Having read Josef Prijotomo’s last two entries (Space in Text, Space in Architecture, and Fart and Mount Mahameru), I notice one thing: for the Javanese, what they encounter and experience on daily basis is what matters. As such, their perception of space is determined (if I may use the word “determined” hereby) by their daily experiences and perceptions.
This also reminds me with Prijotomo’s book, (Re-)Konstruksi Arsitektur Jawa; Griya Jawa dalam Tradisi Tanpatulisan (Wastu Lanas Grafika, Surabaya, 2006), which I made a review upon, which was eventually published on The Jakarta Post (The Conundrum in Explaining “Non-literal” Text, May 13th, 2007). In this book, it is explained that the space of a Javanese structure is formed by the roof (the roof provides shading; the shade is where the space be). Yes, it looks so obvious. But Javanese are not Platonic people. Hence Nietzsche was German instead of Javanese.
The book also explains how a Javanese house (griya) embodies Javanese knowledge. The way the house is constructed disseminates this knowledge on various aspects. A house is, of course, a daily thing.
So is a fart. It is a profane and daily thing. Perhaps it is precisely its “banality” (that is, its daily-ness) that prompted the creator of Semar character to decide Semar’s ultimate weapon is his fart. And Semar became a character in wayang, which is also a part of Javanese daily life. Being a part of daily-ness (being a medium of entertainment), wayang acts as a tool for disseminating knowledge—just like a house.
Perhaps daily-ness is also the factor behind Majapahit’s era perspective (refer to my entry on Javanese perspective as demonstrated by an archaeologist on his paper). The perspective found on carved relief panels of Majapahit candis (such as Candi Sukuh) represents none other than what a Javanese person perceives when she/he gazes across a space. It is not a space perceived through a religious or metaphysical point of view. It is simply what one actually perceives visually.
Prijotomo’s writing on space in Javanese text also touches upon daily-ness. On daily basis, one sees various phenomena. One does not only witness one phenomenon. Things sacred and things profane, thing logical and things absurd, are present simultaneously in our daily experiences. As such, differentiation through segregation is not necessary. In daily-ness, one can see differences within knitted, yet varying, phenomena. Therefore, Javanese text does not necessitate having a space between two words; two different things do not have to be segregated, for in daily occurrences different things happen simultaneously.
Daily-ness is perhaps a key to understand Javanese perception, and understanding, of space. Perhaps this is a theoretical subject that can only be understood not by reading books on architectural theories, but by experiencing the spaces as daily phenomena.
One thing that needs to be considered is epistemology. Reason alone is incapable to understand the subject of Javanese space. It seems that for Javanese, reason cannot act alone to perceive and understand. Daily-ness includes senses. Hence Semar’s fart becomes something that forms space, according to Prijotomo.
On this matter of epistemology, comparison can be done by putting Javanese and Western epistemologies side by side, if we need to contrast them. But in order to get similarities, we may compare Javanese epistemology with that of—for instance—Islamic society in medieval Middle East. It is interesting that thinkers such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna, in Latin form) proposed something similar to Javanese epistemology: reason alone is incapacitated to perceive and comprehend things. There are also others, beside reason, that one has to use in order to perceive and understand things; others such as will and senses.
Rabu, 31 Desember 2008
Senin, 29 Desember 2008
Space in Text, Space in Architecture
Spaces between Words in a Sentence
Let us discuss the space as we find it in construction of writing, as such, based on the Latin writing system, we have a space bar on our computer keyboard. By observing the formation of sentences in Latin system, spaces between words are just as important as the words themselves. Therefore, a sentence is a juxtaposition/construction of words and spaces.
In Javanese system, the formation of sentences is done by tying up a word with the next word that comes after it. Space is not to be present. What is presented on a written sentence, then, are words connected with each other without spaces among the words. Such tying up of the words at times is carried out in a very strict manner that the succeeding character is tasked to “kill” its preceding character. Such tying up of the words really demonstrates that space is meaningless for Javanese writing (Note: it is Javanese writing we are talking about hereby, NOT Javanese sentence ==> We hereby need to differentiate Javanese writing and Javanese sentence)
Hence, when we are to discuss the space between words in written form, Javanese system of writing demonstrates the following:
WRITING: words are connected to each other without providing an opportunity for space to be. Does this mean there is a chance for “words destruction” (i.e.: mistake in differentiating a word from other words completely change the meaning of the word)?
READING: the first and foremost task in reading is to place a space between a word and another: which is none other than an act of EMPTYING. It is also an act of IMPRISONING; as well as UNTYING. Nevertheless, the act is not FILLING A SPACE BETWEEN WORDS; nor DETERMINING A DISTANCE; nor DELAYING A TIE.
It has been discussed that in reading, one is required to firstly untie one word from another. To be more precise, the first act is to build a certainty of which words are present in a row of scripts. Keep in mind that Javanese system does not deny interpretation; in fact, the first task according to the system is to interpret the row of scripts as a row of words.
So, between the author and the reader, there lies this following Javanese ETHIC: “the reader is not to be dictated by the author.” The reader is given a total freedom to interpret what is written. The reader, then, has the total freedom to build meaning; the total freedom to be not ruled by the author.
Would this ethic not loose its true direction so that the reader assumes the role of the author? Certainly not, for the task to stray away is tasked to the author. The author is required to control the interpretation to be built by the reader. Through the selection of words, this act of controlling the interpretation is carried out. This is also the factor why Javanese words have synonyms, in which one word may have several synonyms.
Now, on the reader. Are the codes of ethics for reading also applicable to the reader? This study has not answered this particular question. Nevertheless, we can still ponders upon it. When one is reading, what is actually done in the act of reading, and what is to be gained? Is reading about "listening to text," as once said by Budi A. Sukada? Is reading about "searching for what is said by the author"? Is reading about "learning,” that is to say, building up the reader’s body of knowledge by using reading/text as sign and point for building the body of knowledge? One thing can be regarded as a certainty: the reader has the right to build up his body of knowledge on his own, even if it means the reader is free of and unrelated to the author, through what in Javanese known as keratabasa or othak-athik gathuk.[i]
Keratabasa and Othak-athik Gathuk
Here, the word is encountered by the reader as a row of letters which do not have to be strictly associated with the word’s meaning. This row of letters indeed forms a word, yet it is a word emptied of its meaning. Such void of meaning is then filled by the reader with her construction of meaning. However, though meaning has been emptied, it does not eman tha the word has become completely meaningless. It is othak-athik gathuk which attempts to leave some traces of meaning or concept of the word. But then, the traces become the references for constructing the meaning of the word.
Example: the word kathok (pants). It is an abbreviation of the phrase: "diangkat mbaka sithok" (pulling up one by one). The meaning of kathok = pulling up one by one; for kathok becomes an abbreviation, therefore loosing its meaning. In understanding the concept of “pants,” as outfits which putting them on has to involve pulling up one’s legs one by one, the event called diangkat mbaka sithok becomes profoundly important.
Another example is cangkir = cup (such as a teacup). This word becomes an abbreviation of the phrase "nancang pikir" = "tying up thought." When a cup is used to offer a drink to a guest, the guest’s thought should be tied to that of the host. Compared with kathok which is an abbreviation of a direct act for making use the object, then in the case of cangkir the abbreviation is intended to signify the intention of the act of offering a drink in the cup. Another example would be "guru." The word can be an abbreviation of "digugu lan ditiru" (obeyed and followed); "yen minggu turu" (sleeping on Sunday), "wagu lan kuru" (looking unproportional and thin).
All these show how the reader has extensive freedom to construct body of knowledge by using the written letters. The reader may construct her own version of knowledge, with no requirement to submit to the author. The author’s knowledge is engendered in the letters as reference, or limits of interpretation and construction of knowledge.
Space and Nusantara’s Architectures
Writing in Javanese letters (as in writing in Balinese letters) does not include spaces between words which form the sentence. This brings at least two consequences, particularly in association with our knowledge on Nusantara architectures (Java and Bali in this case). First, Javanese recognize the presence of space, yet consciously do not present it. The reason is quite obvious: space is (regarded as) an unseen thing. By experiencing—reading a text—one can be aware of the presence of space. Which one is the space, or rather, where is the space? Upon reading and understanding the text, one can determine where the spaces are within the text’s corpus. So, a space can be determined after a word is determined. Just like a piece of white, empty paper. It is a space. Yet we are aware of this only after we have written some letters on it. Analogizing this in the case of Nusantara’s architectures, the presence of space would be recognized after construction of a building has been composed.
