Apropos display

[guwaya]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Regarding Wolfgang Spielman's doctoral thesis.

This has been reviewed and mentioned in David van Duuren's bibliography.

My understanding of this review is that Dr. Spielman has provided a comprehensive, scientific and tightly organised over-view of the keris, which Dr. van Duuren rates as "---deserves to be included with the best general inroductions to the Javanese keris---"

Dr. van Duuren goes on to say:- "--- the author does not develop a personal viewpoint;rather, the value of his work lies in the way it ties facts into fiction and vice versa.---"

Wolfgang Spielman's work is a good general introduction which incorporates information to be found in other already published works.

There is nothing new in his work. As I was told by one very highly respected student of the keris who has German as his second language:- "you will not find anything in this work that has not already been treated elsewhere."

In other words, nothing new, but the content is very well presented.

Alan G. Maisey:

Literature - we had this theme already. To Spielmann's thesis:

1. It is no doctaral thesis - it is an MA-Thesis and it is also mentioned in the Encyklopedi and other scientific written works.

2. Literature and new ideas is always to be seen when the book or paper was written or published and in context with the knowledge standard at that time. Spielmann's thesis was researched in the mid until the end 80's and by that time the literature situation was different - Harsrinuksmo's 1st edition of the Enciklopadi was not yet published. There was Solyom, Frey and the other essays. Double sided copies in copy-shops were not yet possible.

3. The aim behind this work was for the first part to give an introduction "what is a keris". If by that time somebody would visit a n ethnographic museum and would have seen a keris and then later would search literatur to know "what is a keris?, he would not find any systematic book which explains it. So the first half or two third are systematic organisations of collected information of articels etc.

4. The last 3rd part handles with theoretical conceptes - already difficult for many german native speekers to read and understand and I really doubt that your "highly respected student of the keris with German as his second language" is able to understand the text - or, he didn't read it because to difficlt.

5. The book was never published in another language but interesting is for somebody who goes to Leiden in Holland - there you will find the original book and not just the small paperback - a bit different, but if somebody looks for new informations I only see one possibility - go yourself to Jawa and other places and research! Or pay for it, that somebody does the researches! We had this theme already.

Facit: No new informations but an excellent sample how serious literature should be written. Every statement you can proof via citates. I whised somebody nowadays would create such a serious book, than all this for me boaring picture books with many not proofable statements. Kerner is the best example how literature not should be written. (Besides - I didn't forget you and the statistic of Kerner - give me some time please).

guwaya

[A. G. Maisey]

I thank you Guwaya for taking time from your extremely busy schedule to provide a response to my simplistic and limited comments in respect of the understanding of the keris from the numerological aspect.

I thank you most sincerely for providing your explanation of the term "polarism" .
I do not know this as an English word, and I must admit it did confuse me. Polarity I know, but although I have consulted a number of references, I could not find polarism. Your explanation has clarified your interpretation of this term. Thank you.

In general, I can find very little with which to disagree in your response to my comments.

I chose to introduce the Hindu theme because it is valid, as we know from the early literature, and I do agree that this Hindu influence must be understood within a Javanese context, as I have already stated.

We seem to be of like mind when it comes to the acknowledgement that cultural mores change over time, as they must, for any culture that rejects change soon becomes a dead culture. As Panembahan Hardjonagoro (Alm.) pointed out to you, new influences which affect a culture must be taken in and by the process of syncretism absorbed into the body of the existing culture, only by this process can the core values of the existing culture be preserved. Javanese culture is well known for its long and continued use of the syncretic process, and this is the prime reason for its continued vitality.

I do find your rejection of the principle of dualism as applicable to Javanese culture and society rather interesting. Just as I find your use of the term "polarism" interesting. I tend to believe that you may have some rather unique ideas about Javanese culture and society, and I would be interested in hearing more of these ideas. I think I recognise what you are attempting to come to terms with by use of the concept (as you express it) of polarism. I do not yet know if I like this approach or not. My feeling is that there is no difference between us in our positions, but perhaps a difference in expression of those positions.

