Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

A. G. Maisey · 22nd May 2010, 11:34 PM

Thanks for your response, Guwaya.

I think we've cleared up this matter of semantics now.

I believe that we are on the same page, hold similar if not precisely the same views, and are in agreement that Javanese culture cannot be understood within a Western framework.

I can understand how the word "polarity" may be applied as descriptive of the nature of Javanese and some other societies, but I will need to think about this over time before I will be willing to abandon the Taoist model of duality as the framework within which I evaluate this society.My enquiries to date seem to indicate that although this term of polarity in this application may have some currency in some parts of academia, it is not yet in general usage worldwide.Since this Forum is not based in academia, and since most its members, myself included, are not academics, I feel that there is no compulsion for us to use either the term "polarity", or "duality" to describe the nature of Javanese society and culture, provided that we have a clear understanding of this nature.

I do agree with you that to the term "duality" can very easily be misunderstood, in the absence of an understanding that the term "duality" by itself does not have any descriptive quality, it merely indicates a condition. There are many forms and models of duality, and to be descriptive of the condition the term needs to be qualified. Your use of the term "polarity" seems to avoid this need for qualification --- unless of course academia has determined that we now have various models of polarity.

May we now move on to some of the questions that have been raised in the previous posts?

Perhaps you may feel inclined to address either David's, or my questions that have been put to you in posts # 17 and # 18 ?

22nd May 2010, 11:34 PM	#24
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,700	Thanks for your response, Guwaya. I think we've cleared up this matter of semantics now. I believe that we are on the same page, hold similar if not precisely the same views, and are in agreement that Javanese culture cannot be understood within a Western framework. I can understand how the word "polarity" may be applied as descriptive of the nature of Javanese and some other societies, but I will need to think about this over time before I will be willing to abandon the Taoist model of duality as the framework within which I evaluate this society.My enquiries to date seem to indicate that although this term of polarity in this application may have some currency in some parts of academia, it is not yet in general usage worldwide.Since this Forum is not based in academia, and since most its members, myself included, are not academics, I feel that there is no compulsion for us to use either the term "polarity", or "duality" to describe the nature of Javanese society and culture, provided that we have a clear understanding of this nature. I do agree with you that to the term "duality" can very easily be misunderstood, in the absence of an understanding that the term "duality" by itself does not have any descriptive quality, it merely indicates a condition. There are many forms and models of duality, and to be descriptive of the condition the term needs to be qualified. Your use of the term "polarity" seems to avoid this need for qualification --- unless of course academia has determined that we now have various models of polarity. May we now move on to some of the questions that have been raised in the previous posts? Perhaps you may feel inclined to address either David's, or my questions that have been put to you in posts # 17 and # 18 ?