Second, meaning or intention of a text can be determined after an act of interpretation has been carried out. Interpretation is required, for without it, words and spaces between words would not appear. Analogizing this in architecture, meaning or intention of an architectural presence can only be determined after an interpretation on architecture has been carried out.
Something matters more, though. Only through interpreting Nusantara’s architectures one can determine the certainty of space. Can we then say architecture is about making space? A long discussion is to be done, if we want to discuss it.
Josef Prijotomo, 10th December 2008
[i] These two Javanese terms refer to an act of fitting up words to seemingly unrelated, or unexpected, meanings.
Let us discuss the space as we find it in construction of writing, as such, based on the Latin writing system, we have a space bar on our computer keyboard. By observing the formation of sentences in Latin system, spaces between words are just as important as the words themselves. Therefore, a sentence is a juxtaposition/construction of words and spaces.
In Javanese system, the formation of sentences is done by tying up a word with the next word that comes after it. Space is not to be present. What is presented on a written sentence, then, are words connected with each other without spaces among the words. Such tying up of the words at times is carried out in a very strict manner that the succeeding character is tasked to “kill” its preceding character. Such tying up of the words really demonstrates that space is meaningless for Javanese writing (Note: it is Javanese writing we are talking about hereby, NOT Javanese sentence ==> We hereby need to differentiate Javanese writing and Javanese sentence)
Hence, when we are to discuss the space between words in written form, Javanese system of writing demonstrates the following:
WRITING: words are connected to each other without providing an opportunity for space to be. Does this mean there is a chance for “words destruction” (i.e.: mistake in differentiating a word from other words completely change the meaning of the word)?
READING: the first and foremost task in reading is to place a space between a word and another: which is none other than an act of EMPTYING. It is also an act of IMPRISONING; as well as UNTYING. Nevertheless, the act is not FILLING A SPACE BETWEEN WORDS; nor DETERMINING A DISTANCE; nor DELAYING A TIE.
It has been discussed that in reading, one is required to firstly untie one word from another. To be more precise, the first act is to build a certainty of which words are present in a row of scripts. Keep in mind that Javanese system does not deny interpretation; in fact, the first task according to the system is to interpret the row of scripts as a row of words.
So, between the author and the reader, there lies this following Javanese ETHIC: “the reader is not to be dictated by the author.” The reader is given a total freedom to interpret what is written. The reader, then, has the total freedom to build meaning; the total freedom to be not ruled by the author.
Would this ethic not loose its true direction so that the reader assumes the role of the author? Certainly not, for the task to stray away is tasked to the author. The author is required to control the interpretation to be built by the reader. Through the selection of words, this act of controlling the interpretation is carried out. This is also the factor why Javanese words have synonyms, in which one word may have several synonyms.
Now, on the reader. Are the codes of ethics for reading also applicable to the reader? This study has not answered this particular question. Nevertheless, we can still ponders upon it. When one is reading, what is actually done in the act of reading, and what is to be gained? Is reading about "listening to text," as once said by Budi A. Sukada? Is reading about "searching for what is said by the author"? Is reading about "learning,” that is to say, building up the reader’s body of knowledge by using reading/text as sign and point for building the body of knowledge? One thing can be regarded as a certainty: the reader has the right to build up his body of knowledge on his own, even if it means the reader is free of and unrelated to the author, through what in Javanese known as keratabasa or othak-athik gathuk.[i]
Keratabasa and Othak-athik Gathuk
Here, the word is encountered by the reader as a row of letters which do not have to be strictly associated with the word’s meaning. This row of letters indeed forms a word, yet it is a word emptied of its meaning. Such void of meaning is then filled by the reader with her construction of meaning. However, though meaning has been emptied, it does not eman tha the word has become completely meaningless. It is othak-athik gathuk which attempts to leave some traces of meaning or concept of the word. But then, the traces become the references for constructing the meaning of the word.
Example: the word kathok (pants). It is an abbreviation of the phrase: "diangkat mbaka sithok" (pulling up one by one). The meaning of kathok = pulling up one by one; for kathok becomes an abbreviation, therefore loosing its meaning. In understanding the concept of “pants,” as outfits which putting them on has to involve pulling up one’s legs one by one, the event called diangkat mbaka sithok becomes profoundly important.
Another example is cangkir = cup (such as a teacup). This word becomes an abbreviation of the phrase "nancang pikir" = "tying up thought." When a cup is used to offer a drink to a guest, the guest’s thought should be tied to that of the host. Compared with kathok which is an abbreviation of a direct act for making use the object, then in the case of cangkir the abbreviation is intended to signify the intention of the act of offering a drink in the cup. Another example would be "guru." The word can be an abbreviation of "digugu lan ditiru" (obeyed and followed); "yen minggu turu" (sleeping on Sunday), "wagu lan kuru" (looking unproportional and thin).
All these show how the reader has extensive freedom to construct body of knowledge by using the written letters. The reader may construct her own version of knowledge, with no requirement to submit to the author. The author’s knowledge is engendered in the letters as reference, or limits of interpretation and construction of knowledge.
Space and Nusantara’s Architectures
Writing in Javanese letters (as in writing in Balinese letters) does not include spaces between words which form the sentence. This brings at least two consequences, particularly in association with our knowledge on Nusantara architectures (Java and Bali in this case). First, Javanese recognize the presence of space, yet consciously do not present it. The reason is quite obvious: space is (regarded as) an unseen thing. By experiencing—reading a text—one can be aware of the presence of space. Which one is the space, or rather, where is the space? Upon reading and understanding the text, one can determine where the spaces are within the text’s corpus. So, a space can be determined after a word is determined. Just like a piece of white, empty paper. It is a space. Yet we are aware of this only after we have written some letters on it. Analogizing this in the case of Nusantara’s architectures, the presence of space would be recognized after construction of a building has been composed.
Second, meaning or intention of a text can be determined after an act of interpretation has been carried out. Interpretation is required, for without it, words and spaces between words would not appear. Analogizing this in architecture, meaning or intention of an architectural presence can only be determined after an interpretation on architecture has been carried out.
Something matters more, though. Only through interpreting Nusantara’s architectures one can determine the certainty of space. Can we then say architecture is about making space? A long discussion is to be done, if we want to discuss it.
Josef Prijotomo, 10th December 2008
[i] These two Javanese terms refer to an act of fitting up words to seemingly unrelated, or unexpected, meanings.
Senin, 15 Desember 2008
Fart and Mount Mahameru
An excerpt from an entry to this blog, 30th August 2008, entitled Space (from a Javanese text, Serat Jatimurti. Courtesy of Josef Prijotomo)
The case is rather different, however, when we discuss Javanese theory of space. Space (jirim) and essence (kajaten) are not dichotomies. In order to be, space needs essence, and essence needs existence.
If Semar’s fart is jirim (space), the excerpt demonstrated the necessity for kajaten (essence) for the presence and being of the fart. Is there anything from what we know about Semar which would make it possible for us to uncover what and who is this kajaten (essence)?
Fart is the 'air' that is exerted from stomach, and that means, this fart becomes the one that makes jirim (space) exist and be present. By reading the story of Semar—in which he is named as Hyang Ismaya—one knows that Hyang Ismaya had carried out the order given by his father. In order to become the ruler of the upper world (the deities’ realm), the lower world (demons’ realm) as well as the middle world (human being’s realm), Hyang Ismaya was required to swallow the whole Mount Mahameru and jettison it away out of his stomach afterward. In doing the order, Hyang Ismaya managed to swallow the Mount Mahameru. However, he failed to propel the Mount Mahameru out of his stomach. Consequently, Hyang Ismaya not only failed to become the ruler of the three realms, he also became an ugly looking creature; his belly bloats. From the story, we know that inside Semar’s belly, resides the Mount Mahameru. When Semar farted, he let out Mount Mahameru. From this we know that the jirim (space) defined by Semar’s fart is created by Mount Mahameru, which is the kajaten (essence).
A little story about Mount Mahameru. It would be beneficial if we provide certain interpretation on Mount Mahameru in Semar’s tale, in particular its position as kajaten (essence) for jirim (space). The order to swallow and let out the mount can be interpreted as an order to receive knowledge to be later on developed and applied. It is possible that Mount Mahameru was just a metaphor representing the knowledge on the aforementioned three realms which surround human beings; the Universe, the earthly world, and the real lives of human beings. Also, there are the three realms; the realm of good (deities), the realm of evil (demons), and the realm of real human actions. In short, it is possible that what Mount Mahameru represents in the tale of Semar is none other than “the ultimate knowledge of everything.” If it is so, it would be prudent to regard Mount Mahameru as kajaten (essence).
