The Fake Arena Within The Proscenium Stage on The Two Versions of The Merchant of Venice

The very first difference I realize when I saw two versions of merchant of
venice is how the stages were built. The Broadway version of The Merchant of
Venice, which iIwill refer as BV, creates the proscenium kind of stage while the
movie version of it, which I will refer as MV, gives me the presentasion of
arena stage.

By this difference, each version seems to highlight the different issue. In BV,
since I saw it in two dimension stage, my perspective has been brought to one
landscape only; even though there is a possibility that the distribution of
spectators' attention may vary.

In MV, it's more like an arena since the movie has created the stage until its
detail. The environment in MV shows more than the BV does. Our perpective
becomes more holistic since we can see from various points of view of the stage.
However, we must aware that in the very same time, the stage is the fake arena.
There is someone who has organized which detail we should watch and in which
time it should be shown. The final result, we still have the fake arena within
the proscenium stage.

Penyajian Sistem Penalaran pada Kumpulan Karya Edgar Allan Poe

Penyajian sistem penalaran yang berbeda dari sistem penalaran Aristotelian pada

kumpulan karya Edgar Allan Poe menunjukan perlawanan kamu romantis terhadap
penyederhanaan logika dalam masyarakat Amerika pada abad ke -19.

Dalam kumpulan karya Edgar Allan Poe tampak adanya unsur unsur pembentuk sistem
penalaran yang berbeda dari sistem penalaran Arostetlian. Dalam konteks wacana
Gotik, sistem penalaran yang berbeda tersebut dikenal dengan istilah
dekonstruksi.

Masalah yang terdapat teridentifikasi antara lain; bagaimana teks menyajikan
sistem penalaran yang berbeda dari sistem penalaran Aristotelian, menunjukan
apakah penyajian sistem penalaran yang berbeda, dan apa signifikansi penyajian
sistem penalaran yang berbeda pada karya Edgar Allan Poe terhadap masyarakat
Amerika pada abad ke -19.

Konsep Logika dalam Karya Edgar Allan Poe

Hal pertama yang saya sadari ketika saya membaca karya Edgar Allan Poe, dalam
hal ini adalah tiga cerita pendeknya "The Black Cat", " The Tell-Tale Heart",
dan "The Purloined Letter", adalah tampaknya term-term persamaan logika dalam
narasi teks tersebut. Hal ini berkaitan dengan usaha karakter pembunuh atau
pelaku yang seringkali dianggap memiliki perilaku menyimpang, mengingat bahwa
argumen ini belum tentu sahih. Dari tiga cerita yang saya sebutkan tadi, dua
diantaranya bisa disebut cenderung identik. Dua karakter utamanya juga merupakan
narrator dari ceritanya yang berarti memiliki kekuasaan lebih banyak untuk
mengeluarkan suara di dalam ceritanya. Namun kekuasaan dalam bersuara ini
kemudian dimanfaatkan justru untuk menutupi diri para tokoh tersebut. Suara yang
dimiliki kemudian digunakan untuk memberikan justifikasi terhadap perbuatan
mereka, membunuh.

Tokoh narator ini memberikan argumen- argument yang saya asumsikan sebagai term-
term dalam pengambilan keputusan dalam hukum logika. Argumen ini ditujukan untuk
menjustifikasi perbuatannya sehingga pada umumnya term- term ini harus dibuat
sedemikian rupa agar meyakinkan pembaca dan pada akhirnya pembaca dipaksa
memercayai kesimpulan yang ingin dicapai oleh tokoh tersebut. Namun ada sesuatu
yang saya anggap ganjil pada pengambilan kesimpulan oleh tokoh- tokoh ini. Hal
inilah yang nantinya akan menjadi fokus dalam penelitian saya.

Kerunutan dalam pengambilan kesimpulan dalam suatu konsep logika saya temui
dalam dua mata pelajaran, Bahasa Indonesia dan Matematika, pada tataran sekolah
menengah atas dan dalam suatu mata kuliah tersendiri bernama Logika pada tataran
perguruan tinggi. Konsep pengambilan kesimpulan pada umumnya terdiri dari tiga
argumen atau term. Term pertama bersifat asumsi umum bagi suatu kasus, term
kedua bersifat khusus, sedangkan term ketiga merupakan kesimpulan.

Sebagaimana dijelaskan Robert Con Davis(1983) bahwa Lacan memformulasi suatu
notasi mengenai petanda dan penanda. S' digunakan untuk menyimbolkan petanda,
s digunakan untuk meyimbolkan penanda, sedangkan garis yang memisahkan dua
simbol itu menyatakan jenjang yang membatasi keduanya. Notasi ini kemudian
dikembangkan menjadi bentuk algoritma yang menjelaskan karya Freud " Instincts
and Their Vicissitudes" seperti berikut ini:




Secara sederhana, algoritma di atas dapat diartikan sebagai berikut: ular
merupakan petanda sifat culas. Sifat culas merupakan salah satu penanda dari
sifat buruk Moriarty. Akumulasi dari petanda dan penanda tersebut adalah ular
menjadi petanda bagi sifat buruk Moriarty. Algoritma di atas saya rasa dapat
diaplikasikan untuk menjelaskan bentuk dari pengambilan kesimpulan dalam konsep
logika, yang berakar dari logika Aristotelian, di dalam karya- karya Poe.

