The Science Party Manifesto

After many years of research and undercover investigations into the murky world of a subversive group that I call the Science Party – a loose coalition of people pursing a very familiar agenda – I can now reveal to you their intentions. My text is written in the satirical and ridiculing style that befits the ramblings and delusions of this mixture of lunatics, fanatics, extremists, and the misguided – potentially dangerous people for whom science has clearly gone wrong. The disturbing thing about what follows is that it is founded on statements made by people I have met, or has been written, or is what these people are actually doing!

Based on the writings and preaching of our great leader, The Chief Scientific Advisor, and other Big Scientists, who are now watching you, we present here our manifesto:

Under our system of government we will tell politicians what to do and how they are to do it and any improvement they make upon the instructions given to them will be fatal to success.

Everyone will be equal, but some will be more equal than others, namely scientists.

We the experts know what is best for you.

As science and scientists are special they will be exempt from the normal rules of society and its laws and be able to do things that others will not be allowed to do.

Scientists have a right to participate in government and to be seated at the policy making table.

Scientists will govern, and other ways of seeing the world, will not be allowed to interfere with this process.

You will still be allowed to have your opinions, but that is all they will be. No-one will be allowed to have their own facts.

Only the best evidence produced by science will be taken into account. This evidence will be known as the truth, the sole truth.

Policy will not in future change significantly, and will be the same under all elected governments, with the only adjustments allowed, being those made according to any new truth approved by science.

Scientists will determine what is the best evidence – the truth – and politicians will not be allowed to use any other evidence.

We will trust industry and so will you.

Religion – together we can cure it. We are the cure. Science is the new opium of the masses. Hallelujah, science saves!

As science is not completed until it has been communicated, we will undertake a programme of public education that will establish in peoples’ minds not only the truth as determined by us, but also the truth about scientists: that they are rational and objective, that they are independent, unbiased and rigorous, that they highly ethical, that they conduct their work within a framework of strict standards of behaviour concerning conflicts of interest. We have no axe to grind. Trust us!

No one will judge the past based on current standards of behaviour. It is self-evident that what we now see as bad things in the past were appropriate at the time – this is the nature of the slow improvement in human behaviour that we call social evolution. Step improvements in human behaviour are clearly not possible – everything is about a slow hill climb. There is no possibility of sky-hooks pulling people upwards at a faster rate. This is a violation of the laws of social Darwinism upon which we will be building the future.

The BBC will be forced to transmit programmes extolling the virtues of scientists, engineers and technologists, and the work that they do.

Medical experiments on non-consenting human beings will be legalised.

Convenience killings will also be legalised. In the future, the state will, on your behalf, slaughter your elderly relatives, the chronically sick, the dying, and all those babies born with mental and physical disabilities. This is just a matter of reason – they are a burden on society and are not economically productive. And in case you think ethical concerns will be raised, do not worry for we have much experience of manipulating ethics to make the above seem quite normal and reasonable. The whole operation will in any case be out-of-sight and therefore out-of-mind. Special facilities will be built in remote locations. These factories will have built-in cremation facilities, will be designed using the latest production engineering and logistics principles, and will deploy state-of the-art computerised equipment. The whole process will be designed to achieve maximum efficiency and minimum operating cost. These innovations will lead to economic growth and will create jobs. The termination process will be handled by experts, and to preserve their anonymity they will all wear masks and will call themselves either Dr Shipman or Dr Mengele.

People who do not agree with the above manifesto points will do so because they are suffering from a deficit, a lack of right-mindedness, and such people will be re-educated.

In due course we will provide a list of people, books, art works, etc. that reflect deficit thinking, which contradict the truth about science and scientists, and which do not support our system of government. George Orwell is the first person on this list. His books Animal Farm and 1984 will be burned. Many more people will added to the list.

People who resist and continue to maintain their lack of right-mindedness will be called heretics, counter-revolutionaries, or dissidents.

As human life is not sacred, and people are nothing more than complex biological machines, when convenient, we will arrange for some of these machines to be switched off. This aspect of our system of government is called the final solution.

We will use art to more gracefully embed these changes in society, so that you do not notice what is happening, and by the time you do notice it will be too late and the rule of science and reason will have been established. Science and reason will reign for a thousand years.

