Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > Keris Warung Kopi
FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 20th March 2010, 02:44 AM   #1
A. G. Maisey
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,896
Default Nothing at all to do with keris.

This post either has absolutely nothing to do with keris, or it has absolutely everything to do with keris.

How you percieve its relevance to the keris is dependent upon how your mind works.

At the heart of keris understanding for the modern collector, both within keris bearing cultures, and outside keris bearing cultures, is the question of origin in both geographic terms and in terms of age of the relevant keris.

The way in which we address this question of origin can very often be quite humorous if we care to take two long steps back from the matter and address it in a purely objective and logical way.

Without becoming too involved in discussion of the source of humour, it may be sufficient to observe that as a group, and individually, we tend to either take shelter in vagueness, or regard vagueness as certainty. We swim in a sea of vagueness.

Recently I was lent a really wonderful book. Possibly the best bit of reading I've had in front of me in a long time:-

Not Exactly: In praise of vagueness --- Kees van Deemter (Oxford University Press)

As I have been reading it, I have constantly been amused by the matters treated in this book, and the attitudes and conventions of those of us who have an interest in the keris.

If your mind functions in a way that relates ideas, characteristics, information , that is relevant to one sphere to similar ideas etc that are relevant in other spheres, and thus provide better understanding of the functionality of concepts within disparate spheres, you will enjoy this book:-

http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/~kvdeemte/NotExactly-book

Here is a sample:-

http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/~kvdeemte/...eemter-c01.pdf


However, if you seek clear-cut answers that progress in a straight line, you will very probably not enjoy it at all.

If you do bring yourself to read it, you may better understand what we are dealing with when we set out to categorise keris.
A. G. Maisey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2010, 03:13 AM   #2
David
Keris forum moderator
 
David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 7,126
Default

hmmm...i vote "absolutely everything to do with keris"...
David is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2010, 03:41 AM   #3
ThePepperSkull
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 338
Default

Very interesting.

As someone who is just learning about all things keris, my mind is set on "Categorize" in order for me to remember terms and absorb knowledge more easily.

It seems to me that the more experienced of veteran collectors and connoiseurs, such as Mr Maisey, are less inclined to categorize or critique and more inclined to appreciate the work that may go into a keris. Perhaps because of his more in-depth knowledge, perhaps because of his experiences with the keris, or maybe even because of some sort of cultural difference between he and others like myself on this message board.

I am reminded from personal experience of Philippine edged weaponry, where (on this forum as well), we tend to try to set apart what a Sanduko is from a Tenegre or a Talibon from a Garab. In the Philippines, however, they are just known collectively and simply as "Bolo" or "Itak".
ThePepperSkull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2010, 04:11 AM   #4
BluErf
Member
 
BluErf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,180
Default

My 2 bits - Vagueness - one of the ways people use to deal with questions they cannot precisely answer, to make sense of the world which they cannot fully perceive or think about. A way to generate working patterns that can be used. The by-product of not being able to articulate what our brain has seen and known. What many people do to keep themselves from going insane.
BluErf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2010, 05:04 AM   #5
Alam Shah
Member
 
Alam Shah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,248
Default

My 1 bit.. what is clear is, no one knows everything for sure.. the more we know, the more we'll discover things that we do not.. the more we're sure, we'll discover information that will challenge our perceptions and theories..

Kai Wee, I like your 2 bits..

Categorize.. to a certain extend imho, is necessary.. In the keris world, to streamline certain forms, features and other such parameters, helps to form an opinion.. however, there will be exceptions.. for example, in the case of the Bugis keris blades, it covers a large geographical area, how can we tell them apart?

