What do the holes mean??

A. G. Maisey · 7th August 2011, 07:56 AM

Michael, forgive me if I am incorrect in this peculiar little understanding of mine, but I do not think that in this matter of the "holes in a kudi" we are dealing with any area of science, rather I am of the opinion that we are dealing with belief systems.

Now, Dave has very kindly provided us a recital of some of those beliefs, which in turn were provided to him by a dealer in Central Jawa.

You have advised us that the writings of a Swedish anthropologist who did field work on Sundanese Silat can provide verification that the beliefs held by Dave's dealer are the same or similar to the beliefs held by some practitioners of silat living in Sunda.

So far, so good. Who can possibly argue with any of this?

Not me, and that is certain.

However, this is verification of a current belief, it is not something that can be accepted as fact, based upon evidence, and the belief itself holds no logical argument.

What we have is a belief that can probably be demonstrated to be of reasonably recent origin.This belief is attached to an artifact --- actually two quite different and distinct artifacts --- that ceased to be used perhaps 500 years ago.

Now, amongst the circle of people in Jawa with whom I associate, I have never heard these beliefs concerning kudi and kujang spoken. These are mostly older people, probably the youngest would be 55, and none have even the smallest interest in silat, but most are orientated towards Kejawen philosophy.

Bambang Harsrinuksmo was a writer of copious text. I doubt that he ever missed an opportunity to extend two words into twenty words; he was not hesitant at all to recount the esoteric beliefs associated with items of tosan aji. However, it would appear that when Harsrinuksmo was researching his encyclopedia of Indonesian tosan aji, he did not encounter this belief that Dave's dealer and some silat practitioners hold. I cannot help but wonder why.

The beliefs associated with Javanese and other weaponry are certainly interesting, in some cases, entertaining, but it is a regretable fact that a great many of the beliefs associated with Javanese tosan aji cannot be shown to be of an origin that begins more than a couple of hundred years ago, in other words, in terms of Javanese culture, they are recent beliefs, and very few of those beliefs have any foundation in evidence or in logical argument.

Once again, I do not have any problem with this, provided that we recognise that we are dealing with an artifact of a system of belief, rather than something which has some claim to be fact.

VVV · 7th August 2011, 12:29 PM

Alan,

Thanks for your explanation. Two things puzzle me however:

1) I thought there was a difference culturally between Jawa and the island of Java (including Sunda)? Your sources seem to be Jawanese and based on Kejawen. The Swedish anthropologist refers to specific Sundanese belief systems and Sundanese informants. Silat practitioners or not is in this case irrelevant as far as they were familiar with the Sundanese culture.

2) Of course the information is based on our current belief systems. The same are historical "facts" and historical "logic" and belief systems. All present historical research is based on an understanding that presumes our current belief systems. And so are your Jawanese informants' opinions and also all yours and mine logical arguments and evidence. Unfortunately that is a "logical fact" that none of us can ignore.

But let us agree on your last sentence and leave the theory of science to the philosophers...

7th August 2011, 07:56 AM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	Michael, forgive me if I am incorrect in this peculiar little understanding of mine, but I do not think that in this matter of the "holes in a kudi" we are dealing with any area of science, rather I am of the opinion that we are dealing with belief systems. Now, Dave has very kindly provided us a recital of some of those beliefs, which in turn were provided to him by a dealer in Central Jawa. You have advised us that the writings of a Swedish anthropologist who did field work on Sundanese Silat can provide verification that the beliefs held by Dave's dealer are the same or similar to the beliefs held by some practitioners of silat living in Sunda. So far, so good. Who can possibly argue with any of this? Not me, and that is certain. However, this is verification of a current belief, it is not something that can be accepted as fact, based upon evidence, and the belief itself holds no logical argument. What we have is a belief that can probably be demonstrated to be of reasonably recent origin.This belief is attached to an artifact --- actually two quite different and distinct artifacts --- that ceased to be used perhaps 500 years ago. Now, amongst the circle of people in Jawa with whom I associate, I have never heard these beliefs concerning kudi and kujang spoken. These are mostly older people, probably the youngest would be 55, and none have even the smallest interest in silat, but most are orientated towards Kejawen philosophy. Bambang Harsrinuksmo was a writer of copious text. I doubt that he ever missed an opportunity to extend two words into twenty words; he was not hesitant at all to recount the esoteric beliefs associated with items of tosan aji. However, it would appear that when Harsrinuksmo was researching his encyclopedia of Indonesian tosan aji, he did not encounter this belief that Dave's dealer and some silat practitioners hold. I cannot help but wonder why. The beliefs associated with Javanese and other weaponry are certainly interesting, in some cases, entertaining, but it is a regretable fact that a great many of the beliefs associated with Javanese tosan aji cannot be shown to be of an origin that begins more than a couple of hundred years ago, in other words, in terms of Javanese culture, they are recent beliefs, and very few of those beliefs have any foundation in evidence or in logical argument. Once again, I do not have any problem with this, provided that we recognise that we are dealing with an artifact of a system of belief, rather than something which has some claim to be fact.

7th August 2011, 12:29 PM	#2
VVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,637	Alan, Thanks for your explanation. Two things puzzle me however: 1) I thought there was a difference culturally between Jawa and the island of Java (including Sunda)? Your sources seem to be Jawanese and based on Kejawen. The Swedish anthropologist refers to specific Sundanese belief systems and Sundanese informants. Silat practitioners or not is in this case irrelevant as far as they were familiar with the Sundanese culture. 2) Of course the information is based on our current belief systems. The same are historical "facts" and historical "logic" and belief systems. All present historical research is based on an understanding that presumes our current belief systems. And so are your Jawanese informants' opinions and also all yours and mine logical arguments and evidence. Unfortunately that is a "logical fact" that none of us can ignore. But let us agree on your last sentence and leave the theory of science to the philosophers...