Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David
Thanks Jussi, i did understand you completely the first time. Though i can see why you have drawn this comparison i don't find it to be a particularly valid or compelling one and i think that if i were to use it to try to explain to a Christian who had no understanding of the keris what it's function was or is in Indonesian cultures it would be totally misleading.
|
So what you are saying is that the mechanisms of transferring perceived power and status via symbolic means tied onto a tangible format such as the keris, cross or a Mercedes-Benz as a more common totem item in our time cannot be viewed from this mechanical viewpoint alone? - I am concentrating just on the question what. I am not concentrating on the questions why or how. In my opinion you have to know the what first in order to understand the why. Then you become able in understand the how.
It is my belief that people everywhere despite time, place, religion, tribe or culture have something in common, main thing being that people in all places and times are hierarchically organized social creatures. From this viewpoint, if you can drop off all that is unique to a particular culture and see what is same to all cultures everywhere, I bet you will notice a certain amount of patterns or practices that share the same goals everywhere. - This despite the fact that the outer layers of each culture differentiate it from all the rest. One should seek what is the inner content instead of being blinded by the outer layers that surround it.
Fact is that people are people. And people everywhere, at all times and places, have formed groups in which the members interact between each other and between other groups. This leads to politics and politics leads to exercises of gaining, maintaining and transferring perceived and executable true power within the community one is a part of and between separate communities such as tribes, countries, economic systems or religions.
Politics and the exercises of power associated with politics lead to hierarchy. Hierarchy leads to symbolism and symbolism leads to a need for a formation of tangible objects that can manifest, transfer and contain powers that aid in gaining a higher ranking or status within the community. The ultimate rank in all cultures of course belongs to a supreme mythical entity - "God or Gods" - whom only can be communicated with via those special anointed ones who - so it has been agreed in the social agreement that forms a cornerstone of the culture in question - have the power to do so.
Usually these anointed ones hold a rather high standing on the culture in one form or another, what ever it may be. So my question still stands as I think it has not been answered yet. I am personally of the opinion that even so the keris and the culture that gave birth to it and nurtured it is unique, many of itīs functions are not when looked upon from this point of view.
Now whether this viewpoint is valid in trying to get a hold of the phenomena called keris is, of course, arguable. I am just trying to understand the role it had on its culture on a broad perspective. Too much detailed information tends to cloud the forest from the trees.
If it is so that the keris had been or is used as a medium for transferring perceived value (think sports sponsoring), storing perceived value (absolute value), symbol for showing rank and gain perceived rank (why do business men dress well?). If this is true it is so then that the keris is not unique in the mechanisms of power loaded within it; even though that the manifestations are indeed unique to the culture that gave birth to it and nurtured it.
Thanks,