Dengan demikian, tahap yang dimungkinkan untuk penelitian saya mengenai produksi
logika karya- karya Poe yang akan saya identifikasi melalui pengambilan
kesimpulan dari narasi tokohnya ialah:
1. Mengkategorisasi argumen- argumen yang ada ke dalam kesimpulannya.
2. Mengidentifikasi term yang dianggap sahih atau tidak menurut kaidah logika
Aristototeles.
3. Mengaplikasikan algoritma Lacan untuk membantu identifikasi bagi term- term
tertentu

Bagaimanapun, asumsi kejanggalan atau ketidaksahihan term- term yang dipakai
dalam narasi teks Poe yang berujung pada ketidaksahihan argumen dari tokoh dalam
narasinya masih patut dipertanyakan. Meski pada akhirnya saya dapat menunjukan
ketidaksahihan argumen para tokohnya, namun hal ini hanya berdasarkan pada
kaidah yang dibuat Aristoteles ribuan tahun yang lalu. Ada kemungkinan bahwa
justru hal ini yang menjadi tujuan dari Poe atau teks-nya, ingin mendefamiliasi
sebuah kaidah logika dengan membuat pengambilan kaidah yang tidak sahih sehingga
peninjauan terhadap konsep kembali dilakukan. Asumsi lain, menurut salah satu
respon terhadap argumen mengenai ketidaksahihahan term dalam narasi cerpen
tersebut, adalah memang Poe melakukan ini untuk memertanyakan asal muasal dari
term pertama.

Yang selama ini dilakukan adalah bahwa kita berkutat pada cocok tidaknya dua
term awal dengan kesimpulannya. Kegiatan demikian membuat kita luput untuk
memerhatikan asal dari dua term awal. Alih- alih mawas pada kemungkinan
ketidaksahihan term- term awal atau argumen awal, kita hanya akan disibukan
kegiatan mencocok- cocoka kepingan puzzle. Inilah yang dijadikan dasar mengapa
narasi- narasi pada karya Poe tersebut harus bertentangan atau menjadi janggal
satu sama lain.

Tampaknya, tinjauan lebih lanjut akan saya lakukan terhadap kaidah Logika dari
Charles Sanders Peirce mengingat Peirce memiliki latar belakang yang kurang
lebih sama dengan Edgar Allan Poe untuk melihat kemungkinan dari berbagai asumsi
di atas. Asumsi- asumsi lain yang mungkin luput untuk saya soroti menjadi tujuan
bagi postingan ini.

Catatan Kaki terhadap argumen Umberto Eco

Kalimat lengkap yang akan saya beri catatan kaki adalah

"[a]nd indeed, when the critic starts examining the actual stylistic merit of
the works under review, some doubts about their validity begin to surface, even
the suspicion that the reading public's enthusiasm is due to a misconception or
else inspired by speculative aims."

Sepertinya tinjauan teks, sebagaimana Barthes membedakan teks dan karya, yang
dimaksud dalam kalimat di atas ialah tinjauan yang tidak hanya mengandalkan
inspirasi dan cita rasa saja yang sempat dipertanyakan Socrates kepada Ion dalam
percakapan yang ditulis oleh Plato . Tinjauan ini akan mencakup aspek kebahasaan
dari suatu teks seperti diksi, gaya narasi, atau struktur kalimat dari sebuah
teks yang dijadikan objek, menyadari bahwa pertanda dan penanda berrelasi hanya
dengan adanya pembeda layaknya yang diungkapan Saussure. Dengan metode tinjauan
tersebut, kecurigaan mengenai nilai dari suatu teks sering timbul. Hal ini
disebabkan karena saat teks dikaji ternyata aspek kebahasaannya tidak cukup
layak untuk diberikan antusiasme yang demikian besar oleh penikmatnya. Misalnya
label laris pada sampul sebuah buku tidak kemudian menjamin bahwa kualitas
kebahasaan dari teks di dalam buku tersebut berbanding lurus dengan omzet
penjualan setiap eksemplarnya. Selain itu, spekulasi pasar juga turut andil
dalam proses ini. Asumsi saya adalah saat pasar kekurangan suatu genre buku
misalnya dan kemudian ada seorang penulis yang menerbitkan buku tersebut maka
kualitas dari buku tersebut akan dikesampingkan demi pemenuhan kebutuhan pasar.

Understanding Nation and Empire: Understanding the Literary Studies

Let me step fully the layer of superstructure: Fictional world, a layer where understanding taking its place. In the very beginning of critical theory class, the question being asked continuously is,” what is the use of literary studies? What is the function of discussing the fictional novel in this very world? Where is humanist place within the society?” All the questions suddenly came forth when I was trying to understand the issue related with Nation and Empire.

