Cat Stevens

If the Ivory Tower is the brain of the board, and the Transformers discussion is its heart, then General Discussions is the waste disposal pipe. Or kidney. Or something suitably pulpy and soft, like 4 week old bananas.

Moderators:Best First, spiderfrommars, IronHide

Is Cat Stevens a terrorist?

Hell yeah he's a muslim, isn't he?
2
10%
Well some of his music is pretty goddamn awful...
2
10%
If the US Immigration Dept. says he is then he must be.
1
5%
Who's Cat Stevens?
4
19%
Duh...
0
No votes
Get real, of course he isn't.
1
5%
This is both tragic and hilarious at the same time.
11
52%
 
Total votes: 21

Dead Head
Back stabbing Seeker
Posts:309
Joined:Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:18 pm

Post by Dead Head » Wed Sep 29, 2004 4:22 pm

Commander Shockwav wrote:
Dead Head wrote:Eh? Copernicus was hung?
Admittedly, I'm not sure if it was Copernicus that was the man in question.
:bf:
Okay.
Commander Shockwav wrote: As far as your other comments, I will try my best to explain where I'm coming from, but I'm limited in time here as my wife will beat the living **** out of me if i don't come home.
When you find the time, please give a proper detailed point-by-point reply to my previous post. I'm very much interested.
Commander Shockwav wrote: But how many of these mysteries must we uncover before we ask ourselves not "how" but "why"? It all happens, and the "how" will some day be clear to us, if it isn't already, but the "why"?
I'm confident most people ask both the how and the why. I've always contemplated the "why" as much as the "how". From the start, I personally, have never been as bold to have claimed to know any of the answers to the big 'why' questions.
Commander Shockwav wrote: Now if God is a far fetched concept one has difficulty grasping, is not the idea that an atom or a molecule having a "brain" and "will" of its own just as unbelievable?
Well it seems that 'God(s)' is/are a near-fetched concept for the early societies of history's past. And for many people today of course. And one they easily, willingly wanted to grasp. A very comfortable catch-all explanation. But without base of any kind.

There's still loads of hows and whys and whens that need answering. Whether they will be answered or are answerable at all is another matter entirely. Hence premature conclusions are rather suspect.

User avatar
Master_Fwiffo
Got turned into the Spacebridge
Posts:125
Joined:Wed Feb 28, 2001 12:00 am
Location:Coruscant? Tatooine? Spathiwa?
Contact:

Post by Master_Fwiffo » Wed Sep 29, 2004 4:37 pm

On the actual topic of this thread (which if anybody remembers is Cat Stevens)

Apparently there was a mistake. They were looking for Youseff Islam (a terrorist), and got Yusseff Islam (Stevens). Pretty forgiveable, considering nobody can make up their mind wether its Osama Bin Laden or Usama Bin Laden (or are there two of them and I don't know about it?)
Image
On the speed, on the thrill, on the life in the fast lane.

User avatar
Best First
King of the, er, Kingdom.
Posts:9750
Joined:Tue Oct 17, 2000 11:00 pm
Location:Manchester, UK
Contact:

Post by Best First » Wed Sep 29, 2004 4:58 pm

Commander Shockwav wrote: And before someone speaks out about how I'm raining on their agnostic or atheistic parade, let me reiterate. I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am stating my belief. You want to think its a bunch of ********, that's just fine and dandy. Your stance on the matter is clear, as is mine.
That would be lovely if religous beliefs didn't continue to railroad humanity into a philisophical cul de sac...

as an aside, if you belive you have accessed the devine truth, why aren't you trying to convince me?
Image

User avatar
Ultimate Weapon
Got turned into the Spacebridge
Posts:223
Joined:Sat May 31, 2003 11:00 pm
Location:USA