As most people will not agree to this manifesto, we will implement it through stealth by indoctrinating young children, perverting society’s values and beliefs, and by infiltrating government and its institutions, working to place unelected people in positions of power and influence, such as chief scientific advisors.

We do this in the public interest; it is for your own good, for the common good.

All the above will lead to a better world, where people will be happy, and everyone will have lots of things to do, and gadgets to keep them distracted. Disease and suffering will become things of the past.

In due course we will provide you with a creed that you will be able to collectively recite at you Science Party rallies, such as scientific conferences, workshops, covert meetings with industry, etc. This will help to confirm and reinforce your faith. It will also help you to identify those whose beliefs are wavering, and there will be an online facility to enable you to report such people to Big Scientists. Also, soon we will deliver to you the commandments as revealed by the Great Dork, which tells the uninitiated, the public, how to think for themselves.

Welcome to our Brave New World , our new world order – the one best way. Hail science and reason. Raise higher the banner of science. Under the banner of The Chief Scientific Advisor we move forward. All is for the best in this best of all possible worlds that science will create. Science makes you free.

European (Western) Science – the Fourth Abrahamic Religion

In my book Enigma, I wrote that … science and religion are one …. This has many meanings, one of which is that European (Western) science, being a product of an Abrahamic culture, is also Abrahamic in character.

The three (known) Abrahamic regions are: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. All three are founded on the belief in a single God – the God of Abraham. European science is also founded on the belief in this same God. Early modern era scientists such as Newton sought to provide an explanation of the workings of a universe created by this God. Modern science has largely dropped this in favour of an atheist value and belief system, and scientists who still believe in God, no longer find science a place for such beliefs, and face ridicule and hostility if they bring such matters into scientific activities.

The above however is not what I am referring to when I say that European science, which means Western science, is Abrahamic in nature. Science, and also technology, is culturally determined, in that they both reflect the values and beliefs of the culture that gives birth to them. Significantly change the culture and one will end up with a different science, a different technology. More on this follows later in the blog.

The Abrahamic beliefs upon which Western science was founded are still there and the religious nature of science is clear if one cares to take a close look. Most do not want to though, for those who adhere to religious dogmas very rarely want, or have the courage, to see themselves for what they truly are – people with minds that have closed-in on fixed opinions; people who have discovered the truth. Being participants in a delusion they have lost the ability to see the world in different ways, and to come to know that there are in fact many truths. This latter point is one of the most un-Abrahamic things one can say! Heresy!

So, to the matter at hand and the exposure of the Abrahamic character of European science, and, for the purpose of analysis, I will cross reference with Christianity, which is a European religion. I realise that by saying this I may have already lost many people. The story of the transformation of a small and insignificant Jewish sect into a whole new state European religion, with little resemblance to the source, is too complicated to address here, so this is something that will have to wait for another time.

First I begin with the building of cathedrals that pay homage, in the most grandiose way, to God, to Jesus. This, most people know about. But scientists also build cathedrals to pay homage to science, and the most notable example of this is what is called the Large Hadron Collider. This is often described as a cathedral like structure, because this is what it is – a grandiose man-made edifice built for the glorification of science and to provide a place for people to practice their religion – science.

The missionary side of Christianity is well known – the conversion of those ignorant of God or Jesus to the Christian belief system. Scientists also engage in missionary work, for they too feel a need to convert people to science, and, like Christians, target young people, for both know that the young mind is vulnerable to dogma – catch them when they are young, indoctrinate them, and you have a better chance of keeping them when they are older. It is also a way of recruiting new initiates – new priests.

Scientists, just like Christians, also (mis)appropriate art for the purpose of communication and the glorification and praise of their religion. Art has the power to explain, as can be seen in the vast number of religious paintings that can be found in galleries and museums all over Europe. The Collider Exhibition, which is currently on tour in the UK, is a (not particularly sophisticated) example of a new form of religious art, and, as with Christian art, look carefully at the Collider Exhibition, and one will find a (not so subtle or effective) propaganda dimension.

