my memory totally wiped out and started anew, I would be a new being. I could have totally different views of events and the world, and make totally different choices based on these new views. So I am who I am because of my physical world: my biological and physical structures, my upbringing and situational constraints. There is nothin fundamental about myself apart from these. Or, if my soul is to transport to another physical world, another universe, would I retain anything of myself that is of essence? If not, then existence is a volatile thing; there is no memory of myself beyond the boundary of a physical world or a certain time period.

Then, if I won't ever live that long - by process of logic, not chemistry - how could I ever be raised up to Heaven? 

The potential non-symmetry of life and death

Let's play with these:

What is love but to experience emptiness, and what is emptiness but to experience love? What is sadness but to experience happiness, and what is happiness but to experience sadness? Etc. Now, these are opposing but symmetrical meanings. The pair establishes or strengthen each notion.

Now: what is life but to experience death, and what is death but to experience life? These are opposing but not necessarily symmetrical. Who has ever experienced both to tell? So, life does not give meaning to death nor death to life. It just looks it. The symmetry is a presumption made on the limitation of men's knowledge of death.

Taking this lightly is an advice: "If you suffer in this life and you want to die, who is to say that it will be the opposite of the life as you know it? Stick with your life, always better the devil you know."