Genderuwo, Leak, and Our Knowledge

We often meet people who are telling their personal mystical experiences nor others in daily life. Sometimes it occurs with a very persuasive way then it affects our intentions and curiosity. Mystical narration is always to be mystical. Take an example: A told his experience to B that he was seeing a ghost. Then, B will tell A‘s story to C and so on.

If we look at it, this phenomenon is like a game. I don’t know what exactly the name, but its rule like this: the player must take a position in line where every player must stand behind another player. There is an instructor who will tell players a sentence on the paper. Then, the instructor will show the sentence to first line player. First line player must read the sentence and memorize it. After memorizing done, the first player will tell the sentence to the next player behind and so on. After the copying process, the instructor will ask the players to tell what is the sentence that the instructor wrote. It will guarantee that the sentence from players will not precisely identical with instructor sentence since the players’ short-term memory wasn’t good.

First case. Assume that you meet someone named Asep. He tells you, “Anwar told me that in my house there is Genderuwo. He saw it!” The case is how do we know that Asep’s story is true, that there are Anwar and Genderuwo? We easily can verify the trueness of Asep’s story with meet Anwar and is it true that Anwar told Asep that there is Genderuwo in his house. Assume that we are the second-line player, which Asep was a first line player and Anwar was an instructor. We already justified that is true there is an instructor, that is Anwar. But, is it true there is Genderuwo as Anwar said to Asep? The problem is complicated, then. It is true that there is Genderuwo if there is x such that which is x referred by “Genderuwo”. Otherwise, if there is no x such that which is referred by “Genderuwo” then Genderuwo has no meaning at all. Thus, we need to clear the concept of Genderuwo in order to understand that. Both Anwar and Asep can be understand different meaning of Genderuwo. Asep position which offers the concept of Genderuwo stands on the ungrounded building, while Anwar conversely since Anwar has an experience which saw the x such that.

“Genderuwo” is often bringing a concept about x where it is inside the human mind. Worsely, we don’t have experience at all about Genderuwo except heard it from others. Thus, it is necessary to proofing that is it true there is Genderuwo in the Asep’s house with doing directly observation (of course with Anwar’s concept of Genderuwo). If our observation found something x which named Genderuwo then “there is Genderuwo in Asep’s house” is true to me. Notice that this case was not in a very loose time range, that is, Genderuwo existence in the Asep’s house according to Anwar was not changed.

Second case. Assume that Asep told us, “I heard from my father that my great-great-grandfather was fighting with a creature named Leak!” How do we justify the trueness of Asep’s story? We, of course, do some kind of clearing the concept and observation as we do in first case. The problem arises since his father and his great-great-grandfather died long-long time ago. This case is similar to the game above where is, in this case, more players and each player was at a different time.  It’s not difficult to gather the trueness of players existence since there was their graveyard. The difficulty is to track the concept of Leak, instead. The concept of Leak has meaning in the past which we force to understand in current time. Since a long time ago when Asep heard the story from his father, then he will sustain fog of his memory in order to remember the concept of Leak in the past. It is impossible to know what is said by Asep can be understood by us, and the trueness of it, since we don’t have experience according to what was Asep said.

What can be observed from the cases above are concept, memory, and universal knowledge. Thus, it is necessary to trace deeper of the centrality of concept, memory, and its consequence to the universal knowledge. The concept is an imaginary of quality of an object and its relation to another object in our mind, that is, for any concept at all the existence of objects outside the mind must exist. With the existence of the object outside the mind, knowledge is possible. I think. If there is no object outside the mind then there is no intentional relation, were, the mind direct to. In the other side, memory is a crucial element in human knowledge. The memory is always to be the memory about something (in case, something is the concept itself). Memory is always correlated with time. The passage of time, the memory of some concepts can be fogged even changed at all. Memory is nothing but mind ability to capture the concept of something.

Both cases above gave us the understanding that the clearness of concept in our memory constitutes human knowledge. The analysis of the first case will be useless if the concept of Genderuwo was not showing the existence of an object anyway that can be experienced (although that concept uttered by Anwar who lying on the same space and time with us) but, it is necessary to underline, we certainly can’t say that Anwar’s knowledge about Genderuwo isn’t true, or x referred by “Genderuwo” is absolutely wrong. Since what can be known for sure is something that can be experienced accordingly experience-evidence (of course the experience which grounded by certain space and time context). Thus, the question ” Is there Genderuwo in the Asep’s house” isn’t true to me in the current time. Otherwise, he can be true according to Anwar. As well as the second case. We don’t believe the what is said by Asep since we can’t justify the existence of x which referred by the concept of Leak in this time. So, the concept is meaningless at all in the time context when he said it. The concept of Leak probably can be either true or not in the past.

This is the centrality of both concept and memory in its consequence to universal knowledge. Universal knowledge is the knowledge that can be achieved by human as far have the same conceptual framework and being in the same space and time context. Anwar has the concept of Genderuwo since has experience saw some x which referred by “Genderuwo”, while others that haven’t the Anwar’s experience hasn’t knowledge about Genderuwo at all (there is no meaning to them). Therefore, universal knowledge isn’t absolute knowledge about something, that is, the knowledge that, for many people, can be understood. What needs to be done is both conceptual clearing and justify the trueness of the concept with our individual experiences.

Leave a Reply