Both of the term seem not to be usual for common people, included for me. However,this couple of term, just like an echo, “stuck in my head”..
How could it be?
Today (9/1/2009), my friends and I have a special meeting with a national orator and economic expert , Ichsanuddin Noorsy. We acted as the representative of KM ITB, in the purpose of National Energy Conference of KM ITB helding in next March.
Being fascinated by the update news from this famous frontal speaker, I gave my special attention to his statement and command about the student condition nowadays, especially for the engineers…
” … here’s the root cause: almost all of the engineers are satisfied only by being the functional engineers. therefore, less are enjoying to keen in fundamental side of an engineering”
“what is fundamental engineer Sir?”
“such a position, in the upper hierarchy of studying, whereas the engineer does not only master the functional formula, build up model the system and find out the solution, theoritically.. but he also deals with the other wider and fundamental aspects : policy, philosophy, and integrated decision making: politcs and other related issues”
this is one of the reason why our country is just kept in this stagnancy.
there’s no accelerator.. no initiator for the fundamental development… as every graduated student is focused only to “how I can solve the given problem”…
unfortunately, he doesn’t make a comprehensive radically point of view to notice, “what is the problem? where does the problem come from? what is the related aspect and backgrounds of the problem? who has the responsibility of the problem? etc…”
phiew,, nice words!!
Projecting it to the Industrial Engineering case of study, I guess as Industrial Engineers, we are already enriched by this skill, aren’t we?? the comprehensive point of view… But I finally find one of the red line: we’re imprisoned by the books and the curriculum…!!
We are designed to make the requested design, not to make our own design….
what a pity…
11 responses so far ↓
Amirah Kaca Sumarto // January 10, 2009 at 11:40 am |
Yup I agree. Many people commented on how people who just discuss too much on irrelevant issue (what they meant are social political issues or those kinds) are useless and they said they can do enough only by knowing and doing their fields (engineering) as good as they can. This is a very big concern for me, because no matter how good we are with the operational research, thermodynamics, or accounting, how good of an Industrial Engineer we are, when we don’t know wider and fundamental aspects : policy, philosophy, and integrated decision making (like you said) we don’t know the bigger scope that we need to fight and work for. We can be very good at your work, but if we do not fully understand about what are you suppose to fight for and how to fight with all of our works.. then aren’t we merely robots?
rira // January 12, 2009 at 3:42 am |
robots?
interesting question…
Surani // January 12, 2009 at 9:45 am |
good analogy my sister…
being under a program…
not making a program…
hariyadi // January 13, 2009 at 10:08 am |
once again….Mr. Noorsy has done it. He can always make me amazed.
Thanks for sharing.
The basic principle of being an engineer is how to observe and construct the civilization in a broader perspective (inc. policy standards, social effect and the impact of technology etc) with the basic knowledge he has.
I agree for some point with you, the educational system nowadays nullified the students capabilities to become a human, it only casts robots (which mention above) that can do something functional but miss the purpose and the politician sense of what he would do to make the world better. That will make him alienated to the society.
As Engineer, we aren’t robots. We are active human that move, think and have a responsibility to construct a civilization technology. Thus, to be able to do it we should have an ideology.
An Ideology is a views and aims of what we human are, what made us to be and what the philosophy of our lives itself. This is very important and somehow in this capitalism era, our educational never mentioned it.
This ideology is what made us a Fundamental engineer as Mr. Noorsy said.
Surani // January 14, 2009 at 1:37 pm |
oh, you are wellcome.
yes, he is a good one, indeed.
hmm,, wonderful addition.. “ideology”…
I get more clear then, thanks..
so now, we can conclude:
engineer + ideology = fundamental engineer
wew, our next question is what such kind of ideology??? so we can be the true “fundamental engineer”.
i am wondering how can I explain beautifully that the ideology of Islam is the one that can make engineer become the true fundamental engineering.. should I make my other writting about it? or is there any of you can make further comments??
hariyadi // January 21, 2009 at 2:35 pm |
hahaha….just realize I mistype something at the end of my previous comment.
What do you mean by the “true” fundamental engineer?
What kind of “real” fundamental engineer were you refer to?
I’m sorry but I think we should define this as precisely as we can. Because every reader has different information about this, right?
In our society, there are premises about “religion” and “engineering” or “science”.
The society said that there must be a dichotomy for religion and the scientific world, because the ontology itself are different.
This is Secularism…..
Surani // January 21, 2009 at 4:48 pm |
aduh ribet pake bahasa inggris,,nyerah dulu kk,,kita back ke Indonesian ^^
gini kak.. kan tadi kunci fundamental engineer ada pada ideologi kan ya?? “para sarjana teknik yang terideologisasi….”
nah pertanyaan saya…. dari sekian macam alternatif ideologi yg ada…
fundamental engineer yang “benar” itu bagaimana???
apa bisa semua ideologi menghantarkan pada fundamental engineer sesuai definisi pak ican ini?? “engineer yg benar2 bisa membangun negeri dan memberi kemaslahatan bagi dunia…. bukan pada fungsional saja…”
engineer ala Rusia, Kapitalis or Sosialis gimana perbandingannya??
[[just like UU Frakenstein aja... walau membahas ttg ilmu dan hak penelitian,, tapi isinya ternyata sangat terkait dgn pandangan dasar mngnai kehidupan....]]
for instance:
sekian teknologi canggih yg dimiliki Israel.. ujung2nya untuk merenggut 1200 nyawa masyarakat Gaza…
teknologi bom nuklir… ternyata untuk memporakporandakan Hiroshima dan Nagasaki..
teknologi bedah modern… untuk Aborsi dan pembunuhan janin tak berdosa…
teknologi informasi … untuk pengembangan situs porno dan hacking…
teknologi pembuatan obat … untuk produksi narkoba
dll….
inikah fundamental engineer??
hariyadi // January 26, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
that’s the point!
“engineer yg benar2 bisa membangun negeri dan memberi kemaslahatan bagi dunia”
there are system of value that cover the edge of every ideology in this world.
To make the world better. said whom? which system of value are you referring to?
as an engineer, we construct for what? in capitalism, goods….to eat…to live…to be comfortable with this life.
in socialism, same also……
in islam, to pray……………………..
the civil engineer construct a mosque that can make the sermon can be heard even by the people very far behind.
the astronomist build a very large star reflector that can predict the solar eclipse very accurately to make the muslims know when to do shala kusuf and khusuf.
in islam, an engineer build and construct in the system of value to pray to Allah.
But, to determine which system of value are the truth we must know which of it that can describe about life and ourself in a very subjective way (about human). make sense and suitable for human.
i'ah // January 30, 2009 at 1:48 pm |
punten, setahu saya yang benar itu astronomer bukan astronomist.
Surani // February 6, 2009 at 2:04 pm |
@ teh Iah: wah baru tahu teh.. jadi istilahnya astronomist ya?? oke oke
@ kak hariyadi: makasih kak .. makin jelas dan makin ngerti sekarang…
i'ah // February 12, 2009 at 2:37 am |
astronomer