Quote:
|
Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey
In Guwaya's post # 15 he has provided an explanation of the terms "dualism" and "polarism", and has then gone on to base his ensuing argument upon these definitions.
"Quite simply, dualism in Javanese society and culture does not involve "mutually exclusive opposites"; exactly the reverse is the case:- it involves mutually reciprocal opposites, opposites which depend upon each other for their existence.
This is quite different to the concept of dualism that Guwaya has defined, and which is much more closely aligned with the Western idea of constant opposition. The Western idea is concerned with a dynamic in opposition : the Eastern idea is concerned with a dynamic in harmony.
When we understand the way in which Javanese duality needs to be approached, that is, from an Eastern, rather than a Western philosophical foundation, then there is no need to introduce this other term of "polarization", which in this context is, I must admit, a very new usage of the word for me, but which seems to try to express the Eastern understanding of duality.
|
Alan G. Maisey.
I see, that I am completly misinterpretated or misunderstood. My definition of dualism was not thought to be understood as you declared it here - and definitely this little definition does not reflect my thinking. The opposite is the case and this I tried to explain with the true concept of POLARISM (with a 3rd factor arranging the harmony between 2 poles) and I wanted to show in my further statements the mistakly use of the term DAUALITY. I wanted to show that the far easter system is not a duality system but a polarity system:
GOOD - balance/harmony (manusia) - BAD ;
UPPERWORLD - MIDDLEWORLD (manusia looking for/balance/harmony between upper- and underworld) - UNDERWORLD.
I tried to explain that the term dualism (especially for eastern countries is often misundestood). I SAID NOTHING ELSE THAN YOU NOW Do HERE. And then I came to the term Polarism which involves exactly these aspects of eastern thinking as you described it. I did nothing esle than try to express that the basis of eastern culture is not a duality system but a
polarity system (not 2 stages but 3).
Upperworld - Underworld and
beetween the middleworld looking to to arrange the harmony, the balance between the two poles. EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAY HERE and I apologize if I am not be able to bring this over - the consequence for myself is, that I will from now on stay away from such a discussion.
If you already didn't understand that in fact I exactly told the same as you did here and just take out of the whole statement my few words trying to show up the difference between DUALISM and POLARISM in a short explaining of thes terms, than I failed in my further try of explanation of these subject and before I will be attributed with statements I never did and never were meant in that way i prefer to keep quiet. Who else will understand it - and people very fast attribute a wrong housenumber to somebody. (Maybe you should read again what I have written further on after this try of clearing of terms - in the text in its completeness is the essence and not in a little fracture part, and I still hope you will understand what I wrote. It is nearly a shock for me what you like to interpretate into my words - completely wrong and it is very frustating that nothing of what I wrote came over in its right meaning!
My approval for the time you took - but sorry, exactly the oposite what you read in my lines I wanted to show.
Regards,
guwaya