The Kingdom.

[Jussi M.]

Originally Posted by Rick

Uhm, Jussi .....

That's my job here .

Me, I have positioned myself on another floor

[A. G. Maisey]

Jussi, does the mouse see a tree in the same way as an elephant?

[Amuk Murugul]

Hullo everybody!

Many decades have taught me that generally speaking, in the real world, absolute truths are very hard to come by. More readily available are belief systems. As one has a limited lifespan... and indeed a very limited amount of time to research every detail to its primary source ( if still available), one tends to adopt a belief system to compensate.
Humans have a tendency to behave like sheep. It is easier to follow and extrapolate someone else's work than to do one's own. Oh for the availability of more GOATS!
There are many different truths about the same thing, depending on perspective. So it is with belief systems. In some cases, even absolute truths have been rejected through lack of belief/faith in it, to be replaced by more acceptable, concocted myths.
From my perspective, it's a distinct advantage to be part of IA. However, even in IA one musn't shy away from the process of reiterative investigation. It is a lot easier if, even within IA, one identifies/establishes others who can serve as reliable secondary/tertiary/etc. sources (to save continual duplication of effort).
To totally understand an icon from a culture, one needs to understand the culture which produced that icon. One should not evaluate the icon according to the value/belief system of another culture. Aspects may be missed and indeed, misunderstood altogether.
To be able to ask the 'right' questions during the various stages of an investigation I have found EMPATHY to be most invaluable, followed by the sights: sight, hindsight, foresight and insight.

Best,

[A. G. Maisey]

I have a confession to make.

After a few years of bouncing around as a paper shuffler in my organisation , I went over to the dark side.

I bought a grey pinstripe suit, a pair of rimless glasses, got a short haircut and joined the ranks of the IA.

The reason for my slide into infamy was totally pecuniary. These people got paid unbelieveably well. Probably because not many people were prepared to be universally hated. I didn't mind being hated provided I got paid well enough for it.

What Amuk has said about truth, belief and the nature of man I agree with wholeheartedly.

What he has said about the search for truth I will add to, not because I disagree in even the slightest degree with what he has said, but because what he has said is precisely correct and I believe can be expanded to permit a more complete comprehension.

Modern IA depends heavily upon the analysis of systems.

Anything at all can be regarded as a system. It may be a chaotic system, or it may be an ordered system, but no matter what kind of system it is, it can still be broken into the parts that cause it to exist.

Once the parameters of the system have been identified, that system can be analysed.

Typically the process used to understand the system will consist of identifying inputs to the system, outputs from the system and the internal mechanics of the system.

The identification is accomplished through the gathering of information.

Once the information required to analyse the system has been gathered, analysis can proceed.

Part of the process of analysis is the testing of the system in order to ensure that the conclusions drawn during the analysis are able to be supported in fact. Testing relies upon statistical results extrapolated to represent the entire population of entities which comprise the system.

Upon completion of the analytical process, conclusions can be drawn.

People who are expert in the techniques of IA claim to be able to apply this broadly described process to anything at all, even to entities and processes of which they themselves have little or no knowledge. They achieve this by employing the knowledge of recognised experts in the particular field which they wish to address and which they do not understand.

We could well ask what all this waffling on about systems and analysis has to do with the keris and an understanding of the keris.

If we consider keris culture as a sub-system contained within the broad pattern of a society, or of a dominant culture, then we can apply exactly the same tools of information gathering, analysis and testing to the job of understanding the culture of the keris as we would apply to the understanding of any other system.

There is one particular difficulty in using this approach with the keris, and that is that any understanding which we may reach needs to be constrained within a matrixical description that takes account of time. Thus, if we wish to understand the keris as it is today, it is sufficient to apply our techniques to a chosen window of time encompassing the very near past. We set the limits of our system and we proceed upon that basis.

However, if we wish to understand the keris as it was at some time in the distant past, we need to largely disregard any information gathered that can be attributed to a later period. In this case the matrix would spread as a physical object in the present, and as a percieved object in the past, both past and present being encompassed by the limitations of the three dimensional matrix.

In the gathering of some information, empathy can be regarded as useful tool, but there are other tools in the toolbox, and some are no less valuable than empathy.Like any tool set, it is a matter of choosing the correct tool for the job in hand.

To apply this process to understanding the culture of the keris we begin with gathering information, in order to first identify the limits of the system that we wish to understand, and then to provide material for analysis of the internal mechanics of that system.

As Amuk has said:- To totally understand an icon from a culture, one needs to understand the culture which produced that icon.

The result can be expected to be that upon completion of analysis we might be able to understand the how and the why of understanding within that culture, but we are very unlikely to be able to understand in the same way that members of that cultural group do.

For those of us who do wish to come to an understanding of the keris, no matter within whatever parameters, I would most sincerely suggest that the understanding must grow from an understanding of the parent culture. We should not try to begin study of the keris, and then just bolt on a few snippets of Javanese or Balinese cultural knowledge, rather, we should come at the problem from the other direction:- gain an understanding of the parent culture and then use that as the foundation for attaining an understanding of the keris.

In IA terms, complete the information gathering and testing before trying to draw conclusions.

[drdavid]

Fascinating discussion, thank you to everyone contributing.

For me Alan's comments regarding time and cultural context are the nub of this keris thing

There is one particular difficulty in using this approach with the keris, and that is that any understanding which we may reach needs to be constrained within a matrixical description that takes account of time.