The keris is not India --- who will argue with you? I myself destroyed this idea more than 10 years ago.

Textiles : weapons ? yes, we know that.

Distrust of cultural interpretations from those not born into a culture? A recurrent theme and one that is as easily supported as it is destroyed. Very often the cultural interpretations from those born into a culture are as defective as the interpretations from those who have come from outside the culture. It is quality of the research and understanding that counts, and this is not dependent upon place of birth.

As you remark, this discussion is becoming far too diverse for this venue, and I can only agree with you. The problem here is that in order to provide a small foundation for people with a very limited understanding of the ideas and concepts at play in respect of a cultural icon like the keris, we need to introduce a very small amount of material that by its extremely limited nature is open to criticism by anybody with even a smattering of understanding of the subject matter. What I wrote on the numerological interpretation of the keris was intended to provide just sufficient information so that those with limited understanding could begin to have some comprehension of the complexity of the matter with which we are dealing, and perhaps, if their interest was sufficiently aroused to begin some further research for themselves.

But now I think it is time to consider your most interesting comments of all:-


"--- I can hardly find an interpretation which attributes the uneven numbers of luk to the male princip of the keris.---"

I find this to be a revealing statement, and I do hope that in time to come you will find the evidence you currently need.

"--- Hence, regarding the theme of symbolism of the keris it would possibly better to take a keris pesi iras as we here better can see an clearify the concept of opposite pairs and tho over all standing concept of polarism.---"

This sentence I simply do not understand. Please accept my apologies for my mental incapacity.

"--- Taking a keris pesi iras is a good way to introduce this polaristic concept as we have the blade (snake = female and the hilt = representing an ancestor or anthropomorphic figure = male). Both controll via the theoretical concept of the polarism each other and finally build the entirety.---"

This statement is fascinating to say the least, and I am certain I would enjoy immensely a reading of your argument in support of these ideas.


Just as a matter of interest, do you consider the keris as symbolic of snakes in general, or of serpents, or of nagas? Do you differentiate between these three groups? Or, do you consider the keris as representative of a particular entity? How do you understand the idea of "naga", as it applies to Javanese Hindu thought?

I like your style Guwaya: much of what you have set forth is quite close to my own understanding of perhaps 40 years ago.

[A. G. Maisey]

Again I thank you Guwaya for your comments in respect of Spielman's thesis.

Let me make it very clear that I have no opinion regarding this thesis. I have not read it, I cannot read it, and I can only go on the reports of those who have read it. I have summarised these reports and I thank you again for delivering virtually the same opinion of Spielman's work as the opinions I have already received.

My "highly respected student of the keris" is in fact a Dutchman, and although German is one of his second languages, I have the assurance of German native speakers that he is fluent in this language. I regret that I am unable to name this man, but perhaps it is sufficient to say that he is a man in his sixties, an academic, and an ethnologist. It is his business to understand the writings of those in his field.It is clear that since he has delivered the same opinion of Spielman's writings as you have yourself, that he apparently did understand what was written.

It should also be noted that his praise for Spielman's presentation is equally as high as your own.



Taken from " KRISSES, A critical bibliography,David van Duuren", herewith is the complete review of :-

Der javanische "Keris": Funktion und sozio-religiose Symbolik.
(Mundus Reihe Ethnologie, Band 41). Bonn:Holos, 1991.

