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!
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)