Post by Ultimate Weapon » Wed Sep 29, 2004 5:06 pm

Best First wrote:
Commander Shockwav wrote: And before someone speaks out about how I'm raining on their agnostic or atheistic parade, let me reiterate. I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am stating my belief. You want to think its a bunch of ********, that's just fine and dandy. Your stance on the matter is clear, as is mine.
That would be lovely if religous beliefs didn't continue to railroad humanity into a philisophical cul de sac...

as an aside, if you belive you have accessed the devine truth, why aren't you trying to convince me?
The Best First shall be last and the last shall be first. :o

User avatar
Denyer
Over Pompous Autobot Commander
Posts:2155
Joined:Tue Oct 17, 2000 11:00 pm
::Yesterday's model
Contact:

Post by Denyer » Wed Sep 29, 2004 5:08 pm

Master_Fwiffo wrote:They were looking for Youseff Islam (a terrorist), and got Yusseff Islam (Stevens).
How the f*ck is it forgivable to go after people with similar names? Government agencies are paid to actually bloody research suspects, not jump on random people.

User avatar
Ultimate Weapon
Got turned into the Spacebridge
Posts:223
Joined:Sat May 31, 2003 11:00 pm
Location:USA

Post by Ultimate Weapon » Wed Sep 29, 2004 5:19 pm

Denyer wrote:
bloody research suspects
With papercuts no doubt. :oops:

User avatar
Best First
King of the, er, Kingdom.
Posts:9750
Joined:Tue Oct 17, 2000 11:00 pm
Location:Manchester, UK
Contact:

Post by Best First » Wed Sep 29, 2004 5:44 pm

Denyer wrote:
Master_Fwiffo wrote:They were looking for Youseff Islam (a terrorist), and got Yusseff Islam (Stevens).
How the f*ck is it forgivable to go after people with similar names? Government agencies are paid to actually bloody research suspects, not jump on random people.
But Stu! Its not that simple - these people have funny foreign names! :oops:
Image

Dead Head
Back stabbing Seeker
Posts:309
Joined:Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:18 pm

Post by Dead Head » Wed Sep 29, 2004 6:21 pm

Master_Fwiffo wrote:They were looking for Youseff Islam (a terrorist), and got Yusseff Islam (Stevens). Pretty forgiveable, considering nobody can make up their mind wether its Osama Bin Laden or Usama Bin Laden
Also factor in the identity confusion is that Youseff Islam has a real Cat Stevens vibe going on. ( I'm so funny! :lol: )

But seriously folks, a factor in this is that translating words from Arabic into English isn't always a one-to-one process. The phonetics of the translating can turn the source Arabic name into different target English names, depending on who translated it.

User avatar
Ultimate Weapon
Got turned into the Spacebridge
Posts:223
Joined:Sat May 31, 2003 11:00 pm
Location:USA

Post by Ultimate Weapon » Wed Sep 29, 2004 6:32 pm

Dead Head wrote: depending on who translated it.
Someone at Transfans no doubt. :lurk:

Guest

Post by Guest » Wed Sep 29, 2004 7:18 pm

Ultimate Weapon wrote:
Denyer wrote: Assuming infinity to be more than a concept,
It is not possible to conceptualize infinity from with the confines of the 3rd dimension.
I think "the concept of infinity" disproves that.

Although, trying to identify the confines of the 3rd dimension would be quite tricky, I'd imagine. After all, the 3rd dimension isn't an obvious thing, unlike time, mass, charge or spin.

User avatar
Ultimate Weapon
Got turned into the Spacebridge
Posts:223
Joined:Sat May 31, 2003 11:00 pm
Location:USA

Post by Ultimate Weapon » Wed Sep 29, 2004 8:07 pm

Rebis wrote:
Ultimate Weapon wrote:
Denyer wrote: Assuming infinity to be more than a concept,
It is not possible to conceptualize infinity from with the confines of the 3rd dimension.
I think "the concept of infinity" disproves that.