This published edition of a doctoral thesis, which the author had originally delivered at a Cologne university, deserves to be included with the best general introductions to the Javanese keris. Spielmann has managed to include and concisely review each and every imaginable significant and interesting aspect of the kris. He presents a scientific argument , tightly and systematically arranged . It consists of two large chapters; the first is about the details and symbolism of the kris's ornamental elements
(Detaildarstellung und Symbolik der Verzierungselements"-p.25-92), the second is devoted to its function ( Funktion der Kris'-p.93-141).
These include a selective yet viable survey from the existing literature, complemented by many drawings (taken from the sources in question). Admittedly the author does not develop a personal viewpoint; rather, the value of his work lies in the way it ties facts into fiction and vice versa. In the final section the structuralist models created by the 'School of Leyden' experts and in particular by Rassers, are subjected to critical investigation and consequently deemed overly mathematical and abstract. Preliminary to writing his thesis Spielmann had conducted researches in several German and Dutch museums; in Holland he had also studied the large private collections of A. Th. Alkema and J. van Daalen.

[A. G. Maisey]

In Guwaya's post # 15 he has provided an explanation of the terms "dualism" and "polarism", and has then gone on to base his ensuing argument upon these definitions.

I have given considerable thought to this, and have finally come to the decision that a little more attention needs to be given to these two concepts.

The concept of dualism can have many applications, philosophical, religious, societal, to name a few. If we apply the term dualism to a culture , we are referring to the philosophical concepts that govern the way in which that culture is organized. The doctrine of dualism holds that reality consists of two basic principles in opposition that account for all in existence. However, there are many ways in which to understand the principle of dualism, so, when we seek to apply the term to some particular entity, we need to be quite careful in our choice of the philosophical basis of selection. In other words, we cannot apply the type of dualism that is correct for the understanding of oranges to an apple: we need to select the correct form of dualism to use if we wish to have an understanding of the apple.

The concept of dualism in a culture is not unique to Javanese culture, but over many years the objective study of this culture has caused many professionals in the fields of anthropology and sociology to apply the description of "dualism" to Javanese culture. In fact, it is difficult to find a text dealing with Javanese society and culture that does not at some point introduce the concept of it being a dualistic society.

Guwaya has defined dualism as:- "DUALISM means to build mutually exclusive opposites (yes - no; black - white; top - bottom etc.)."

This is arguably an accurate definition as far as it goes. However, this view of dualism is essentially a Western construct, and it cannot be applied to the concept of dualism as it operates within Javanese society and its dominant culture.

The way in which we need to consider dualism within the Javanese context is more closely aligned to way in which this concept operates according to the philosophy of the Tao. As an example, consider the yin-yang symbol:- this is a circle with a waved line dividing it in half, one half is white, one half is black; within each of those halves, one white, one black, is a small circle of the opposite colour, a black circle in the white half, a white circle within the black half.

The way this is to be understood is that these two opposites exist together in a harmonic relationship, and each carries in itself a part of the other and has the capacity to change into the other. The whole idea of Eastern dualism is concerned with harmony and balance, it is not concerned with two opposites in constant and immutable conflict with each other. The yin-yang concept permeates Eastern thought and is a graphic representation of the natural order of things. Everything is a manifestation of one force, the Tao, but for there to be a recognizable reality there needs to be distinction, thus we have the opposing elements of darkness and light, being and not being, male and female, and so on, but each of these opposites is dependent upon the other:- in the absence of something known as "darkness", there can be no "light"; each pair of opposites operates in a reciprocal way so that each of the pair gives and receives.

Quite simply, dualism in Javanese society and culture does not involve "mutually exclusive opposites"; exactly the reverse is the case:- it involves mutually reciprocal opposites, opposites which depend upon each other for their existence.

This is quite different to the concept of dualism that Guwaya has defined, and which is much more closely aligned with the Western idea of constant opposition. The Western idea is concerned with a dynamic in opposition : the Eastern idea is concerned with a dynamic in harmony.

When we understand the way in which Javanese duality needs to be approached, that is, from an Eastern, rather than a Western philosophical foundation, then there is no need to introduce this other term of "polarization", which in this context is, I must admit, a very new usage of the word for me, but which seems to try to express the Eastern understanding of duality.