Science also has its priests – scientists – along with initiation ceremonies that admit these priests into the priesthood, and which excludes the uninitiated from practicing. You doubt this? Perhaps this is because you have never tried to publish the results of your research work in a journal. It does not matter how good it is, if you have not been initiated into the particular religious order that the journal represents, you are very unlikely to get your work published. I know this from personal experience, and you will find many academics have been forced to establish new journals so as to get their work published. They in effect have to establish their own religious orders so that they can practice and publish.

Science also has its high priests and priestesses, just as the Christian churches often have. These scientific high priests can be seen in the form of the nutty professors that parade themselves on television preaching their dogma and generally making as ass of themselves, and also in government in the form of Chief Scientific Advisors, who also make asses of themselves, as Chief Scientific Advisors are inclined to do. If you doubt this, see the public pronouncements of the current (at time of writing) Chief Scientific Advisor to the (outgoing) President of the European Commission, a prime example of someone making an ass of themselves. A case here of, why so smart yet so dumb? And here in this blog, is part of the answer to this question – it is all about dogma and its public recital.

You might think by now, that while there does seem to be some similarity between science and Christianity, it is just a superficial one. This is because I have saved the most profound aspects until last.

Let me now tell you about the monotheistic nature of science. Just as Christianity is monotheistic so too is science – they believe in a single truth which they, and only they, can (divinely) reveal.

Wherever you look in science you will find people working around what can be called an orthodoxy, or paradigm. Big bang is one such orthodoxy, as is quantum theory, and evolutionary theory. If you care to read Thomas Kuhn’s seminal work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, you will find this characteristic well noted and also contrasted with the social sciences, where such monotheistic inclinations are not present. Thus the social sciences can be said to be polytheistic, which provides a greater diversity of views. One can also see this polytheistic characteristic in modern art as well, but interestingly not so much in the art of earlier periods, which is highly deterministic and reflects dogmas about what art should be, and also the influence of a highly dogmatic religion called Christianity.

Incidentally the above has some interesting implications for creativity and innovation, which I will explore in later blogs.

Scientists who work around these orthodoxies would like to convey an image to the public of being open to new ideas and alternatives theories. This is largely not the case. Most people who adhere to scientific orthodoxies have no time or tolerance for alternative theories. A good example of this intolerance, are the responses of quantum physicists to what I call the Quantum Heresies. This is something that I have followed on and off for several decades. Here I will just limit my observations to noting and informing that there are other approaches to dealing with the behaviour of matter at the sub-atomic level, that are treated by the scientific establishment in exactly the same way that the Christian churches handled what they use to call heretics. What you will see is scientists demonstrating visceral hatred towards anyone who questions the orthodox theory, and threats of excommunication made to anyone who dares to explore these scientific heresies.

Lastly I mention determinism. I am not here referring to the nature of the maths that underlies scientific theory, but to the belief in what has been called the one best way, which one finds in both science and technology. Determinism is also found in Christianity (and also in Islam) manifesting itself in the form of predestination – your future is already known to God. You will also find it in science – there is only one true science that is predetermined, and was just waiting somewhere out there to be discovered. The truth about the universe and nature is also out there waiting to be discovered, but as the Quantum Heresies demonstrate, this is not the case.

In the period known as the Enlightenment, the one best way of undertaking science was discovered, and now there is no possibility of changing science, so this is how it will be for ever more. European technology is like this as well. It is out there waiting to be discovered. No thoughts here that it is the product of the culture that creates it.

I note here, which is something that I will be returning to, that these rather stupid beliefs have significant implications for innovation and provide the means for the destruction of the economies of Europe through the unleashing of the forces of creative destruction, so readers in what Europeans condescendingly call the developing world, in places like Brazil, India and China, watch out for further installments on this, for I will give you the means by which Europe can be economically destroyed, and this will come the form of a non-European approach to science and technology.

And now I will reveal something else. The reason why I wrote this article was to set the scene for what follows in the coming weeks and months, where I will be exploring the teachings and sermons of that great high priestess of science Anne Glover, currently the Chief Scientific (Religious) Advisor to the out going President of the European Commission. In doing this I will acting in my self-appointed role as Chief Artistic Adviser (see my blog entry on Hacking Horizon 2020) and providing the incoming President with the facts and evidence that will enable him to formulate a policy on having unelected people from highly dogmatic religions, in this case science, participating in what is already a highly undemocratic institution. Such people are highly dangerous as I will demonstrate in the coming weeks, and what we see in Glover and her allies is a return to the belief in the divine right to rule – this is just a taster for you of things to come, and also yet another way in which science and religion are one!