Josef Prijotomo, 10th December 2008
The case is rather different, however, when we discuss Javanese theory of space. Space (jirim) and essence (kajaten) are not dichotomies. In order to be, space needs essence, and essence needs existence.
If Semar’s fart is jirim (space), the excerpt demonstrated the necessity for kajaten (essence) for the presence and being of the fart. Is there anything from what we know about Semar which would make it possible for us to uncover what and who is this kajaten (essence)?
Fart is the 'air' that is exerted from stomach, and that means, this fart becomes the one that makes jirim (space) exist and be present. By reading the story of Semar—in which he is named as Hyang Ismaya—one knows that Hyang Ismaya had carried out the order given by his father. In order to become the ruler of the upper world (the deities’ realm), the lower world (demons’ realm) as well as the middle world (human being’s realm), Hyang Ismaya was required to swallow the whole Mount Mahameru and jettison it away out of his stomach afterward. In doing the order, Hyang Ismaya managed to swallow the Mount Mahameru. However, he failed to propel the Mount Mahameru out of his stomach. Consequently, Hyang Ismaya not only failed to become the ruler of the three realms, he also became an ugly looking creature; his belly bloats. From the story, we know that inside Semar’s belly, resides the Mount Mahameru. When Semar farted, he let out Mount Mahameru. From this we know that the jirim (space) defined by Semar’s fart is created by Mount Mahameru, which is the kajaten (essence).
A little story about Mount Mahameru. It would be beneficial if we provide certain interpretation on Mount Mahameru in Semar’s tale, in particular its position as kajaten (essence) for jirim (space). The order to swallow and let out the mount can be interpreted as an order to receive knowledge to be later on developed and applied. It is possible that Mount Mahameru was just a metaphor representing the knowledge on the aforementioned three realms which surround human beings; the Universe, the earthly world, and the real lives of human beings. Also, there are the three realms; the realm of good (deities), the realm of evil (demons), and the realm of real human actions. In short, it is possible that what Mount Mahameru represents in the tale of Semar is none other than “the ultimate knowledge of everything.” If it is so, it would be prudent to regard Mount Mahameru as kajaten (essence).
Josef Prijotomo, 10th December 2008
Senin, 01 Desember 2008
(ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF JOSEF PRIJOTOMO'S ACCOUNT ON SEMAR'S FART AND SPACE)
1
Let us try to see the connection between Semar’s fart and rongrongan. By regarding Semar’s fart as an architectural space, sound and smell become indications of a space defined through extension. That is to say, there is a distance up to which the smell can be smelled, and the sound can be heard. Hence, smell, sound and distance form the space. Notice that visual aspect is not included as a factor of space formation. One might say that in Javanese world, the presence of space has nothing to do with sight, space is unseen; that is how Javanese perceive their architectural space.
2
Compare this with that of Plato, who also recognized volume (or extension). For Plato, geometry is also a factor behind the presence of space. Geometry is assumed by Plato because space is conceived in mind; geometry is also a result of the mind. Yet Plato did not orient his thought on space toward the real, corporeal world. He conceived space as an abstraction of visual presence of the real world. The Platonic solid becomes the geometry of the space. Notice that Plato depended on sight as the medium to get the geometry.
How about Semar and his fartial space? In his case, the world is no longer a sighted-ness, but rather smell-ness and sound-ness. Smell and sound cannot be abstracted into geometries, for they cannot be sighted. Therefore, Javanese perception of space does not involve sight and geometry. Only by being too generalist then we can conceive a space defined by smell and sound as a sphere. The involvement of sight as a factor in Plato’s space implies infinity. One can see infinitely through space (we can still see stars which are years of light speed); sight is capable to perceive infinite extension. But it is not so for smell and sound; they have limited extension. Hence, Semar’s space is an extension with limit. Outside the parameter where sound and smell can be perceived is not a part of the space.
From this comparison between the infinite and the finite, one can start to see something about how Java and Plato perceive the world and knowledge. Finite-ness is the realm of Semar’s thought, whereas infinity is the realm of Plato’s. Semar’s becomes an other for Plato’s.
3
Rongrongan may denote the real rong (as plural), while simultaneously means “something like rong,” artificial rong, although it looks so similar to real rong. ‘Rong’ itself is a cavity in the ground where insects live. Dug into the ground, rong provides a dark place, where sight is rendered useless. The sound and smell of the insects would be the indicators of rong’s presence around us (assuming we are familiar with such sound and smell). It is the sound and smell which indicate the space The farthest distance of the sound and smell does not indicate the size of rong’s volume; the distance indicates our capability to recognize the presence of rong. If so, aside from the fact that rong is a space with its volume, there is also a territory of space; it is an area that allows us to perceive rong through smell and sound. This territory is the “place,” for it is there we can know that there is a space/rong. Place and space are not related yet different things; here in Javanese case, place clouts space!
Hence the presence of a rong/ruang/space becomes directly connected to place. Notice that in this case place does not accurately denote where the space is; place is the territory where others has the chance to know that there is a space there, and they should retrace it in order to arrive at rong/ruang. This entails one thing. Rong/ruang/space does not only involve making the presence of volume, but also involves making the presence of place, a territory, which makes it possible for others to know and finally find volume/rong/ruang/space which is present. Such event turns out to be a habitual among the Javanese. To indicate where my house is, I do not provide others with my address. Instead, I would tell them some signs in my neighborhood. For instance, I would tell them that on the east side of my house, there is a trembesi tree, two houses after the third turn, etc.
4
It is time for Semar’s space and rongrongan. The radius of smell and sound produced by Semar’s fart is the pananggap sector of a Javanese house; whereas Semar, the rong, is the guru sector of a Javanese house!
Let us try to see the connection between Semar’s fart and rongrongan. By regarding Semar’s fart as an architectural space, sound and smell become indications of a space defined through extension. That is to say, there is a distance up to which the smell can be smelled, and the sound can be heard. Hence, smell, sound and distance form the space. Notice that visual aspect is not included as a factor of space formation. One might say that in Javanese world, the presence of space has nothing to do with sight, space is unseen; that is how Javanese perceive their architectural space.
2
Compare this with that of Plato, who also recognized volume (or extension). For Plato, geometry is also a factor behind the presence of space. Geometry is assumed by Plato because space is conceived in mind; geometry is also a result of the mind. Yet Plato did not orient his thought on space toward the real, corporeal world. He conceived space as an abstraction of visual presence of the real world. The Platonic solid becomes the geometry of the space. Notice that Plato depended on sight as the medium to get the geometry.
How about Semar and his fartial space? In his case, the world is no longer a sighted-ness, but rather smell-ness and sound-ness. Smell and sound cannot be abstracted into geometries, for they cannot be sighted. Therefore, Javanese perception of space does not involve sight and geometry. Only by being too generalist then we can conceive a space defined by smell and sound as a sphere. The involvement of sight as a factor in Plato’s space implies infinity. One can see infinitely through space (we can still see stars which are years of light speed); sight is capable to perceive infinite extension. But it is not so for smell and sound; they have limited extension. Hence, Semar’s space is an extension with limit. Outside the parameter where sound and smell can be perceived is not a part of the space.
From this comparison between the infinite and the finite, one can start to see something about how Java and Plato perceive the world and knowledge. Finite-ness is the realm of Semar’s thought, whereas infinity is the realm of Plato’s. Semar’s becomes an other for Plato’s.
3
Rongrongan may denote the real rong (as plural), while simultaneously means “something like rong,” artificial rong, although it looks so similar to real rong. ‘Rong’ itself is a cavity in the ground where insects live. Dug into the ground, rong provides a dark place, where sight is rendered useless. The sound and smell of the insects would be the indicators of rong’s presence around us (assuming we are familiar with such sound and smell). It is the sound and smell which indicate the space The farthest distance of the sound and smell does not indicate the size of rong’s volume; the distance indicates our capability to recognize the presence of rong. If so, aside from the fact that rong is a space with its volume, there is also a territory of space; it is an area that allows us to perceive rong through smell and sound. This territory is the “place,” for it is there we can know that there is a space/rong. Place and space are not related yet different things; here in Javanese case, place clouts space!