Although, trying to identify the confines of the 3rd dimension would be quite tricky, I'd imagine. After all, the 3rd dimension isn't an obvious thing, unlike time, mass, charge or spin.
The 3rd dimension is the world in which we live in. It is what you see every day with your naked eye. The 4th dimension being time. Now to think of inifinity, too really think about it as a concept is that even possible? Let alone explain it. Unless of course you use the model that every second is forever. Even then it is guess work.

Guest

Post by Guest » Wed Sep 29, 2004 9:56 pm

Ultimate Weapon wrote:The 3rd dimension is the world in which we live in. It is what you see every day with your naked eye. The 4th dimension being time. Now to think of inifinity, too really think about it as a concept is that even possible? Let alone explain it. Unless of course you use the model that every second is forever. Even then it is guess work.
I see. So by "the 3rd dimension" you are actually referring to the 3 dimensions of space, and not specificying any one of them in particular. The 4th dimension being time, and the 4 dimensions together with however many 'rolled-up' extra dimensions there turn out to be, making up the world we live in.

You keep insisting that infinity is not a concept, and yet the definition of a concept is something that is conceivable. The very fact that we are having a side-discussion about infinity is proof that it is a concept. If we talked about travelling to another point in spacetime arriving at our destination prior to light from the beginning of our journey arriving there, we would be discussing the concept of faster-than-light travel. The fact that we cannot currently exhibit this behaviour does not preclude the concept of it from existing. The same is with infinity. On the whole, humans find it very difficult dealing with the very large and the very small, but that doesn't prevent us from having a concept involving both. In Euclidean geometry, for example, infinity represents the points on any axis extended indefinitely.

Forever, is a temporal term, representing a period of time extended indefinitely into the future and/or past. Infinity is not a temporal concept, but most examples rely on time to explain it: "in an infinite universe, if you travelled in the same direction forever, you would never find yourself unable to continue, no matter how fast you were moving."

User avatar
Denyer
Over Pompous Autobot Commander
Posts:2155
Joined:Tue Oct 17, 2000 11:00 pm
::Yesterday's model
Contact:

Post by Denyer » Wed Sep 29, 2004 10:26 pm

"INCONCEIVABLE!"

"I do not think that word means what you think it means."

Ah, good times.

User avatar
Ultimate Weapon
Got turned into the Spacebridge
Posts:223
Joined:Sat May 31, 2003 11:00 pm
Location:USA

Post by Ultimate Weapon » Wed Sep 29, 2004 10:39 pm

You may think that infinity can occur in the mind as a concept. But is it not true that your brain and its memory die, thus nullify the very notion you thought you had grasped? If for example you could prove to me that the second that just past while reading this message actually occured somewhere else in the universe, you might convince me.

User avatar
Denyer
Over Pompous Autobot Commander
Posts:2155
Joined:Tue Oct 17, 2000 11:00 pm
::Yesterday's model
Contact:

Post by Denyer » Wed Sep 29, 2004 11:05 pm

Nullifying. Occurred. Passed. Commas. Argh... too tired to parse...
Ultimate Weapon wrote:is it not true that your brain and its memory die, thus nullify the very notion you thought you had grasped?
Death invalidates a concept? Guess we'd better pack the electric lightbulbs away...

Concepts don't exist "within" the mind as anything but electrical impulses. A concept is rather like a word—if you think, write or say "apple", you don't have an apple. If you think, write or say "infinity", you have an abstract label—a concept. If you think, write or say "god", ditto.

Infinity, insofar as I conceptualise it, means everything. Including things which represent logical contradictions. God, gods, an absence of gods.

User avatar
Ultimate Weapon
Got turned into the Spacebridge
Posts:223
Joined:Sat May 31, 2003 11:00 pm
Location:USA

Post by Ultimate Weapon » Wed Sep 29, 2004 11:12 pm

Denyer wrote: Infinity, insofar as I conceptualise it, means everything. Including things which represent logical contradictions. God, gods, an absence of gods.
Something that would destroy math? That would be getting close.