Amelia Andersdotter is Right about Europe’s Copyright Laws – They are Archaic and are in Need of Radical Revision

I am back now to the day that I spent in the European Parliament last November (2013) and the conversation I had with Amelia Andersdoter, who at the time was a Member of the European Parliament. Sadly she was not re-elected in the elections held in May 2014, which is a shame for she was a breath of fresh-air among stale politicians who are, on the whole, too keen to pander to powerful vested interest, and in doing so, criminalise ordinary people for doing what is natural – participating in and sharing culture.

Following my discussion with Amelia I undertook some research to understand more about her thinking. Her views on matters relating to copyright and the internet are, I believe, well considered and reflect a 21^st century mind, which stands in sharp contrast to the 18^th century industrial era minds of those who will, in the end, determine European copyright laws. Most of these people are unelected and include a group of people with vested interests, and their minds are firmly planted in 18^th century industrial era thinking.

I fully agree with Amelia’s point that we should not be criminalising ordinary people who download content from the internet for non-commercial purposes such as teaching and participating in culture. Most of the people who do this would never purchase this cultural content in the normal course of events, and would not therefore be able to access it. To deny them access to this cultural content is to deny them access to culture.

Charging people to access something which is a fundamental to being human – culture – also highlights what is wrong with the modern world where just about everything is considered to be a commercial transaction, and nothing is of value unless it has economic value. It is time to role back this insidious practice, and to make much more cultural content available, for free. So we should be encouraging people to download cultural content and also providing them with facilities to use this material in creative ways.

I also strongly suspect that the downloading and non-commercial use of copyrighted material is something that most people in the modern world do, and that includes those who are fighting to preserve outdated copyright laws. So let us stop this nonsense of “all rights reserved” and start allowing people to make use of this content.

There has to be other business models that will enable the above and my quest is to discover what these models are. At the time I spoke with Amelia, I had already embraced open access publishing, by providing free access to my books on-line. This is because I write books for people to read! This for me, as a professional writer, is the primary objective. The making money from my books is a secondary issue. I realise that this may seem strange to the out-of-date people – the 18^th century thinkers – in the media industries, but art – in this case literary art – is not about money, it is about making people fly and helping them to see the world in different ways. By throwing off the shackles of commercialism, I am able to be more innovative, because I can now write the books that I want to write, and produce books which advance the art form that is literature, for I do not have an agent or a publisher telling me what to write, or telling me that a particular book is not what the market wants. This, one might say is the point!

And this also is the response to those stupid people with vested interests who say that “if creators cannot earn from what they create it is a hobby and not a business”. About this they are wrong. Such a statement is also a gross insult to artists and writers, and the appropriate response to this, from artists and writers, is for them to unleash the forces of creative destruction on these vested interests by developing business models that are founded on open access and free downloading.

One of my current activities is to discover what these new business models are. I dare to dream that I can put existing media companies out of business. As part of this I have taken the decision to deny publishers access to my content and to make it available for free, on-line. This is not to say that I will not work with publishers. I am happy to do so, but on my terms, not theirs. Currently I am working on many business model related matters, which include the use of hacking and also Creative Commons open culture licences. I plan, in due course, to publish a book under such a licence, and to actively encourage people to hack the content, to download it, and to apply the content in their own creative work – all for free! It makes business sense to do so!

This is a matter I will return to in future blogs for there is much to say about these issues, which include reporting on some rather dirty and illegal work that publishers are engaging in to force the public to pay more for eBooks. This by the way, dear Anne Glover (current (at time of writing) Chief Scientific Advisor to the President of the European Commission), is just one reason why we should not show a little trust to industry, and why you should stop saying such stupid things – you only make yourself look naïve and foolish! But you are a scientist so what more can one expect of you … You are European too, so doubly handicapped, being as you are, like Prometheus.

Does the European Commission Think Science is a Problem?

Does the European Commission think that science is a problem? Does it think that there is something wrong with scientists and their values and beliefs? Does it think that there is something wrong with people who go by the title of technologist or engineer, those cousins to scientists? Evidently it does!