Hence the presence of a rong/ruang/space becomes directly connected to place. Notice that in this case place does not accurately denote where the space is; place is the territory where others has the chance to know that there is a space there, and they should retrace it in order to arrive at rong/ruang. This entails one thing. Rong/ruang/space does not only involve making the presence of volume, but also involves making the presence of place, a territory, which makes it possible for others to know and finally find volume/rong/ruang/space which is present. Such event turns out to be a habitual among the Javanese. To indicate where my house is, I do not provide others with my address. Instead, I would tell them some signs in my neighborhood. For instance, I would tell them that on the east side of my house, there is a trembesi tree, two houses after the third turn, etc.
4
It is time for Semar’s space and rongrongan. The radius of smell and sound produced by Semar’s fart is the pananggap sector of a Javanese house; whereas Semar, the rong, is the guru sector of a Javanese house!
Rabu, 26 November 2008
Semar and His Fart (in Indonesian, by Josef Prijotomo)
1
Mari kita coba lakukan pengkaitan antara kentut semar dengan rongrongan. Dengan menganggap bahwa kentut semar adalah sebuah ruang arsitektur, maka di sini suara an bau menjadi faktor penunjuk adanya ruang yang dikontrol secara langsung oleh jarak. Maksudnya, jarak adalah penentu bagi terbau dan tidaknya bau kentut; juga menjadi penentu bagi terdengar atau tidaknya bunyi kentut. Dengan demikian, bau, bunyi dan jaak (atau volume) merupakan faktor-faktor ‘pembentuk’ ruang tadi. Perhatikan bahwa penglihatan samasekali tidak diikutsertakan sebagai factor, dan dengan demikian boleh saja dikatakan bahwa dalam dunia Jawa keberadaan ruang itu memang tidak berkaitan dengan ihwal keterlihatan, ruang memang tidak terlihat, itulah yang dikenal oleh Jawa mengenai ruang arsitekturnya.
Agar supaya penyandingan dengan rongrongan dapat lebih mudah dilakukan, rasanya akan lebih baik bila terlebih dulu menyandingkan ruang semar ini dengan ruang Plato.
2
Sekarang sandingkanlah ruang semar dengan ruang versi Plato, yang juga mengenal volume (atau jarak/ukuran). Bagi Plato, geometri juga menjadi factor bagi adanya ruang. Geometri diambil oleh Plato karena ruang itu dipikir, dan salah satu hasil dari kerja pikiran adlah geometri, pengetahuan tentang mengukur/keterukuran bumi, atau menjadi lebih popular dengan ilmu bentuk.. Selanjutnya, meski geometri menunjuk pada bumi, tetapi Plato tidak menunjuk pada bumi sebagai obyek nyata/riil, melainkan menunjuk pada abstraksi yang ditarik dari kehadiran visual bumi. Platonic solid lalu menjadi geometri yang menyertai ruang tadi. Perhatikan, di sini Plato menangani geometri dengan menggunakan penglihatan sebagai medium untuk mendapatkan geometri tadi.
Bagaimanakah halnya dengan semar dengan ruang kentutnya? Dalam kasus semar, bumi bukan lagi sebuah keterlihatan melainkan sebuah keterdengaran dan keterbauan. Baik bau maupun bunyi tidak dengan langsung bisa diabstraksikan menjadi geometri, dan upaya untuk mengabstraksikan geometrinya hanya akan sia-sia adanya, mengingat baik bau maupun bunyi tidak berurusan dengan penglihatan. Jadi, pemikiran Jawa tentang ruang tidak dilakukan dengan melibatkan penglihatan maupun geometri (=abstraksi atas yang terlihat). Dengan memaksakan diri saja kita bias mengabstraksikan baud an bunyi itu sebagai sebuah bangun bola. Selanjutnya, kalau kita sandingkan lagi antara Plato dengan semar, keterlibatan penglihatan dalam Plato lalu memungkinkan untuk menghasilkan geometri yang tanpa batas, mengingat penglihatan juga tanpa batas (kita masih bias melihat bintang yang jauhnya jutaan tahun cahaya), penglihatan mampu nutk menunjuk jarak yang tak berhingga. Tidak demikian halnya dengan bau dan bunyi, mereka ini hanya berhadapan dengan keberhinggaan. Dengan demikian, ruang semar adalah ruang yang berhingga, ruang yang terukur jaraknya. Di luar jangkauan bunyi dan bau, bukan lagi ruang namanya. Apa nama bagi yang diluar jangkauan bau dan bunyi, saya masih belum menemukannya.
Berkenaan dengan keberhinggaan dan ke-tak-berhingga-an, menjadi terkuak pula bagaimana Jawa dan Plato memikir tentang bumi dan pengetahuan. Keberhinggaan menjadi ranah dari pemikiran Semar, sedang ketakberhinggaan adalah ranah dari pikiran Plato. Pemikiran semar lalu menjadi pemikiran ‘liyan’ bagi pemikiran Plato.
3
Rongrongan bisa berarti rong yang sebenarnya (sebagai kata majemuk), naun bisa pula berarti seperti rong, rong buatan, bukan rong sesungguhnya meskipun sangat mirip dengan rong. ‘rong’ sendiri adalah sebuah lubang di tanah yang menjadi tempat tinggal cengkerik, gangsir dan beberapa binatang lainnya. Tergali ke dalam tanah, rong dengan langsung merupakan sebuah tempat yang gelap, sebuah tempat yang tidak memberi tempat bagi penglihatan untuk berperan. Bau dan bunyi dari binatang penghuni rong lalu menjadi penunjuk kuat bagi adanya rong disekitar kita (tentunya kalau kita sudah akrab dengan bau dan bunyi tadi). Ini berarti bahwa adanya sebuah rong di sekitar kita dapat diyakini manakala bau atau bunyi dari rong dapat sampai ke indra pendengaran atau pembauan kita, dan bukan penglihatan kita! Di sini, jarak terjauh dari bau dan bunyi bukan penunjuk atas besarnya volume rong, melainkan jarak bagi kemampuan mengenal adanya sesuatu rong. Bila demikian halnya, maka di samping rong yang adalah ruang beserta volumenya, ada pula wilayah ruang, yakni sebuah luasan yang membuat kita mampu mengetahui adanya rong dengan menggunakan bau dan dengaran. Wilaah itu pula yang rupanya merupakan ‘tempat’ (place) mengingat dari wilayah itulah kita bisa berkesempatan untuk memperoleh keyakinan bahwa di sana ada rong/ruang. Tempat dan Ruang bukan lagi berhimpitan, melainkan tempat itu melingkungi ruang!
Dari gambaran yang terakhir tadi, kehadiran sesuatu rong/ruang menjadi berkaitan langsung dengan tempat. Tetapi perhatikan, I sini tempat itu tidak menunjuk dengan tepat di manakah ruang berada; tempat adalah kawasan di mana orang lain berkesempatan untuk mengetahui bahwa di situ ada ruang, dan orang itu mesti melakukan penelusuran lagi untuk dapat sampai pada rong/ruang. Apa artinya? Artinya aalah sebagai berikut ini. Membuat rong/ruang tidak hanya meliputi pengadaan volume, melainkan mengadakan pula tempat, mengadakan sebuah kawasan yang memungkinkan orang lain untuk mengenal dan akhirnya menemukan volume/rong/ruang yang diadakan. Peristiwa seperti ini ternyata juga lumrah terjadi di masyarakat Jawa. Untuk memberitahu di manakah rumah saya, orang lain tidak kita beri alamat rumah kita, melainkan tanda-tanda di lingkungan sekitar rumah saya, misalnya, di timurnya pohon trembesi, dua rumah seteleh belokan ketiga, dan sebagainya.
4
Kini saatnya ruang semar dengan rongrongan. Radius bau dan bunyi kentut semar adalah sector pananggap dari sebuah rumah Jawa; sedangkan sang semar, sang rong, adalah sector guru dari rumah Jawa!
sektor guru
sektor pananggap
Mari kita coba lakukan pengkaitan antara kentut semar dengan rongrongan. Dengan menganggap bahwa kentut semar adalah sebuah ruang arsitektur, maka di sini suara an bau menjadi faktor penunjuk adanya ruang yang dikontrol secara langsung oleh jarak. Maksudnya, jarak adalah penentu bagi terbau dan tidaknya bau kentut; juga menjadi penentu bagi terdengar atau tidaknya bunyi kentut. Dengan demikian, bau, bunyi dan jaak (atau volume) merupakan faktor-faktor ‘pembentuk’ ruang tadi. Perhatikan bahwa penglihatan samasekali tidak diikutsertakan sebagai factor, dan dengan demikian boleh saja dikatakan bahwa dalam dunia Jawa keberadaan ruang itu memang tidak berkaitan dengan ihwal keterlihatan, ruang memang tidak terlihat, itulah yang dikenal oleh Jawa mengenai ruang arsitekturnya.