Names, Nomenclatures.. to a certain extent helps to express/define what one is talking about.. but over time, I found that the variations are 'endless' from region to region.. to an extreme extent, from state to state.. (as mentioned by Alan before)..
Alam Shah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2010, 05:54 AM   #6
ganjawulung
Member
 
ganjawulung's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: J a k a r t a
Posts: 991
Default Vagueness

Interesting topic on interesting book,

May i quote this interesting statement of Mr van Deemter on vagueness, as Alan posted in this thread:

...In the course of this book, it will become clear that vagueness is
everywhere: if you believe a concept to be completely crisp, then examine
it more closely and it will often prove to be vague. Size-denoting terms
such as ‘small’ and ‘large’ are obviously vague, for example, but so are
colour terms, at least in ordinary language, where sharp boundaries are
not artificially imposed on them...


and also,

...The aim of this book is to explore how vagueness works, and why it
pervades communication. It is part and parcel of this enterprise to ask
why vagueness is not always a bad thing: we shall see that sometimes
vagueness is simply unavoidable, while on other occasions vagueness is
actually preferable to precision. We shall also devote considerable space
to discussing the implications of our findings for the construction of
Artificially Intelligent systems, which are slowly but surely starting to be
endowed with a human-like capacity to produce and understand ordinary
language....


We deal with vagueness, everyday, in our Warung kopi here. Are we all crisp? As Waroeng itself, in the daily meaning in Jawa is also a place of "vagueness" in the sense of people in Jawanese waroeng, sometimes will talk about serious things -- whether it is political matter, or criminal matter, even moral matter -- in a vague way....

GANJAWULUNG

Last edited by ganjawulung; 21st March 2010 at 08:32 AM.
ganjawulung is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2010, 10:30 AM   #7
A. G. Maisey
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,896
Default

Think about tangguh --- or any other classificatory system for that matter --- in terms of the sorites paradox.

Consider the reversal of poles in linguistics.

Consider the point at which the vague becomes crisp, the threshold of relative certainty, and then consider this relationship to Eubulides.

When used in a matrixical form with the elements of supposed "keris knowledge" the concepts addressed in this book cannot fail to amuse.
A. G. Maisey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th March 2010, 05:29 AM   #8
Laowang
Member
 
Laowang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: 40˚00' N, 83˚00' W
Posts: 52
Default

Jorge Luis Borges, in his essay "The Analytical Language of John Wilkins", mentions an apocryphal Chinese encyclopedia in which:

animals are divided into (a) those that belong to the Emperor, (b) embalmed ones, (c) those that are trained, (d) suckling pigs, (e) mermaids, (f) fabulous ones, (g) stray dogs, (h) those that are included in this classification, (i) those that tremble as if they were mad, (j) innumerable ones, (k) those drawn with a very fine camel's hair brush, (l) others, (m) those that have just broken a flower vase, (n) those that resemble flies from a distance.

He concludes:

It is clear that there is no classification of the Universe that is not arbitrary and full of conjectures. The reason for this is very simple: we do not know what kind of thing the universe is.

I think that sums it up pretty well.
Laowang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2010, 06:15 AM   #9
A. G. Maisey
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,896
Default

I was caught in a line of traffic this morning.

In front of me was great big aggressive looking SUV , that was being driven by a very clean-cut middle aged man wearing the reversed collar of a clergyman.

When I read his bumper sticker i just couldn't help but relate it to this thread:-

Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. Matthew 5 : 37

Again, nothing to do with keris --- or maybe everything to do with keris.
A. G. Maisey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2010, 09:05 AM   #10
drdavid
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 371
Default

Sombunall....is a word created by the rather off beat iconoclast writer Robert Anton Wilson, first mentioned in his book 'The New Inquisition'
He describes it as a word we badly need for describing many situations, things and ideas.........it stops us from getting stuck in the black/white, night/day, on/off etc dichotomy of thinking
It means 'some but not all'
In essence our perceptions involve abstractions (we only perceive part of a thing at any one time), we then generalise from groups of abstractions and come up with rules or facts and assume we KNOW something
In actuality we never know all, at best we know sombunall

Last edited by drdavid; 31st March 2010 at 12:23 PM.
drdavid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2010, 02:26 PM   #11
David
Keris forum moderator
 
David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 7,126
Default

Awesome Dr D. Another R.A. Wilson fan. I've read quite a bit of his work and saw him lecture a few times.
David is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st April 2010, 06:10 AM   #12
A. G. Maisey
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,896
Default

Yes, true:- we all have only a part of knowledge in any field, and maybe what we regard as knowledge is not really knowledge at all.

I had never heard of R.A. Winston.

So I googleised him.

After reading a little bit about him I realised just how very fitting the quote on the bumper sticker might be.
A. G. Maisey is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.