Sunday, 23 April 2017
And to the matter of 366 I now turn! Below an extract, reformatted for the purpose at hand:
Act 1, Scene 1
Enter Sir Eric Ashby FRS, with Julia, an artist.
Julia: Speak Eric. Speak!
Eric: I will. By the 1870s
were ready to accept experimental science as an ingredient in education; but
they were not prepared to jettison their cherished ideals of a liberal
education in favour of the ideal of the university as a research institution.
The vague but none the less attractive idea of the scholar-gentleman is still
alive. Liberal education is still the aim of the Oxford
tutor, and it has become the aim of the civic university lecturer; for the
centripetal attraction of Oxford and Cambridge and their ideas remain a tremendous force in the
provincial universities of Britain.
British universities have never quite surrendered the idea of Renaissance Man
to the idea of the Research Worker. These two powerful social forces – the
influence of the utilitarian and the cult of the practical man on the one hand,
and the influence of the classical humanists and the cult of the
scholar-gentleman on the other – profoundly affected the manner in which
British universities adapted themselves to the scientific revolution. Oxford did not respond as Göttingen had responded; Sheffield
did not regard science as Munich
had regarded it. Wissenschaft won its way into British Universities, but it
never quite came to terms with the tough pragmatism of lay governors in civic
universities or with the tenacious ideals of classical dons in Oxford
To this day the new has not become altogether assimilated into the old;
adaptation is not yet complete: and here lies the cause of some of our present
problems in universities.
Julia: STEM to STEAM we wonder. What do you think?
Eric: Not sure! But it is evident that the antitheses between science and humanism has almost vanished, but it has been replaced by another antithesis, equally mischievous. The future historian will record that the unprofitable debates of the 1860s on the humanities versus science were followed in the 1950s by equally unprofitable debates on specialisation versus a liberal education. There is an assumption that specialisation and a liberal education are antithetic. What is needed is to challenge the assumption itself. The Oxford Dictionary defines liberal education as education fit for a gentleman. That is still an acceptable definition; it is the idea of a gentleman which has changed. A century ago when
Britain awoke to the need for
technological education, a gentleman belonged to the leisured class. Modern
gentlemen do not belong to the leisured class. Many of them work something like
a seventy-hour week, and more and more of them are finding that their business
requires expert knowledge. A case could be made therefore for including
technology among the ingredients of a liberal education. What then is missing
in a scientific or technological education? It is not a smattering of art or
architecture which is missing, nor is it an acquaintance with history or
literature. Indeed it is not a primary lack of subject-matter at all: the fault
lies with what Alfred Whitehead called a celibacy of the intellect which is
divorced from the concrete contemplation of the complete facts. It is a
preoccupation with abstractions from reality, an escape from the whole of
reality. In his book, Science and the Modern World, Whitehead warned us that
this would become the great danger of professional education. Each profession,
he said, makes progress in its own groove of abstractions, but there is no
groove of abstractions which is adequate for the comprehension of human life.
Enter Alfred Whitehead FRS
Julia: Eric speaks of Whitehead and Alfred Whitehead appears. Strange coincidence! Perhaps not! The magic works. Pray speak, Alfred.
Alfred: I will. There is something between the gross specialised values of the mere practical man, and the thin specialised values of the mere scholar. Both types have missed something; and if you add together the two sets of values, you do not obtain the missing elements. When you understand all about the sun and all about the atmosphere and all about the rotation of the earth, you may still miss the radiance of the sunset. There is no substitute for the direct perception of the concrete achievement of a thing in its actuality. A factory, with its machinery, its community of operatives, its social service to the general population, its dependence upon organising and designing genius, its potentialities as a source of wealth to the holders of its stock, is an organism exhibiting a variety of vivid values. What we want to train is the habit of apprehending such an organism in its completeness.
Exit Alfred Whitehead, Enter John Dewey
John: Progress in science ought to manifest itself as an emancipation of the mind enabling it to pursue new ends and new ideals; but in fact, progress due to science has been confined to more efficient means of satisfying old ends and old ideals.
Julia: This criticism is still valid.
Exit John Dewey
Eric: Adaptations needed to bring British universities into equilibrium with the age of technology are changes of curriculum; they could be accomplished through the normal channels of university administration and legislation. But they would not be successful unless accompanied by subtle adaptations in academic thought: professors of technology need to be persuaded that the pattern of curriculum under which they themselves were trained is inadequate for their students. Professors of arts subjects need to be persuaded that the presence of technology in universities puts them under an obligation to reconsider the emphasis in their own humanistic studies. It is at this point that universities look to their faculties of arts for help; and it is at this point that they are often disappointed. For faculties of arts have themselves become so deeply influenced by science that they seem unable to offer help towards the assimilation of technologists. Instead of contributing to the university what the Victorians understood by a liberal education, some of them are doing with grammar and documents what scientists and technologists can already do with formulae and instruments. This is doubtless profitable for the progress of scholarship in the humanities, but one cannot escape the consequences that humanities cease to be humanising when they are treated that way. It is a sort of treatment which leads to a celibacy of the intellect as inimical to a liberal education in arts as it is in science.