Agar supaya penyandingan dengan rongrongan dapat lebih mudah dilakukan, rasanya akan lebih baik bila terlebih dulu menyandingkan ruang semar ini dengan ruang Plato.
2
Sekarang sandingkanlah ruang semar dengan ruang versi Plato, yang juga mengenal volume (atau jarak/ukuran). Bagi Plato, geometri juga menjadi factor bagi adanya ruang. Geometri diambil oleh Plato karena ruang itu dipikir, dan salah satu hasil dari kerja pikiran adlah geometri, pengetahuan tentang mengukur/keterukuran bumi, atau menjadi lebih popular dengan ilmu bentuk.. Selanjutnya, meski geometri menunjuk pada bumi, tetapi Plato tidak menunjuk pada bumi sebagai obyek nyata/riil, melainkan menunjuk pada abstraksi yang ditarik dari kehadiran visual bumi. Platonic solid lalu menjadi geometri yang menyertai ruang tadi. Perhatikan, di sini Plato menangani geometri dengan menggunakan penglihatan sebagai medium untuk mendapatkan geometri tadi.
Bagaimanakah halnya dengan semar dengan ruang kentutnya? Dalam kasus semar, bumi bukan lagi sebuah keterlihatan melainkan sebuah keterdengaran dan keterbauan. Baik bau maupun bunyi tidak dengan langsung bisa diabstraksikan menjadi geometri, dan upaya untuk mengabstraksikan geometrinya hanya akan sia-sia adanya, mengingat baik bau maupun bunyi tidak berurusan dengan penglihatan. Jadi, pemikiran Jawa tentang ruang tidak dilakukan dengan melibatkan penglihatan maupun geometri (=abstraksi atas yang terlihat). Dengan memaksakan diri saja kita bias mengabstraksikan baud an bunyi itu sebagai sebuah bangun bola. Selanjutnya, kalau kita sandingkan lagi antara Plato dengan semar, keterlibatan penglihatan dalam Plato lalu memungkinkan untuk menghasilkan geometri yang tanpa batas, mengingat penglihatan juga tanpa batas (kita masih bias melihat bintang yang jauhnya jutaan tahun cahaya), penglihatan mampu nutk menunjuk jarak yang tak berhingga. Tidak demikian halnya dengan bau dan bunyi, mereka ini hanya berhadapan dengan keberhinggaan. Dengan demikian, ruang semar adalah ruang yang berhingga, ruang yang terukur jaraknya. Di luar jangkauan bunyi dan bau, bukan lagi ruang namanya. Apa nama bagi yang diluar jangkauan bau dan bunyi, saya masih belum menemukannya.
Berkenaan dengan keberhinggaan dan ke-tak-berhingga-an, menjadi terkuak pula bagaimana Jawa dan Plato memikir tentang bumi dan pengetahuan. Keberhinggaan menjadi ranah dari pemikiran Semar, sedang ketakberhinggaan adalah ranah dari pikiran Plato. Pemikiran semar lalu menjadi pemikiran ‘liyan’ bagi pemikiran Plato.
3
Rongrongan bisa berarti rong yang sebenarnya (sebagai kata majemuk), naun bisa pula berarti seperti rong, rong buatan, bukan rong sesungguhnya meskipun sangat mirip dengan rong. ‘rong’ sendiri adalah sebuah lubang di tanah yang menjadi tempat tinggal cengkerik, gangsir dan beberapa binatang lainnya. Tergali ke dalam tanah, rong dengan langsung merupakan sebuah tempat yang gelap, sebuah tempat yang tidak memberi tempat bagi penglihatan untuk berperan. Bau dan bunyi dari binatang penghuni rong lalu menjadi penunjuk kuat bagi adanya rong disekitar kita (tentunya kalau kita sudah akrab dengan bau dan bunyi tadi). Ini berarti bahwa adanya sebuah rong di sekitar kita dapat diyakini manakala bau atau bunyi dari rong dapat sampai ke indra pendengaran atau pembauan kita, dan bukan penglihatan kita! Di sini, jarak terjauh dari bau dan bunyi bukan penunjuk atas besarnya volume rong, melainkan jarak bagi kemampuan mengenal adanya sesuatu rong. Bila demikian halnya, maka di samping rong yang adalah ruang beserta volumenya, ada pula wilayah ruang, yakni sebuah luasan yang membuat kita mampu mengetahui adanya rong dengan menggunakan bau dan dengaran. Wilaah itu pula yang rupanya merupakan ‘tempat’ (place) mengingat dari wilayah itulah kita bisa berkesempatan untuk memperoleh keyakinan bahwa di sana ada rong/ruang. Tempat dan Ruang bukan lagi berhimpitan, melainkan tempat itu melingkungi ruang!
Dari gambaran yang terakhir tadi, kehadiran sesuatu rong/ruang menjadi berkaitan langsung dengan tempat. Tetapi perhatikan, I sini tempat itu tidak menunjuk dengan tepat di manakah ruang berada; tempat adalah kawasan di mana orang lain berkesempatan untuk mengetahui bahwa di situ ada ruang, dan orang itu mesti melakukan penelusuran lagi untuk dapat sampai pada rong/ruang. Apa artinya? Artinya aalah sebagai berikut ini. Membuat rong/ruang tidak hanya meliputi pengadaan volume, melainkan mengadakan pula tempat, mengadakan sebuah kawasan yang memungkinkan orang lain untuk mengenal dan akhirnya menemukan volume/rong/ruang yang diadakan. Peristiwa seperti ini ternyata juga lumrah terjadi di masyarakat Jawa. Untuk memberitahu di manakah rumah saya, orang lain tidak kita beri alamat rumah kita, melainkan tanda-tanda di lingkungan sekitar rumah saya, misalnya, di timurnya pohon trembesi, dua rumah seteleh belokan ketiga, dan sebagainya.
4
Kini saatnya ruang semar dengan rongrongan. Radius bau dan bunyi kentut semar adalah sector pananggap dari sebuah rumah Jawa; sedangkan sang semar, sang rong, adalah sector guru dari rumah Jawa!
sektor guru
sektor pananggap
Rabu, 19 November 2008
Something was pointed out in a paper by an Universitas Indonesia archaeologist, Agus Aris Munandar, (2008). Carvings on 8th-10th century CE Javanese temples show:
1. Some parts of the panel’s field are left empty
2. Lack of perspective. In accord with Indian view, space is perceived vertically, in which there is some kind of hierarchy.
On the other hand, 13th-15th century CE Javanese temples show differences, among which are:
1. No more empty field. Each panel is fully adorned with figures or ornaments.
2. There is an evidence of the use of perspective. Space is no longer perceived in accord with some sort of vertically ordered hierarchy. Space is instead perceived horizontally, where depth of vision on each carved panel depends on the distance of the represented objects relative to the viewers.
What is intriguing in the archaeologist’ paper is that a shift of spatial perception occurred in Java when a shift from Indian paradigm to Javanese paradigm also took place.
It is a shift that brought Java back to its pre-Hindu paradigm. From the stupas of Borobudur to the stepped structure of Sukuh temple. That is to say, from Indian influence to the “pre-historical” Java. We already know about this shift.
What we need to investigate further in relation to this shift is the shift of spatial perception. The archaeologist’ paper already touches upon this issue. I think there is something implied in the paper regarding this shift.
By having perspective, Javanese perception of space depends on real experience of a viewer upon seeing things. I think there is something a bit similar between Javanese perspective with that of Brunelleschi. What is entailed by Renaissance’s perspective is experience. It is about how we (as anthropos) perceive things around us, in order to enable us to get information to be discerned, so that we can make our judgment. The Javanese perspective also represents what we experience. It supposedly does not represent what is idealized in the realm of idea. It represents what is experienced in this world.
Yet one should be careful in comparing Javanese perspective with that of Brunelleschi. The perspective of Brunelleschi, as we know, came out of the anthropocentist context of the Renaissance. Yes, Brunelleschi’s perspective represents what is visually experienced. Yet it simultaneously implies what is ideal. The importance of perspective in the Renaissance is due to its true nature. It represents what is true. But we should recall that “true” hereby is not detached from the sense of “true” in the Classical aesthetics triad of the good-the beautiful-the true. It implies something transcendental, something ideal.