[guwaya]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

In Guwaya's post # 15 he has provided an explanation of the terms "dualism" and "polarism", and has then gone on to base his ensuing argument upon these definitions.




"Quite simply, dualism in Javanese society and culture does not involve "mutually exclusive opposites"; exactly the reverse is the case:- it involves mutually reciprocal opposites, opposites which depend upon each other for their existence.

This is quite different to the concept of dualism that Guwaya has defined, and which is much more closely aligned with the Western idea of constant opposition. The Western idea is concerned with a dynamic in opposition : the Eastern idea is concerned with a dynamic in harmony.

When we understand the way in which Javanese duality needs to be approached, that is, from an Eastern, rather than a Western philosophical foundation, then there is no need to introduce this other term of "polarization", which in this context is, I must admit, a very new usage of the word for me, but which seems to try to express the Eastern understanding of duality.

Alan G. Maisey.

I see, that I am completly misinterpretated or misunderstood. My definition of dualism was not thought to be understood as you declared it here - and definitely this little definition does not reflect my thinking. The opposite is the case and this I tried to explain with the true concept of POLARISM (with a 3rd factor arranging the harmony between 2 poles) and I wanted to show in my further statements the mistakly use of the term DAUALITY. I wanted to show that the far easter system is not a duality system but a polarity system: GOOD - balance/harmony (manusia) - BAD ; UPPERWORLD - MIDDLEWORLD (manusia looking for/balance/harmony between upper- and underworld) - UNDERWORLD.

I tried to explain that the term dualism (especially for eastern countries is often misundestood). I SAID NOTHING ELSE THAN YOU NOW Do HERE. And then I came to the term Polarism which involves exactly these aspects of eastern thinking as you described it. I did nothing esle than try to express that the basis of eastern culture is not a duality system but a polarity system (not 2 stages but 3). Upperworld - Underworld and beetween the middleworld looking to to arrange the harmony, the balance between the two poles. EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAY HERE and I apologize if I am not be able to bring this over - the consequence for myself is, that I will from now on stay away from such a discussion.

If you already didn't understand that in fact I exactly told the same as you did here and just take out of the whole statement my few words trying to show up the difference between DUALISM and POLARISM in a short explaining of thes terms, than I failed in my further try of explanation of these subject and before I will be attributed with statements I never did and never were meant in that way i prefer to keep quiet. Who else will understand it - and people very fast attribute a wrong housenumber to somebody. (Maybe you should read again what I have written further on after this try of clearing of terms - in the text in its completeness is the essence and not in a little fracture part, and I still hope you will understand what I wrote. It is nearly a shock for me what you like to interpretate into my words - completely wrong and it is very frustating that nothing of what I wrote came over in its right meaning!

My approval for the time you took - but sorry, exactly the oposite what you read in my lines I wanted to show.

Regards,
guwaya

[A. G. Maisey]

Guwaya, please calm down.

You are not under attack.

I am very aware that you are writing in a language that is not your native language, and that the concepts you are attempting to explain are difficult concepts to explain even if we use our own native language.

As I said in an earlier post:- My feeling is that there is no difference between us in our positions, but perhaps a difference in expression of those positions.

You have chosen to express your point of view by use of the term "polarism", which for me is a strange word, and in spite of my searching --- and I might add, a couple of phone calls to people who should know this word in this context --- I am unable to find this word in any relevant context. However, what you describe as polarism , I understand as fitting within the parameters of the Taoist philosophy of dualism.

You understand the system as representing "polarism" . I, and any other source I am familiar with, understand the same system as a form of duality. There is no difference in the understandings, only in your choice of words to describe that understanding.

The one line explanation of dualism that you provided carried with it the danger of misunderstanding, simply because it was dualism explained from a simplistic Western point of view, rather than from a point of view relevant to the culture under discussion.

You have not been misinterpreted or misunderstood, at least not by me, but by your use of the concept of "polarism" you have moved outside the normal terms of reference that we apply to these ideas.