Previously I have mentioned ICT & ART CONNECT which, as formulated by the European Commission’s DG CONNECT, is about bringing artists’ creativity into the world of technology development, specifically that of research and development relating to information and communication technologies. What exactly are they implying?

I have also mentioned in earlier blogs, Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) which is a new initiative in the context of European Commission funded research in the Framework Programme, Horizon 2020 (see last weeks blog). The five pillars of RRI are: Public Engagement; Gender Equality; Science Education; Ethics; and Open Access. So again I ask, what exactly is the European Commission implying?

There is also a new initiative called Science 2, which consists of a whole raft of measures centred on openness, with the hope being that this will result in a more robust and sound science and society relationship. The desire is that more openness may also lead to more trustworthy science from the perspective of the citizen and civil society organisations. Once more I ask what is being implied?

I suspect that if challenged the European Commission would find the words to deny any suggestion that they were implying anything negative about science, engineering and technology, or scientists, engineers and technologists. This, one might say, is the problem, because these groups have gained a pernicious influence over our lives and to question them is to be branded as someone suffering from a lack of right-mindedness and in need of re-education. It is in short, a heresy to question science, engineering and technology, and one which invites those within the spheres of science, engineering and technology to deal with their critics as the ideologically inclined have a tendency to do – refer here to the history of the Catholic Church, the Communist states, and the Nazi state. That they do not yet resort to such extremes is not a measure of their tolerance, but merely a matter of legal restraints. Yet they find other ways to do the same thing … to silence their critics.

ICT & ART CONNECT, RRI and Science 2 come with a silent narrative that goes something like this: There is nothing fundamentally wrong … all we need is ….

But there is something fundamentally wrong, which can be summarised as: science, engineering and technology, and the people who practice in these domains, are no longer fit for purpose and it is time to consign these very primitive belief systems and those who work within them to history, and to develop much more sophisticated approaches, and different types of scientists, engineers and technologists. And of course those who call themselves scientists, engineers and technologists will not do this. Put simply there are too many Ann Glover mindsets to overcome, too many Prometheans bound to their rocks of the past, so the answer is to … I will in due course explain the strategy and tactics that involve unleashing on Europe the forces of creative destruction (otherwise know as innovation).

Hacking Horizon 2020

In my blog last week I mentioned that I would be undertaking a hack of Horizon 2020. In case you are not aware, Horizon 2020 is the European Union’s Framework Programme of research and development. It consists of many different specific research programmes and is run by the European Commission. If you do not know what hacking is, I will just limit my explanation to a few words – creative misuse. I leave you to discover for yourself, or not (depending upon your willingness to explore strange worlds, which in this case is that of art) what hacking is about, and to learn also the importance of this concept for innovation.

As part of this hack I have appointed myself as a Horizon 2020 artist and writer in residence! I have also appointed myself as Chief Artistic Advisor to the President of the European Commission!

I will be undertaking a number of artistic studies. Last week I announced that one subject of study would be Anne Clover who is currently Chief Scientific Advisor to the (outgoing) President of the European Commission. Her term of office also comes to an end when Barroso goes, and some will say good riddance to her as well. Others will not, especially the vested interests that she represents. Why this is so I will be exploring in my study of her. This particular study, I should point out, has a long history, for I have been examining the Anne Glovers of the world for close to 30 years. I am, one might say, an expert on Anne Glovers! Scientists construct theories and probes to explore nature and the universe, while I construct theories and probes to explore scientists! There is more to a building than its facade!

Other subjects of study include: the Research Executive Agency (often called REA); the Factory of the Future Public Private Partnership; the Future Internet Research and Experimentation (FIRE) initiative; agricultural policies and research and development activities; Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI); and of course ICT & ART CONNECT. Other topics may be added later.

The results of this work will appear in various novels and other artistic outputs, and towards the end of Horizon 2020 I plan to publish a book which will be an exegesis presenting an alternative picture of Horizon 2020 to the official one that will be presented by the European Commission, which is likely to be one of a highly successful Framework Programme. Recall the story of the emperor’s new clothes – I shall be acting as the little boy in that story and asking very awkward questions about these new clothes.