The same might not be applicable to Javanese sense on perspective. When Javanese perspective represents what is experienced, it simply represents what is really experienced (or what is supposedly experienced, in the case of perspective on carvings narrating some legends).
As said above, there is a difference between Javanese view and that of the West. Javanese view does not necessitate the dichotomy between the ideal and the real, between the sacred and the profane, between the transcendental and the corporeal. As such, if Javanese perspective really simply represents worldly experience of perceiving in a space, it is not a short coming. It is simply how it is. Semar’s fart says this: there is no privileging the sacred/ideal over the profane/real, or vice versa. Both are already present together at once as they have been. When it comes to how one perceives space, the aforementioned shift from Indian paradigm to Javanese paradigm seems to be an act of knitting the sacred with the profane.
1. Some parts of the panel’s field are left empty
2. Lack of perspective. In accord with Indian view, space is perceived vertically, in which there is some kind of hierarchy.
On the other hand, 13th-15th century CE Javanese temples show differences, among which are:
1. No more empty field. Each panel is fully adorned with figures or ornaments.
2. There is an evidence of the use of perspective. Space is no longer perceived in accord with some sort of vertically ordered hierarchy. Space is instead perceived horizontally, where depth of vision on each carved panel depends on the distance of the represented objects relative to the viewers.
What is intriguing in the archaeologist’ paper is that a shift of spatial perception occurred in Java when a shift from Indian paradigm to Javanese paradigm also took place.
It is a shift that brought Java back to its pre-Hindu paradigm. From the stupas of Borobudur to the stepped structure of Sukuh temple. That is to say, from Indian influence to the “pre-historical” Java. We already know about this shift.
What we need to investigate further in relation to this shift is the shift of spatial perception. The archaeologist’ paper already touches upon this issue. I think there is something implied in the paper regarding this shift.
By having perspective, Javanese perception of space depends on real experience of a viewer upon seeing things. I think there is something a bit similar between Javanese perspective with that of Brunelleschi. What is entailed by Renaissance’s perspective is experience. It is about how we (as anthropos) perceive things around us, in order to enable us to get information to be discerned, so that we can make our judgment. The Javanese perspective also represents what we experience. It supposedly does not represent what is idealized in the realm of idea. It represents what is experienced in this world.
Yet one should be careful in comparing Javanese perspective with that of Brunelleschi. The perspective of Brunelleschi, as we know, came out of the anthropocentist context of the Renaissance. Yes, Brunelleschi’s perspective represents what is visually experienced. Yet it simultaneously implies what is ideal. The importance of perspective in the Renaissance is due to its true nature. It represents what is true. But we should recall that “true” hereby is not detached from the sense of “true” in the Classical aesthetics triad of the good-the beautiful-the true. It implies something transcendental, something ideal.
The same might not be applicable to Javanese sense on perspective. When Javanese perspective represents what is experienced, it simply represents what is really experienced (or what is supposedly experienced, in the case of perspective on carvings narrating some legends).
As said above, there is a difference between Javanese view and that of the West. Javanese view does not necessitate the dichotomy between the ideal and the real, between the sacred and the profane, between the transcendental and the corporeal. As such, if Javanese perspective really simply represents worldly experience of perceiving in a space, it is not a short coming. It is simply how it is. Semar’s fart says this: there is no privileging the sacred/ideal over the profane/real, or vice versa. Both are already present together at once as they have been. When it comes to how one perceives space, the aforementioned shift from Indian paradigm to Javanese paradigm seems to be an act of knitting the sacred with the profane.
Senin, 17 November 2008
I had a discussion with Josef Prijotomo in mid-November 2008. A particular character in wayang (Javanese shadow puppetry), Semar, was brought up during the talk. In wayang play, Semar is a character like no other. He is the main, most prominent divine figure, and simultaneously an ugly, even grotesque-looking character with an acute pot-belly who ranks among the punakawans.[1] Semar is therefore simultaneously sacred and profane.
Being such a character, Semar possesses his ultimate weapon: his fart. Sounds profane it may be. But this suggests something about “space” in Javanese sense.
A fart is formless (an ignored example of Battaille’s l’informe, perhaps). In fact, it cannot be seen. Yet its sound and smell define a space. The boundary of the space is defined by the outmost point(s) the sound can be heard and the smell can be smelled.
From the story of Semar, we may draw some comparison between Javanese space and Western space.[2] When Plato conceived his idea about space, this space is something produced in one’s mind.[3] Yet Semar’s space is something produced in real world, not in the ideal realm. Semar’s space is not a chora. As such, “space” in Western, platonic sense is something produced in an ideal setting. It is a product of the intellect. On the other hand, Javanese “space” (at least as seen from Semar’s angle) is a space produced in the world. It is produced through a profane manner in this world by a figure who embodies the sacred and the profane at once. The Serat Jatimurti (although it does not mention Semar) mentions that space (or volume) can be present through existence (kajaten). At a glance, this may remind one with Heidegger’s account of being-in-the-world. But Javanese space does not exist in order to try making sense out of its presence. Javanese space probably exists for this reason: to accommodate the rendez-vous between the sacred and the profane, the divine and the dirty, the ideal and the real. Or perhaps it is not so much a rendez-vous. It is where the profane and the sacred dwell as a knitted entity.
[1] A group of low-class wayang characters, whose roles is to act as objects for audience’s laugh, while symbolize ordinary people.
[2] For the sake of the discussion, let us temporarily omit the fact that in the West there is no one notion of space; there are several. The notion of “space” and the notion of “raum” for instance,a re not exactly the same.
[3] Recall Plato’s privileging of the ideal over the profane; the ideal realm over the real one.
Being such a character, Semar possesses his ultimate weapon: his fart. Sounds profane it may be. But this suggests something about “space” in Javanese sense.
A fart is formless (an ignored example of Battaille’s l’informe, perhaps). In fact, it cannot be seen. Yet its sound and smell define a space. The boundary of the space is defined by the outmost point(s) the sound can be heard and the smell can be smelled.
From the story of Semar, we may draw some comparison between Javanese space and Western space.[2] When Plato conceived his idea about space, this space is something produced in one’s mind.[3] Yet Semar’s space is something produced in real world, not in the ideal realm. Semar’s space is not a chora. As such, “space” in Western, platonic sense is something produced in an ideal setting. It is a product of the intellect. On the other hand, Javanese “space” (at least as seen from Semar’s angle) is a space produced in the world. It is produced through a profane manner in this world by a figure who embodies the sacred and the profane at once. The Serat Jatimurti (although it does not mention Semar) mentions that space (or volume) can be present through existence (kajaten). At a glance, this may remind one with Heidegger’s account of being-in-the-world. But Javanese space does not exist in order to try making sense out of its presence. Javanese space probably exists for this reason: to accommodate the rendez-vous between the sacred and the profane, the divine and the dirty, the ideal and the real. Or perhaps it is not so much a rendez-vous. It is where the profane and the sacred dwell as a knitted entity.
[1] A group of low-class wayang characters, whose roles is to act as objects for audience’s laugh, while symbolize ordinary people.
[2] For the sake of the discussion, let us temporarily omit the fact that in the West there is no one notion of space; there are several. The notion of “space” and the notion of “raum” for instance,a re not exactly the same.
[3] Recall Plato’s privileging of the ideal over the profane; the ideal realm over the real one.
Rabu, 01 Oktober 2008
javanese space and what may be an alternative mode of thought to perceive the Javanese space
I would hereby divide this message into two parts. This is the first part, an attempt to discuss “rongrongan.”
Think of Javanese “sokoguru.” It consists of four columns and four beams. On top of the system is the roof. Since our discussion is on the subject of space, I would concentrate on what is available (ie., the space) under the roof, enclosed by the four beams and the four columns.
This space is called “rongrongan.” One comment made by Anashiday (Anas Hidayat, I presume) on this blog mentioned “rong,” which is (to use the term proposed by David Hutama in another comment on the blog) a cavity. It is a small cavity where small insects (like ants) live.
I am not an expert on Javanese etymology. Yet there seems to be a connection between “rong” and “rongrongan.” The term “rongrongan” may denote something that simulates “rong.”
If it is so, it is curious that small cavity made by insects became a model for dwelling space for Javanese people. This, however, is just my guess. It is difficult for me to determine how it really is. So, it would be highly appreciated if anyone would discuss or give her/his expertise/view on this matter.
Now, the second part (which is more like a sort of precaution).
