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.

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

---------------------------

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).

"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)