The difficulties here are about gathering information that is moderately accurate, and having sufficient cultural insight to weave that information into an acceptable semblence of a story. The information available to me about the past of this region seems biased by external cultural nuance be it Western or Islamic, or semi-mythological local tradition which is overlaid with the mists of time (a little like Excalibur and the Arthurian tradition).

I appreciate I know nothing of keris. I also know very little about IA however if modern IA techniques require detailed analysis of a system by gathering information about the system and adding expert commentary I struggle to see how they can be applied effectively to traditional keris culture. In the first instance the information sources are biased or folkloric or not truly getting to the heart of the system (for example I dont think classification systems tell us much about keris in their original cultural context). On the second count although we have current experts we have little or no information that I am aware of that stems from experts "in the time of keris".

This is not to say we should not ask the questions, however it does appear that many of our answers will remain speculative unless some unusual trick of fate reveals sources not previously known.

cheers
David

[A. G. Maisey]

When I started this thread I chose the path of using a business organisation as a model for a loose organisation of a group of people who were interested in a particular subject. That subject was the keris.

As a group, some of the contributors to this thread have maintained this line of thought and have presented their comments couched in terms that echo the idea of a business organisation. In my most recent post I have continued to play this game, in the belief that this type of scene painting was managing to reach a number of people.

David has just shown me that rather than using the business model to try to convey my thoughts, I perhaps need to be a little more direct and stop trying to be mildly amusing.

I will state this as simply and as directly as I am able:-

I am not recommending that the specific techniques of IA be applied to all avenues of investigation of the keris, rather I am stating my belief that the philosophy of information gathering, analysis and the drawing of conclusions should proceed in an ordered fashion for each individual aspect of keris culture.

Keris culture can be identified as a system containing many units within that system for example, manufacture, maintenance, practical use, societal practice, use as an item of dress, character as a store of wealth, nature as an heirloom, nature as a kin group symbol --- and so on. Each of these units is something that can be looked at as a separate entity, but one that is related to the other units. For example, if we look at manufacture the output from that unit is into commerce,so then we can examine the trade in keris as a unit. The output from the trade unit could be into societal usage, so then that can be examined as a unit.

Once the unit we wish to study has been identified we then gather information relevant to that unit.

When the information has been gathered tests can be devised to try to verify the information.

When the information has been verified it can be analysed and supportable conclusions can be drawn.

All of this is simply the application of logic.

I am not saying that any of this is easy. Its not. I've been working at the questions intermittently in this way for a very long time, and it involves countless hours of extremely boring reading and even more time in trying to understand what early Javanese writers are really trying to tell the reader.

But the information is there. As David has pointed out, it is based in myth and folklore, and in many respects it is biased, but if the objective is to understand the unit we are investigating in Javanese terms, rather than in the terms of modern man, then this is no impediment.Once understanding in Javanese terms has been acquired, then it may be possible to translate that understanding into a framework that is acceptable to a 21st century western mind.

Or it may not. The same, or similar terms of reference may not exist in that western mind.

Something does not need to be true to us, we need to understand that it is, or was, true to the people to which this cultural artifact belongs.

David has mentioned the "original cultural context" of the keris.

To address this question we first need to decide exactly what we mean by "keris", and again, exactly when that "keris" was original.

Was it in the Middle Jawa period circa 800AD?

Or was it in East Jawa with the appearance of the modern keris around the 14th century?

In the one case we need to rely on monumental evidence and logical analysis, in the other case we can use texts to supplement our enquiries.

Nothing is going to be spelt out for us. It will not laid in our laps. But if we wish to look at the unit of keris culture which encapsulates "original cultural context", there is probably sufficient evidence in existance to build a reasonable hypothesis.

It must not be forgotten that it is not simply the keris and its culture that needs to be examined. Although we may be dividing that big, spongy mass of unapproachable mystery into little bite sized units that we can comfortably examine, in order to examine that little bite sized unit we need to go outside the unit, outside the sub-culture of the keris, and thoroughly examine the parent culture. Only then will we have a foundation upon which to build.

What I am attempting to do here is to get people interested in the concept of looking logically and analytically at the keris.

Throw aside the big mysterious too hard idea of THE KERIS.
If we do not identify the specific unit of keris culture that we wish to examine, and go after information within the bounds of that unit, the whole question simply becomes too hard.

If we want to understand the technology this is now a very, very simple matter. All the work has been done and there are no more mysteries. It is just a matter of getting active and digging out the information.

If we wish to examine the current beliefs surrounding the keris, this is also easy:- its just a matter of reading , and perhaps talking to a few people.

Investigation of the keris through time is much more difficult, but the information is there to allow construction of solid supportable ideas. However, gathering that information is not easy and it is very time consuming.

The task of understanding only becomes insurmountable when we do not think clearly, logically, and in an analytical fashion. Then we are in danger of getting lost in a mist of bovine excreta.

If the question that interests us is the place of the keris in Javanese society in the distant past a good starting point for information gathering could well be Pigeaud's 5 volume "Java in the Fourteenth Century". There are no translations of works by 14th century Javanese ahli keris in this work, but there is a wealth of information on Javanese society and a little bit of information that relates directly to the keris.

But that work is only a starting point. You will need to read the accounts of early travellers, history texts, court babads, myths, folk stories, legends. You will need to study Javanese art, anthropology, sociology, philosophy. And when you have done all of that you will need to learn the way in which Javanese thought and world view differs from that of modern western man. And don't forget Bali. If we are talking "original" Islam has contributed to much of how the keris is now understood in Jawa.

The job can be done. But it is not an easy one, and probably not one for a single person.

[Jussi M.]

We now have a pretty streamlined pathway presented on this thread.

Thank you

J