This time, let us think of the aformentioned "sokoguru" and the roof it supports. The roof is extended to the four sides of the structure (with support of additional columns, of course).
The significance of the main roof (supported by the “sokoguru”) is that it shades the space (“rongrongan”) beneath it. The significance of the roof extension, I think, should not be considered in an overtly philosophical manner, particularly in Western sense. I will elaborate more on this point.
I suspect the roof extension is simply pragmatic. It is constructed in order to provide more shade for more people. It is not a matter of geometry or the likes. Now, why reading it pragmatically?
There is a difference between Javanese and Western (ie, platonic) systems. Platonic, Western system, as we know, suggests the dichotomy between the realm of ideal space and real space, thus between idea and practice. Whereas, Javanese system does not seem to recognize such dichotomy.
I think—to the extent of my limited knowledge—there is a reason why pre-Islamic (or pre-colonial?) Javanese society did not produce thoughts akin to Descartes, in particular on the issue of where the soul and the body meet. The Javanese did not develop Kierkegaard’s angst either. They did not see the need to make a call akin to Heidegger’s call for a return to “Sein.” The Javanese did not seem to care spending time and effort to find praxis. Because they simply did not need to.
Instead, the Javanese developed something similar to the metaphysics of Spinoza. The Javanese did not separate the realms of the transcendental and the corporeal. The corporeal is regarded as a manifestation of the transcendental (eg, the ultimate substance). The dichotomy that has produced the necessity and efforts to find praxis in the West is simply out of the Javanese equation. Such is the basis of Javanese system of thought.
It is this basis of thought--instead of the Western, platonic one--that should be the basis of our effort to discuss and interpret Javanese notion(s) of space. The Javanese notion(s) of space may—I repeat, may—be akin to Lefebvre’s spatial practice. It is not a chora, or a simulation of chora. It is a lived and experienced space in which people’s daily lives, not some abstract representation, determine the space. This is what I meant by getting pragmatic. To be pragmatic matters in discussing Javanese notion(s) of space. Javanese space should not be discussed or analyzed under the term of platonic mode of thought, nor should it be discussed and analyzed under the term of dichotomy between the transcendental and the corporeal.
This proposition on how to discuss Javanese space may become a model for discussing spaces of other Nusantara peoples. This is not at all to imply Javanese superiority. In fact, I suspect, imposing Javanese model of thought on discussions of other Nusantara spaces would bring us to a blunder. It is the effort to identify the appropriate modes of thought which should be done before, during and after discussing the spaces of Nusantara.
Think of Javanese “sokoguru.” It consists of four columns and four beams. On top of the system is the roof. Since our discussion is on the subject of space, I would concentrate on what is available (ie., the space) under the roof, enclosed by the four beams and the four columns.
This space is called “rongrongan.” One comment made by Anashiday (Anas Hidayat, I presume) on this blog mentioned “rong,” which is (to use the term proposed by David Hutama in another comment on the blog) a cavity. It is a small cavity where small insects (like ants) live.
I am not an expert on Javanese etymology. Yet there seems to be a connection between “rong” and “rongrongan.” The term “rongrongan” may denote something that simulates “rong.”
If it is so, it is curious that small cavity made by insects became a model for dwelling space for Javanese people. This, however, is just my guess. It is difficult for me to determine how it really is. So, it would be highly appreciated if anyone would discuss or give her/his expertise/view on this matter.
Now, the second part (which is more like a sort of precaution).
This time, let us think of the aformentioned "sokoguru" and the roof it supports. The roof is extended to the four sides of the structure (with support of additional columns, of course).
The significance of the main roof (supported by the “sokoguru”) is that it shades the space (“rongrongan”) beneath it. The significance of the roof extension, I think, should not be considered in an overtly philosophical manner, particularly in Western sense. I will elaborate more on this point.
I suspect the roof extension is simply pragmatic. It is constructed in order to provide more shade for more people. It is not a matter of geometry or the likes. Now, why reading it pragmatically?
There is a difference between Javanese and Western (ie, platonic) systems. Platonic, Western system, as we know, suggests the dichotomy between the realm of ideal space and real space, thus between idea and practice. Whereas, Javanese system does not seem to recognize such dichotomy.
I think—to the extent of my limited knowledge—there is a reason why pre-Islamic (or pre-colonial?) Javanese society did not produce thoughts akin to Descartes, in particular on the issue of where the soul and the body meet. The Javanese did not develop Kierkegaard’s angst either. They did not see the need to make a call akin to Heidegger’s call for a return to “Sein.” The Javanese did not seem to care spending time and effort to find praxis. Because they simply did not need to.
Instead, the Javanese developed something similar to the metaphysics of Spinoza. The Javanese did not separate the realms of the transcendental and the corporeal. The corporeal is regarded as a manifestation of the transcendental (eg, the ultimate substance). The dichotomy that has produced the necessity and efforts to find praxis in the West is simply out of the Javanese equation. Such is the basis of Javanese system of thought.
It is this basis of thought--instead of the Western, platonic one--that should be the basis of our effort to discuss and interpret Javanese notion(s) of space. The Javanese notion(s) of space may—I repeat, may—be akin to Lefebvre’s spatial practice. It is not a chora, or a simulation of chora. It is a lived and experienced space in which people’s daily lives, not some abstract representation, determine the space. This is what I meant by getting pragmatic. To be pragmatic matters in discussing Javanese notion(s) of space. Javanese space should not be discussed or analyzed under the term of platonic mode of thought, nor should it be discussed and analyzed under the term of dichotomy between the transcendental and the corporeal.
This proposition on how to discuss Javanese space may become a model for discussing spaces of other Nusantara peoples. This is not at all to imply Javanese superiority. In fact, I suspect, imposing Javanese model of thought on discussions of other Nusantara spaces would bring us to a blunder. It is the effort to identify the appropriate modes of thought which should be done before, during and after discussing the spaces of Nusantara.
Sabtu, 30 Agustus 2008
Space (from a Javanese text, Serat Jatimurti. Courtesy of Josef Prijotomo)
ora ana jirim madheg dhewe, mesthi gumantung marang ananing kajaten
Space or volume depends upon existence, substance, or will.
ora ana jirim kang ora dumunung ing kajaten
Space or volume exists in existence, substance, or will.
jirim iku dudu kajaten, nanging jirim mujudake sisipataning kajaten, kayata: srengenge, manungsa, wit, sir, pikir, nur
Although volume or space is not existence or substance, or will, it is nevertheless volume or space which manifests the manifestation of existence, substance, or will.
Ora perlu nakokake sisipataning kajaten sok uga kawruhan jirime, awit sisipataning kajaten wis ana ing jirime
It is within the volume or space the nature of substance, existence or will, can be found.
jirim iku marakake kajaten kagungan sipat urip, mobah mosik, gnayu, matu, anjanma, nyrengege. Samono uga kajaten iku dudu jirime, dudu uripe, dudu mobah mosike, dudu kayune, watune, jalmane utawa srengengene. Lah kang endi ta kang jeneng kajaten? patrape nyatakake ora kena mung nganggo pikiran, kudu nganggo rasa kang sajati, awit pikiran iku mung bisa nyatakake jirim.
It is volume or space which ascribes the nature of existence. Existence or substance, or will, is not the volume or space nor the aforementioned nature. Logic alone can perceive volume or space, but it cannot perceive existence or substance, or will. Existence, substance or will, can be perceived by “the ultimate perception” (rasa kang sajati).
The question is: what is “the ultimate perception” herewith? Considering that Serat Jatimurti is a product of post-Walisongo Java, can “the ultimate perception” herewith be related to neo-platonic, or the similar-with-neo-platonic, metaphysics held by Javanese (as in “manunggaling kawulo gusti”)? The Reality, as, for instance, the Reality as perceived by Syekh Siti Jenar, cannot be perceived through logic alone. The Reality can only be perceived through a different mode of perception; a more total perception. Is this the mode of perception required to perceive kajaten?
Some other questions can also be raised. Comment le sense du mot « kajaten »? It is translated herewith as existence, substance, or will. However, does kajaten share the same notion with “existence” in Western existentialist sense? Does it share the same notion with “substance” (geist) in the German idealist sense? If “kajaten” can be translated as “will,” is it similar to the “will” that Schopenhauer mentioned?
