Join Date: May 2006
I only want to comment on this in general terms. I don't want to get into the Mojo/sajen discussion. This one is so overworked that it really has lost all interest for me.
I see the major problem of "error" in keris literature as a matter of perception.
For instance, time and time and time again I see things identified as something in terms of dapur or pamor, or whatever, and the terms used are terms I am not familiar with. Or somebody will float an opinion about something that is not in accordance with my understanding. Mostly I say nothing and just let it ride.
Because I'm working from one base of knowledge and I am well aware that my base of knowledge is only the reflection of a very limited area of keris study. If I were so inclined I could get into an argument every day on this Forum. I am not so inclined, so I just let things slide.
When we say something is "wrong", then with keris we probably need to define exactly what we mean by "wrong".
It may be better to say that such and such is not so, in accordance with the belief held by people in a particular area, or at a particular time. But does that mean that such and such is indisputably wrong?
Maybe not. Maybe it only means that some people do not agree with it.Which could make it wrong in one time and place, but not in another.
Throughout history the keris has been different things to different people. Different groups of people have had different beliefs, and different names for the keris, and its parts.
Personally, I am much in favour of defining terms and beliefs in accordance with time and place, and even of quoting the source of information, if that is practical and possible. If one uses such a framework, one can never be wrong, per se. One can only be putting forward information with which others do not agree.
Does it really matter if others do not agree with an opinion which one may put forward? I think not.
However, when we do put forward an opinion that something is incorrect, then we really should provide a framework within which we can support our argument for incorrectness.
My attitude is that with the keris, almost anything can be correct, or incorrect, depending upon the time and place used for point of reference.
Maybe there are a number of things that we can find in print that we may disagree with, but maybe also, others do not agree with our point of view.Thus, if we level criticism at some of these writers, let us do so in an analytical way. If we disagree, let us clearly state the frame of reference for our disagreement:- time, place, source of information, or logical argument preferably supported with evidence.