Guest

Post by Guest » Wed Sep 29, 2004 11:17 pm

Ultimate Weapon wrote:You may think that infinity can occur in the mind as a concept. But is it not true that your brain and its memory die, thus nullify the very notion you thought you had grasped?
I'm sorry, are you accusing me of claiming to have an infinite mind?
If for example you could prove to me that the second that just past while reading this message actually occured somewhere else in the universe, you might convince me.
What does time have to do with infinity?

User avatar
Denyer
Over Pompous Autobot Commander
Posts:2155
Joined:Tue Oct 17, 2000 11:00 pm
::Yesterday's model
Contact:

Post by Denyer » Wed Sep 29, 2004 11:21 pm

Ultimate Weapon wrote:Something that would destroy math?
Why? Always and already.

User avatar
Ultimate Weapon
Got turned into the Spacebridge
Posts:223
Joined:Sat May 31, 2003 11:00 pm
Location:USA

Post by Ultimate Weapon » Wed Sep 29, 2004 11:27 pm

Rebis wrote: I'm sorry, are you accusing me of claiming to have an infinite mind?
I don't really know how to word it right. It's as if the attempt to know infinity or actually experience it could actually happen within the confines of brain matter & tissue. A light bulb is a concept that can be put into practice when it is invented. You cannot invent infinity if you claim to grasp it.
Rebis wrote:What does time have to do with infinity?
Not much, but it is a barrier to it.
Denyer wrote:
Ultimate Weapon wrote:Something that would destroy math?
Why? Always and already.
That would be more in reference to the end of the universe, as in the big crunch.

User avatar
Denyer
Over Pompous Autobot Commander
Posts:2155
Joined:Tue Oct 17, 2000 11:00 pm
::Yesterday's model
Contact:

Post by Denyer » Wed Sep 29, 2004 11:58 pm

Ultimate Weapon wrote:A light bulb is a concept that can be put into practice when it is invented. You cannot invent infinity if you claim to grasp it.
You can't invent time, paradoxes, moral absolutes, or a host of other things. (Light bulbs required several thousand failed attempts before being implemented as objects, too -- the concept of them as an alternative to gas lamps is something rather different.)
Ultimate Weapon wrote:That would be more in reference to the end of the universe, as in the big crunch.
Why worry? There'll be another along momentarily.

Guest

Post by Guest » Thu Sep 30, 2004 12:02 am

Ultimate Weapon wrote:
Rebis wrote: I'm sorry, are you accusing me of claiming to have an infinite mind?
I don't really know how to word it right. It's as if the attempt to know infinity or actually experience it could actually happen with the confines of brain tissue. A light bulb is a concept that can be put into practice when it is invented. You cannot invent infinity if you claim to grasp it.
Rebis wrote:What does time have to do with infinity?
Not much, but it is a barrier to it.
Are you saying that only by existing forever can one truly grasp the concept of infinity, but because the human brain will inevitably die, and you hold the belief that the universe will come to an end, it is impossible for any human brain to do this?
Ultimate Weapon wrote:
Denyer wrote:
Ultimate Weapon wrote:Something that would destroy math?
Why? Always and already.
That would be more in reference to the end of the universe, as in the big crunch.
The big crunch is only one of 3 possible fates for the universe, along with the big freeze (a runaway expansion where all the energy in the universe becomes infinitely diffuse) and the borderline case where the expansion is neither overcome nor runaway, following an exponential decay in magnitude.

Currently, our understanding of the expansion of the universe is not accurate enough to pin down which of the 3 possibilities is true - the interval of uncertainty of the Hubble constant allows it to straddle the value required for the borderline case.