I suspect, however, a probability that the Javanese notion of “kajaten” is not precisely the same as the aforementioned Western European notions of existence, substance or will. I need helps and advise on this matter, in order to understand the serat
Space or volume depends upon existence, substance, or will.
ora ana jirim kang ora dumunung ing kajaten
Space or volume exists in existence, substance, or will.
jirim iku dudu kajaten, nanging jirim mujudake sisipataning kajaten, kayata: srengenge, manungsa, wit, sir, pikir, nur
Although volume or space is not existence or substance, or will, it is nevertheless volume or space which manifests the manifestation of existence, substance, or will.
Ora perlu nakokake sisipataning kajaten sok uga kawruhan jirime, awit sisipataning kajaten wis ana ing jirime
It is within the volume or space the nature of substance, existence or will, can be found.
jirim iku marakake kajaten kagungan sipat urip, mobah mosik, gnayu, matu, anjanma, nyrengege. Samono uga kajaten iku dudu jirime, dudu uripe, dudu mobah mosike, dudu kayune, watune, jalmane utawa srengengene. Lah kang endi ta kang jeneng kajaten? patrape nyatakake ora kena mung nganggo pikiran, kudu nganggo rasa kang sajati, awit pikiran iku mung bisa nyatakake jirim.
It is volume or space which ascribes the nature of existence. Existence or substance, or will, is not the volume or space nor the aforementioned nature. Logic alone can perceive volume or space, but it cannot perceive existence or substance, or will. Existence, substance or will, can be perceived by “the ultimate perception” (rasa kang sajati).
The question is: what is “the ultimate perception” herewith? Considering that Serat Jatimurti is a product of post-Walisongo Java, can “the ultimate perception” herewith be related to neo-platonic, or the similar-with-neo-platonic, metaphysics held by Javanese (as in “manunggaling kawulo gusti”)? The Reality, as, for instance, the Reality as perceived by Syekh Siti Jenar, cannot be perceived through logic alone. The Reality can only be perceived through a different mode of perception; a more total perception. Is this the mode of perception required to perceive kajaten?
Some other questions can also be raised. Comment le sense du mot « kajaten »? It is translated herewith as existence, substance, or will. However, does kajaten share the same notion with “existence” in Western existentialist sense? Does it share the same notion with “substance” (geist) in the German idealist sense? If “kajaten” can be translated as “will,” is it similar to the “will” that Schopenhauer mentioned?
I suspect, however, a probability that the Javanese notion of “kajaten” is not precisely the same as the aforementioned Western European notions of existence, substance or will. I need helps and advise on this matter, in order to understand the serat
---------------------------
Here is my sketchy first attempt to comprehend the theory in the text (by comparing it with Western European theory):
Serat Jatimurti states that volume or space depends upon existence, substance or will. In fact, volume or space exists in existence/substance/will.
Yet on the other hand, in the serat it is also stated that the nature—or corporeal manifestation—of existence/substance/will is defined by volume/space.
Here we can see a difference from Western theory. In Western tradition of philosophy, there has been a question, which is rather like the egg-chicken question: which one comes first, presence/existence or essence? As we know, Heidegger said that essence precedes presence/existence. Sartre believed vice versa. This effects the question on space. Does space precedes essence (so it provides the essence to be), or is space an effect of essence? From this debate, we can notice that in Western tradition, there is a separation between space and essence. If space is corporeal, then essence is transcendental.
Perhaps it is due to such separation that in the twentieth century some thinkers and theorists—who are associated with phenomenology, such as Heidegger and Norberg-Schulz—discussed the notions of space and place. Space is corporeal thing which is associated with something rather positivistic (recall how Mies perceived space, not place, within Cartesian grid system), whereas place contains a rather spiritual (“spirit” in term of geist or Sein) baggage. They needed to differentiate the notions of space and place precisely due to the separation.
The case is rather different, however, when we discuss Javanese theory of space. Space (jirim) and essence (kajaten) are not dichotomies. In order to be, space needs essence, and essence needs existence.
Space (jirim) can only be due to essence (or perhaps will, in a rather Schopenhaurean sense). Yet without space, essence (kajaten) would be meaningless, or un-perceived. Essence would be rendered unimportant when it cannot be perceived.
Such interconnection between the corporeal (in this case, space) and the transcendental (in this case, essence), may remind one with some segments within Western thoughts. For instance, Spinoza (who would in turn influence Deleuze).
Here is my sketchy first attempt to comprehend the theory in the text (by comparing it with Western European theory):
Serat Jatimurti states that volume or space depends upon existence, substance or will. In fact, volume or space exists in existence/substance/will.
Yet on the other hand, in the serat it is also stated that the nature—or corporeal manifestation—of existence/substance/will is defined by volume/space.
Here we can see a difference from Western theory. In Western tradition of philosophy, there has been a question, which is rather like the egg-chicken question: which one comes first, presence/existence or essence? As we know, Heidegger said that essence precedes presence/existence. Sartre believed vice versa. This effects the question on space. Does space precedes essence (so it provides the essence to be), or is space an effect of essence? From this debate, we can notice that in Western tradition, there is a separation between space and essence. If space is corporeal, then essence is transcendental.
Perhaps it is due to such separation that in the twentieth century some thinkers and theorists—who are associated with phenomenology, such as Heidegger and Norberg-Schulz—discussed the notions of space and place. Space is corporeal thing which is associated with something rather positivistic (recall how Mies perceived space, not place, within Cartesian grid system), whereas place contains a rather spiritual (“spirit” in term of geist or Sein) baggage. They needed to differentiate the notions of space and place precisely due to the separation.
The case is rather different, however, when we discuss Javanese theory of space. Space (jirim) and essence (kajaten) are not dichotomies. In order to be, space needs essence, and essence needs existence.
Space (jirim) can only be due to essence (or perhaps will, in a rather Schopenhaurean sense). Yet without space, essence (kajaten) would be meaningless, or un-perceived. Essence would be rendered unimportant when it cannot be perceived.
Such interconnection between the corporeal (in this case, space) and the transcendental (in this case, essence), may remind one with some segments within Western thoughts. For instance, Spinoza (who would in turn influence Deleuze).
Jumat, 02 Mei 2008
"Ruang," Indonesian Spatial Conception(s)
There has been a sort of agreement--at least since the 19th Century--that architecture deals with space. Space is the subject of our discussion herewith.
When, say, Le Corbusier used the term "l'espace," he actually implied a spatial conception, or perception, that differs from what would be termed by, say, Mies van der Rohe as "raum."
True, we tend to apply and translate the terms "l'espace" and "raum" as if they shared the same perception or conception. In Indonesia, we always translate "space," "l'espace" and "raum" as "ruang."
However, via Foucault, we know that knowledge is not one. The idea, conception or perception of space is not one either. "Raum" and "space/l'espace" denote rather different ideas, perceptions or conceptions.
What we are lacking of in Indonesia is an understanding of our own idea(s), conception(s) or perception(s) of "ruang." At architecture schools throughout the archipelago we always teach space (should I type "space"?) in Western term(s).
This discussion is not intended to discredit the West, or to discard anything Western. The discussion is intended to find, discover, or perhaps define the spatial conception of "ruang," as well as other spatial conceptions as found or discovered in Nusantara. For instance, what would be the spatial conception of the Javanese or Batak? Or, what would be the spatial conceptions or perceptions of "ruang," perhaps before and after the Poedjangga Baroe era (yes, it is still a far-fetched probability. But who knows?)?
Please share your thoughts. Thank you (moderator, Mohammad Nanda Widyarta)
When, say, Le Corbusier used the term "l'espace," he actually implied a spatial conception, or perception, that differs from what would be termed by, say, Mies van der Rohe as "raum."
True, we tend to apply and translate the terms "l'espace" and "raum" as if they shared the same perception or conception. In Indonesia, we always translate "space," "l'espace" and "raum" as "ruang."
However, via Foucault, we know that knowledge is not one. The idea, conception or perception of space is not one either. "Raum" and "space/l'espace" denote rather different ideas, perceptions or conceptions.
What we are lacking of in Indonesia is an understanding of our own idea(s), conception(s) or perception(s) of "ruang." At architecture schools throughout the archipelago we always teach space (should I type "space"?) in Western term(s).
This discussion is not intended to discredit the West, or to discard anything Western. The discussion is intended to find, discover, or perhaps define the spatial conception of "ruang," as well as other spatial conceptions as found or discovered in Nusantara. For instance, what would be the spatial conception of the Javanese or Batak? Or, what would be the spatial conceptions or perceptions of "ruang," perhaps before and after the Poedjangga Baroe era (yes, it is still a far-fetched probability. But who knows?)?
Please share your thoughts. Thank you (moderator, Mohammad Nanda Widyarta)
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)