Apropos display

[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

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks for your response, Guwaya.

I think we've cleared up this matter of semantics now.

I believe that we are on the same page, hold similar if not precisely the same views, and are in agreement that Javanese culture cannot be understood within a Western framework.

I can understand how the word "polarity" may be applied as descriptive of the nature of Javanese and some other societies, but I will need to think about this over time before I will be willing to abandon the Taoist model of duality as the framework within which I evaluate this society.My enquiries to date seem to indicate that although this term of polarity in this application may have some currency in some parts of academia, it is not yet in general usage worldwide.Since this Forum is not based in academia, and since most its members, myself included, are not academics, I feel that there is no compulsion for us to use either the term "polarity", or "duality" to describe the nature of Javanese society and culture, provided that we have a clear understanding of this nature.

I do agree with you that to the term "duality" can very easily be misunderstood, in the absence of an understanding that the term "duality" by itself does not have any descriptive quality, it merely indicates a condition. There are many forms and models of duality, and to be descriptive of the condition the term needs to be qualified. Your use of the term "polarity" seems to avoid this need for qualification --- unless of course academia has determined that we now have various models of polarity.

May we now move on to some of the questions that have been raised in the previous posts?

Perhaps you may feel inclined to address either David's, or my questions that have been put to you in posts # 17 and # 18 ?

[Jussi M.]

classic display/store 2?