If the economy subjects being concerned in my previous post, the understanding on nation and empire will take my time during the history class. National pride as the crucial element in building the nation may appear when the people recall the past. It is parallel with the issue I judge as the ridicule one within the society. It was written in my textbook that the problem that usually occurs after the colonialism or after the independence day was drowning in all the mighty the people had ever had in the past: drowning in the past discourse. Thus, Said’s argument points out that if the exceptionalism is the base of the nationhood as well as colonialism, then the post-colonialism empire will only become a rerun of the previous colonialism by the difference of the hero and the villain.

What I understand now from those recall of the past, the recall of my history class literary, and Said’s arguments about the worldly text is the understanding of the questions on being an English Department student, on learning literary studies. By studying fictional novel, fictional works, I expect to learn how to filter the “make sense” plot, to indicate the logic sequences, to realize the odd within the story, and the character, then finally identify how all those effect being produced. Only by doing these processes we would realize the myths that have been integrated within our society that own the huge political, economical, and biological risk. Moreover we should be able to overcome, to resist, this myth by learning literary studies: by doing demythification. Literary studies help each of the students become immune to ignorance. As the contrary, we, as the scholars, will be able to, as Pary says, “show[s] [more] suspicion about the craft of representation” and structure the massive superstructure within the full consideration of its base.

Infrastructure as the Supporter of Superstructure: How the Myth of My High Schools years Turns Upside Down.

I used to think that in critical theory, we would have a certain issue for each meeting. Thus, since the issue in each meeting is different, I needed to grasp eleven issues during fourteen meetings of the course. I thought it would be such a waste to focus on all of them because the issues that seemed to resemble to my final project might be only a few. However, I am now getting confused by how each of the issues works to build my comprehension towards literature. Not until the class discussed on class and economic was I aware of this relation, to which definitely objected my previous thought on the separation amongst the issues being discussed within the class.

I finally realize that it would be possible for me to understand the discourse of the class and economy without having a context of Aristotelian which have been built most of the myth on nowadays daily life, a problem of representation, a matter of structure and an awareness of desire and self o forming text. I am still amazed on the fact that the further discussion on literature basically builds my comprehension about the surface of the society where I belong. Infrastructure and superstructure that Marx explained were the instances of it.

I had studied economy for 6 years and I felt that I only understand a few simple things like there were Marxist as an opposing party of liberalist view in conducting the economic activities, or the price depended on the scarcity of the commodity. Talking about economy was only about the money flowing from one hand to another throughout the market.

Nevertheless, those simple things I saw as the simple things in the surface of the economy were actually the fundamental elements, if this economy is considered as the structure, which build culture and society. My comprehension becomes upside down. What actually viewed as the surface of the economy is actually the infrastructure of the society, and the society, which I assumed to be the founder of the economy, is the superstructure: the structure produced by the support of the infrastructure or base structure. Thus, Marxist critic on humanist as the ones taking the infrastructure for granted is reasonable by this sense.

It comes to my mind that when we define the infrastructure, we will penetrate to superstructure layer since any movements towards understanding is in superstructure. It will be troublesome since I have mentioned earlier that the infrastructure is the support system of the superstructure while I define this support in the superstructure: I specify the relation as the supporting and the supported.

Eventually, at the end, the myth of seeing the economy surface only has been banished. It is a must for me to be aware of the society and the culture is built up from the matter of the lack of self, the desire of self that turn into exchange activities as we are aware that the text is constructed by a lot of discourse as its infrastructure. After all, the society, the culture, and the text are all in superstructure, which will always be parallel with the level I am on when I try to understand the base structure.

The Law of Scarcity in Irigaray’s Woman on The Market

Irigaray’s “Women on the Market” somehow reminds me of the scarcity law in economy subject I have ever taken. The more rare the commodity is, the more it will be valued. It is an ancient myth that is last up till now. How each woman “[is] not [be] equally desirable”, as Irigiray argues, indicates how women as commodities have varied level of being desired.

My teacher taught me that the scarcity is the one, which rises up the value of the commodities. The scarcity is commonly caused by natural source(s), such as how gold being precious since one must dig or do other efforts to find it. Another example is gas. When the process of obtaining the commodity is longer, it possibly increases the scarcity as well.

Yet, there is also the scarcity which is unnatural since it can be obtained but in different results, such as skills in a service.  All designers have same skills, which are to make the fabric into the clothes, for example. Despite the same skill, they actually have their own styles and techniques. The different execution towards the fabric that decreases the possibility of imitation will definitely increase the value of such designers.

Now, if I look back into what Irigaray has stated, then in economy, including the women, will have these elements: the lack of self, the different desire, and the scare commodity. The lack of self-making one will exchange what one has more to gain what one has less. If the fulfillment of this type of lack encounters a lack, maybe what my senior high school teacher stated as basic needs, then, the society needs other motive to do another exchange activity to which is the fulfillment of desire.

This desire emerges when the basic needs have been filled. This desire will come up in various to individuals. The desire will follow the law of scarcity. The desire, the price or value, will rapidly decrease if the level of imitation is increase.