My proposed book will also demonstrate why Presidents of the European Commission need to have a Chief Artistic Advisor. And by way of the final outcome, I will propose a new Framework Programme – Horizon 2027 in which artists take over science and technology research and all scientists will be expected to use their know-how and skills to communicate the marvels of art to a public that seems not to understand art and its importance – clearly a case of a deficit in their thinking!

In future blogs I will also publish updates and preliminary results. Look out for these!

Chief Religious Advisors, Chief Scientific Advisors

In times long past, here in Europe, rulers (mostly unelected monarchs), had Chief Religious Advisors. Then sprang up an intellectual movement, which we today call The Enlightenment, which argued (correctly) that dogma (in this case the beliefs of the Christian church) had no place in government, and that such dogma had a pernicious influence on the lives of the governed. The emphasis was also on people thinking for themselves, rather than believing what they were told.

So began the secularisation of government, or so most people think. Here is not the place to reflect upon the failure of The Enlightenment. This is something that I will reserve for a future blog. For now I just note that dogma was not driven out of government, nor did people, on the whole, start thinking for themselves. What happened was that we swapped one pernicious dogma, for many others, and in the western world, two in particular took hold – free market economics (Industrial era capitalism) and science, both of which are products of the age of enlightenment, both of which also have many things in common, and both of which are also deeply bound to the dominant culture (and dogma) from which they were born – European culture. More about this matter in future blogs.

Thus, in effect, what happened as a result of The Enlightenment was that Chief Religious Advisors were replaced by Chief Economic Advisors and Chief Scientific Advisors, so rather than just having one pernicious influence, we ended up with two!

As with Chief Religious Advisors, Chief Economic Advisors and Chief Scientific Advisors reflect the self-interests, values and beliefs of the rulers. Most hereditary rulers of times past, believed in their divine right to rule, and having a Chief Religious Advisor was an essential part of the process of maintaining this delusion. Today, rulers, mostly elected (but also still some unelected) politicians in the western world, also subscribe to economic and scientific delusions, about which more will be said in the future, and therefore have both Chief Economic Advisors and Chief Scientific Advisors.

The current President of the European Commission (Barroso) whose term of office comes to end this year, decided in 2009 appoint a Chief Scientific Advisor, to, as he put it, “… reflect the central importance I attach to research and innovation.”  The name of this advisor is Anne Glover.

Now, Anne Glover had already come to my attention as being one of those scientific types who subscribe to the deficit model theory. This is a belief held my many scientists that it is a lack of right-mindedness that leads ordinary people to question science, to reject certain types of scientific results, etc. So such people are suffering from a deficit in their thinking, which, to cure, requires a good dose of communication to enlighten people to the glorious nature of science, what is does and has achieved, and to show them that through science we will build the best of all possible worlds.

It was therefore, no surprise to me, that when she addressed a meeting of ICT & ART CONNECT, she immediately launched into praising science, and then had the audacity to announce how pleased she was that artists would be participating in the quest to enlighten the public concerning the glories of science. In response to this I therefore began to reflect upon how to demonstrate to Anne Glover what art can do for science.

As part of my overarching theme, which I call The Silent Narratives, I have decided to hack Horizon 2020, and to make Anne Glover the subject of artistic enquiry. From this not only do I intend to demonstrate the true value of art in science, engineering, and technology, but to show the true nature of western science and its Abrahamic characteristics, and to begin to introduce a new, more powerful scientific paradigm based on eastern cultures. And given that the incoming President of the European Union has yet to decide whether to have a Chief Scientific Advisor, I will be using the evidence and knowledge generated from this process of artistic enquiry to offer him advice on the matter.

Thus over the coming months I will be examining Anne Glover’s public pronouncements in the context of her stated mandate. I will be investigating her conflicts of interests too, and the controversies she has created as a result of her work. I shall be taking some of, what she calls, the fascinating science being undertaken in Europe, and applying this to Anne Glover to see how Anne is transformed by science. Given the emphasis on innovation that is the foundation upon which Horizon 2020 is built, I will be developing exploitation plans for these results in the form of new and improved versions of Anne Glover that offer significant savings in public expenditure and more effective use of Chief Scientific Advisors. In this re-engineering of Anne Glover I will also explore the potential for economic growth in the form of wealth and job creation.