I have attempted to rectify the record.

So just take a deep breath, calm down, and try to realize that I'm on your side. You're not under attack, you're not being challenged, you're not misunderstood. What I am attempting to do is make your position defensible and to encourage you to expand upon your ideas.

Your vision appears to be quite unique in its nature, and I am certain that not only I, but many others would greatly appreciate your continued participation in this discussion.

[guwaya]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Guwaya, please calm down.

You are not under attack.

I am very aware that you are writing in a language that is not your native language, and that the concepts you are attempting to explain are difficult concepts to explain even if we use our own native language.

As I said in an earlier post:- My feeling is that there is no difference between us in our positions, but perhaps a difference in expression of those positions.

You have chosen to express your point of view by use of the term "polarism", which for me is a strange word, and in spite of my searching --- and I might add, a couple of phone calls to people who should know this word in this context --- I am unable to find this word in any relevant context. However, what you describe as polarism , I understand as fitting within the parameters of the Taoist philosophy of dualism.

You understand the system as representing "polarism" . I, and any other source I am familiar with, understand the same system as a form of duality. There is no difference in the understandings, only in your choice of words to describe that understanding.

The one line explanation of dualism that you provided carried with it the danger of misunderstanding, simply because it was dualism explained from a simplistic Western point of view, rather than from a point of view relevant to the culture under discussion.

You have not been misinterpreted or misunderstood, at least not by me, but by your use of the concept of "polarism" you have moved outside the normal terms of reference that we apply to these ideas.

I have attempted to rectify the record.

So just take a deep breath, calm down, and try to realize that I'm on your side. You're not under attack, you're not being challenged, you're not misunderstood. What I am attempting to do is make your position defensible and to encourage you to expand upon your ideas.

Your vision appears to be quite unique in its nature, and I am certain that not only I, but many others would greatly appreciate your continued participation in this discussion.

Alan G. Maisey:

I thank you for your clearance and your words and I apologize myself in bringing such great confusion with using the term POLARISM. In the hurry I wrote I just translated the term from my language into English - same possibly with the term DUALISM.

Probably in English its use is DUALITY and POLARITY. It was a graet discussion in the Ethnolgy in the late 80's and if you ask your duch keris-expert who is an Ethnologist and I am sure as a dutch person fluent in German and English, he will know what is meant as especially the so-called "Leidener School" and especially van Baal had to do with it.

So POLARity might be the right word and is to understand in that way that eastern cultures are in western litertur falsely described as dualily (dualistic) systems but they are not. They are polarity (polaristic) system with the most impotant 3rd factor, (the middle between thes two poles), namely the search for harmony between the opposite side of the duality system.

This search or arranging of harmony between these two oposite duality poles bring these poles into a balance so that people can live in harmony and the poles become a unity. This 3rs most important factor - the arrangement of balance and harmony makes the difference of the concept of polarity and duality, althoug duality is the basic pre-condition for the concept of the polarity system - between what otherwise you would arange balance or harmony.

Sorry for my great mistake of using the term polarism and dualism - it is very important for me that especially the understanding of this two terms and their differences comes over.

So finally again: the 3rd factor, the arrangment of harmony, the search for the balance between two oposite poles, is the concept of south-east and east asian cultures, and this is - and I hope, I am not mistaken again - well known under the theoretical concept of POLARITY (hope this term is right know - it would possibly a help if you could ask your friend in the Netherlands).

I am aware about the fact that older generations have some trouble with the term of Polarity and its definition or meaning as they are used to the term Duality.

I really hope, that my intension and understanding of south-east asian and east asian cultures become clear and are not mistakenly reduced to the western definition of Duality. In fact the term Polarity was created because of the western infiltrated interpretation of the term Duality, wrongly attributed to the social-religious concpts of south-east asian and east asian cultures.

Thanks,
guwaya