User avatar
Impactor returns 2.0
Big Honking Planet Eater
Posts:6885
Joined:Sat Sep 22, 2001 11:00 pm
::Starlord
Location:Your Mums

Post by Impactor returns 2.0 » Thu Sep 30, 2004 12:24 am

what if all the black holes formed into one big black hole. as there is nothing left but the black holes (err) does the um material universe as we know it still tech exist. even tho everything is atmoised?

not that it would matter what i think by then :lol:
Image

Guest

Post by Guest » Thu Sep 30, 2004 12:58 am

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:what if all the black holes formed into one big black hole. as there is nothing left but the black holes (err) does the um material universe as we know it still tech exist. even tho everything is atmoised?
Depends on what you mean by 'the material universe as we know it'.

You're on about everything being atomised, so you obviously don't mean "will there still be planets, rocks, or lumps of ice".

Although, the only way everything could be atomised in its entireity is if everything was consumed by the black hole(s). In which case, it's still dependent on what you mean.

What isn't dependent on the above would be the fate of the universe, is that no matter how powerful the cosmic black hole would be, if there wasn't enough energy in the universe to halt the expansion to begin with, then the big freeze will still result.

User avatar
Ultimate Weapon
Got turned into the Spacebridge
Posts:223
Joined:Sat May 31, 2003 11:00 pm
Location:USA

Post by Ultimate Weapon » Thu Sep 30, 2004 5:14 am

Rebis wrote:
Ultimate Weapon wrote:
Rebis wrote: I'm sorry, are you accusing me of claiming to have an infinite mind?
I don't really know how to word it right. It's as if the attempt to know infinity or actually experience it could actually happen with the confines of brain tissue. A light bulb is a concept that can be put into practice when it is invented. You cannot invent infinity if you claim to grasp it.
Rebis wrote:What does time have to do with infinity?
Not much, but it is a barrier to it.
Are you saying that only by existing forever can one truly grasp the concept of infinity, but because the human brain will inevitably die, and you hold the belief that the universe will come to an end, it is impossible for any human brain to do this?
Ultimate Weapon wrote:
Denyer wrote: Why? Always and already.
That would be more in reference to the end of the universe, as in the big crunch.
The big crunch is only one of 3 possible fates for the universe, along with the big freeze (a runaway expansion where all the energy in the universe becomes infinitely diffuse) and the borderline case where the expansion is neither overcome nor runaway, following an exponential decay in magnitude.

Currently, our understanding of the expansion of the universe is not accurate enough to pin down which of the 3 possibilities is true - the interval of uncertainty of the Hubble constant allows it to straddle the value required for the borderline case.
:x
I had a response to this post but it got lost in a hiccup! ARRGGHH!!!!

Getting back to my model. The moment you experience has to happen somewhere else all the time in order to be infinite. Which I believe is the case. And it needs to continually occur, like a broken record forever.

Will dead brain matter still contain the memory of the thought of infinity? Will it echo into space forever? Or does it die with your physical body? If your thought of infinity dies, then so does what you thought about infinity. Therefore you really never knew inifinty at all. Am I making sense?

Also do you believe that your 3 universe crunches can destoy math? In fact can math be destroyed? It can be created, hence the mathmaker.

User avatar
Metal Vendetta
Big Honking Planet Eater
Posts:4950
Joined:Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:00 am
Location:Lahndan, innit

Post by Metal Vendetta » Thu Sep 30, 2004 8:27 am

I read a report on Ananova a while back (no search function, so I can't find it again) where a scientist claimed that at any second the entire universe could collapse into grey jelly....
I would have waited a ******* eternity for this!!!!
Impactor returns 2.0, 28th January 2010

User avatar
Denyer
Over Pompous Autobot Commander
Posts:2155
Joined:Tue Oct 17, 2000 11:00 pm
::Yesterday's model
Contact:

Post by Denyer » Thu Sep 30, 2004 12:28 pm

Ultimate Weapon wrote:If your thought of infinity dies, then so does what you thought about infinity. Therefore you really never knew inifinty at all. Am I making sense?
Not in the slightest. Death does not erase time; events are not undone.