I call this body of work Anne’s Fascinating Science. Welcome to the world art!

Sustainability and Moving beyond Solution based Thinking

If you care to read my work, you will find that it contains quite a lot of critique of, and commentary on, the modern world. What you will not find however is the advocacy of any particular solution or solutions. Why?

About this I could say much, but will limit my comments to the observation that history tends to show that what have been presented as solutions, have quickly been transformed into problems. Communism is the classic example, but so is capitalism. And the same can be said of science, technology, some religions, and so on.

It is often the case that (so-called) solutions to the woes of the world are the product of a process that typifies the (western) European-oriented mind – a process that I call, the discovery of the truth, which, in the case of European minds, is often the sole truth. Thus, with the sole truth revealed, people quickly stop thinking, and proceed to the next step which is the selling of the idea (almost as though it were a product), often with missionary zeal, and then, even worse comes the implementation, regardless of the consequences. Then, to deal with those whom, because of some deficit, a lack of right-mindedness, have not discovered the sole truth, compulsion has to be deployed to bring about the discovery of the truth, and failing this, the final solution is implemented.

Communism and Christianity both share this feature, but you will also find the same thinking in science and capitalism as well, but here we have not yet seen the implementation of final solutions on the scale that can be seen with Communism and Christianity (although they are all bound together in ways that I will one day come around to explaining). But there is still time for this!

The influence of science in government is growing, and in a most undemocratic way, and one only has to read the pronouncements of the current (unelected) incumbent to the position of Chief Scientific Advisor (her name is Anne Glover) to the President of the European Commission, to realise that those who have discovered the sole truth are once again gaining influence and power, and using this to spread their dogma. As I have said before, it is not the obvious extremists that one should be wary of, but those like scientists, whom, subscribing to the science delusion, come forth saying what may seem to be reasonable things.

My position on the matter of solutions is that the problems of the world are far too complicated to be amenable to such a simple, European approach. I believe also that, the world has had enough of solutions, and that it is time to adopt a different approach that reflects the true complexity of the challenges that we now face. And this new approach is based on an eastern understanding that there are in fact many truths, and the pursuit of a single truth, is to embrace an ideology, a dogma, which if you care to look very closely, is what many people do. Scientists, along with engineers, technologists, and free-market advocates, are the most notable examples of this in the western world.

What I seek to create are processes whereby all peoples can engage in the discovery and understanding of the elements that create our unsustainable civilisation, and to then begin to explore and experiment with the means of changing behaviours, lifestyles etc. And in doing so my aim is to liberate people from the imposed definition of problems and solutions that come from those with vested interested, and to bring about, in a peaceful non-ideological way, profound structural changes.

The difference between the solutions-oriented and processes perspectives can be compared to building a new path, which is a metaphor that I use in my book A Tale of Two Deserts. The person who has discovered the truth, the sole truth, knows the destination, the place towards which the new path will take us. Socialism, Christianity, Islam, European science and technology, and capitalism all share this deterministic characteristic. It is also something that is deeply embedded in European culture.

But there is another way to build a path, and that is to acknowledge that we do not know where it should lead, and that we need to build it, one step at a time, and discover as we go which direction to take. This is not a process that Europeans find very attractive, being as they are, deterministic, and caught-up in a mind-set of control, conquest and domination. Yet in reality, most people and organisations operate in a non-deterministic way. Who at the age of 16 knew exactly what they wanted to be doing when they reached the age of 60, and among those that did know this, how many ended up doing exactly what they set out to do?

What I am trying to do through my work, is to lead people away from solutions, towards processes that will enable those who want to, to participate in the building of a new path based on the understanding that we need to change our civilisation in quite fundamental ways, but the destination can and should not be defined, for what we are embarking upon is a journey of discovery, which will most probably lead to places we would never have visited if we set off with a fixed destination in mind. And this is one of the most profound changes that we can make in our way of interacting with the world and shaping the future, and is also one way we can begin to deal with the curse of ideology and dogma, which in the end, always lead people towards anger, hatred, violence and oppression. A civilisation founded on dogma cannot be regarded as sustainable, nor will it ever be.

Art and artists have a fundamental role to play in the creation and operation of these processes, and about this I will have more to say in due course.