BTW, knowing infinity and being able to conceptualise it would seem to be rather different things. I realise 'conceptualise' has the same word root as 'conceive', but that dates back to ancient Grecian notions of genitive reproduction.

User avatar
sprunkner
Over Pompous Autobot Commander
Posts:2229
Joined:Fri Mar 12, 2004 12:00 am
Location:Bellingham, WA

Post by sprunkner » Thu Sep 30, 2004 2:24 pm

Denyer wrote:
Nor do I hold little things like a childhood friend being murdered by her father against your particular cult
WTF?

[/quote]although I think many non-religious people are little warier of others who justify things with recourse to "an invisible guy wants me to do things this way" or similar.[/quote]

God should have given us all common sense. If He told me to move a mountain, for example, I would hire a construction crew. Somehow there are a great number of people out there who seem to equate faith, love and hope with their own personal agenda.
Image

Commander Shockwav
Decepticon Cannon Fodder
Posts:51
Joined:Fri May 30, 2003 11:00 pm

Post by Commander Shockwav » Thu Sep 30, 2004 2:56 pm

Best First wrote:
That would be lovely if religous beliefs didn't continue to railroad humanity into a philisophical cul de sac...
Anything can railroad humanity, depending on how its used. A fork is a very nice thing indeed, it helps us eat dinner, until someone uses it to stab someone in the eye. Such is the case with anything.
Best First wrote:as an aside, if you belive you have accessed the devine truth, why aren't you trying to convince me...
Because, as I stated before, one can't convince another of God's existence. It is a revelation that must come from ones self. My discussion here is only to suggest that the belief in God is not an illogical idea nor a far fetched concept.

A belief in "God" begins by taking the approach that as a creation, we are not the definers of truth. Everyone has their own beliefs, but not all of them can be 100% correct, only one of them can. We can vary our perspective on things, but with can't alter reality. It is a logical idea that there is only one truth. Either God exists or He does not.

In other words, it starts by erasing any pride that might be present in the heart, any arrogance which might be present to make one say "I know what's right for me and I equate this with truth". As a people, we find what we like, and try to justify it as being right because its what we want. What is right for an individual has nothing to do with the truth of existence. Everyone has different tastes, different likings, and we all perceive things different. But reality is reality, regardless of what our senses tell us.

So if one approaches their life with this idea, in this fashion, the concept of a God will never reach the realm of possibility. To believe in a God, we must first accept that we ourselves are not Gods. Once that belief is there, and firmly rooted in the heart, then we can begin to entertain the possibility that there could be a God.

So going back to your question, I can't convince you of God's existence. I have seen many things in my life which allow me to come to the conclusion that God not only exists, but that His Greatness has no limits. When someone looks at a leaf on a tree, they may not be impressed. I am, because I studied botany and I understand what is going on on the molecular level, thanks to scientists who have discovered such wonders.

The complexity that goes on within a single cell, just one cell, boggles the mind. The millions upon millions of intricate interactions that must go on for the cell to survive just blows my mind. If even one such misstep of the millions occurs, it can cause total destruction of that cell. Millions upon millions of molecular interactions, on a microscopic level, equivalent to all the stars in the universe. Logic would dictate that such a process would not be possible unless some Power, some Force, guided it so. And yet, the cell not only lives, it creates more cells through the process of mitotic division, an equally if not more impressive process.

What is this Power, what is this Force that makes the improbable highly probable? So when you look at a leaf, remember it is made of many cells, millions of cells. All of which interact with themselves.

And all of it without mankind playing a role, not a single step in this process.

Call this Power what you like. Evolution, Science. I call it God. And I worship it. I give this God my attention because it is multifold more worthy of my time and efforts than say, watching Micheal Jordan, a man worshipped of sorts, throw some ball in a hoop.

Attempting to force others to see things the way I do is not only foolish, but in my belief, just wrong. There should be no compulsion in religion.

User avatar
Denyer
Over Pompous Autobot Commander
Posts:2155
Joined:Tue Oct 17, 2000 11:00 pm
::Yesterday's model
Contact:

Post by Denyer » Thu Sep 30, 2004 3:01 pm

sprunkner wrote:WTF?
Emma's father couldn't reconcile the tenets of his faith with what he found in her diary, and ended up strangling and then stabbing his daughter. Though what I find slightly more worrying is that his wife and other daughter stuck by him.
sprunkner wrote:God should have given us all common sense.
Yup. Galileo probably nailed it;

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo its use."

User avatar
Denyer
Over Pompous Autobot Commander
Posts:2155
Joined:Tue Oct 17, 2000 11:00 pm
::Yesterday's model
Contact:

Post by Denyer » Thu Sep 30, 2004 3:20 pm

Commander Shockwav wrote:What is this Power, what is this Force that makes the improbable highly probable?
Why would/should there be a Power or Force? Over time and space we can barely conceive of, the chances of anything occurring are good.
Commander Shockwav wrote:My discussion here is only to suggest that the belief in God is not an illogical idea
It's extremely logical—we make things, what made this world? We produce life, what produced the first life? It's a very simple abstraction. It's also very logical to attach one's own prejudices to the character and personality of a god thus developed, and to gradually build an all-encompassing system of faith which comforts all troubling thoughts. The desire for certainty is a strong one in many people.

We hang on to our ideas of gods because in straightforward ways the illusion can benefit a community. Need to control children? God will be angry with you if you don't do as you're told. Need to tie family units together into something manageable? Marriage is for life, however miserable. As long as a system supports more people than it disadvantages, vestiges of it will remain. And it's easier to condition behaviour when an abstract is attached to physical authority.

Gods being artificial constructions doesn't render them of no possible use.
Douglas Adams wrote:The one I have in mind at the moment is one that describes the culture and economy of Bali, which is a small, very crowded island that subsists on rice. Now, rice is an incredibly efficient food and you can grow an awful lot in a relatively small space, but it’s hugely labour intensive and requires a lot of very, very precise co-operation amongst the people there, particularly when you have a large population on a small island needing to bring its harvest in. People now looking at the way in which rice agriculture works in Bali are rather puzzled by it because it is intensely religious. The society of Bali is such that religion permeates every single aspect of it and everybody in that culture is very, very carefully defined in terms of who they are, what their status is and what their role in life is. It’s all defined by the church; they have very peculiar calendars and a very peculiar set of customs and rituals, which are precisely defined and, oddly enough, they are fantastically good at being very, very productive with their rice harvest. In the 70s, people came in and noticed that the rice harvest was determined by the temple calendar. It seemed to be totally nonsensical, so they said, ‘Get rid of all this, we can help you make your rice harvest much, much more productive than even you’re, very successfully, doing at the moment. Use these pesticides, use this calendar, do this, that and the other’. So they started and for two or three years the rice production went up enormously, but the whole predator/prey/pest balance went completely out of kilter. Very shortly, the rice harvest plummeted again and the Balinese said, ‘Screw it, we’re going back to the temple calendar!’ and they reinstated what was there before and it all worked again absolutely perfectly. It’s all very well to say that basing the rice harvest on something as irrational and meaningless as a religion is stupid—they should be able to work it out more logically than that, but they might just as well say to us, ‘Your culture and society works on the basis of money and that’s a fiction, so why don’t you get rid of it and just co-operate with each other’—we know it’s not going to work!

So, there is a sense in which we build meta-systems above ourselves to fill in the space that we previously populated with an entity that was supposed to be the intentional designer, the creator (even though there isn’t one) and because we—I don’t necessarily mean we in this room, but we as a species—design and create one and then allow ourselves to behave as if there was one, all sorts of things begin to happen that otherwise wouldn’t happen.

Post Reply