Exit Eric Ashby
Julia: The involvement of artists in science and technology, so much discussed among those who live in the echo chamber that is art-science and art-technology, do the same – signs of humanisation are difficult to find! Often one cannot tell who is an artist, because they are as much caught-up in the ideologies of science and technology as the scientists and technologists themselves. Which is one of the reasons why we do not engage with this noisy lot – and they are noisy. Very noisy!
Enter George Orwell
George: Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Exit George Orwell
Julia: STEM to STEAM we STARTS to wonder, STEM to STEAM what do you mean? It STARTS to become a nightmarish dream. Awake. Awake. See what thou art doing! The European Commission, DG CONNECT, are fakes! What do I mean? Only those with knowledge will understand. Already that which STARTS becomes an example, an indicator, a signpost towards what not to do – a worst practice case study. And we will use it as such over the coming years to help those outside the European world. This is the Age of Tao! Goodbye Vainglorious Enlightened Ones – your time, your age, your world, is done.
Sunday, 16 April 2017
At the Parting of the Ways
By dusty road, that oft I walked, do not stand,
Arching bridge, now crossed, no longer supports.
I am gone away – there is no way back for me.
On golden sands, gazing out to sea, do not stand,
Sailing ship, on far distant shore, now lies beached.
I am gone away – there is no way back for me.
On lonely hill, thinking of me, do not stand,
No roads, paths, or byways, lead me to thee.
I am gone away – there is no way back for me.
Remember me; forget you, I shall not,
For by your side, I will always be,
As together, to slippery edge of doom, we walk.
I am gone away – fair lady with beautiful soul,
Farewell to thee, our ways now do part.
It’s a work in progress, an experiment, part of 366. I have already changed it since first published. It may change again. The original version is below. Now you ask why do I keep changing it? I say in answer – what is a pentiment? More of my ambiguity! Why should I answer thee? Between that which lies below, and that which sits above, is a vast complexity that lies beyond your machine-like way of seeing an eternity. Then you ask: what is 366? Wait and see, I say by way of return.
Do not stand by dusty road that oft I walked,
For arching bridge, I destroyed as I went,
There is no way back for me – I am gone.
Do not stand on golden sands, gazing out to sea,
For my ship now lies burnt, on far distant shore,
There is no way back for me – I am gone.
Do not stand on lonely hill, thinking of me,
For no roads, paths, or byways lead me to thee,
There is no way back for me – I am gone.
Do not forget me; know that I shall never forget you,
And know too I shall always be, by your side, as together,
We walk, slowly, silently, to slippery edge of doom.
Farewell fair lady with the beautiful soul – I am gone.
Wednesday, 12 April 2017
The National Academies in the
USA have published a new report on Fostering
Integrity in Research. Although data on the scale of the problem is missing,
the report highlights new Detrimental Research Practices which are damaging to
public confidence in research and its outcomes. We though, in the years we
spent in Brussels,
saw many examples of these Detrimental Research Practices, on both sides –
researchers and the European Commission itself.
Fostering Integrity in Research is a hard call, given the obsession with fortune and glory that now dominates the research system both at institutional and individual levels. Fostering Integrity in Research becomes even harder to put into practice though, when the research funding agency itself, is not fostering integrity in its own operations, like for example in its dealings with so-called independent experts. This is why we have withdrawn from all engagement with the European Commission. The problems are endemic and systemic. On the one side you have people who want fortune, glory and power, and on the other side you have technocrats with power and money who want glory. Of course not all are like this. But the culture of the organisation is such that it leads to these Detrimental Research Practices.
So we are back to the matter of the European Commission, DG CONNECT, STARTS, and art-science fakes! We have not finished with this matter. We will soon offer some web links by way of a STARTS unconventional and compelling product. In this case the product is a game – the aesthetics of play. We provide some web links, and you have to spot what is wrong with the material at the other end of the links. No prizes of course, just the fun of participating (the aesthetics of participation) and wondering – it is a game full of ambiguity. Nevertheless it may help you to see the world differently by encouraging you not to accept at face value what people say, especially those with vested interests and conflicts of interest, as they go about constructing the artificial reality that is STARTS – the emperor’s new clothes. Human delusions know no bounds. Now they START to have a boundary, beyond which there is pure fantasy – DG CONNECT technocratic fantasy.
Surreal! Yes indeed it is, partly – in the sense of allowing the subconscious to speak.
Sunday, 9 April 2017
One of the reasons why we undertake research is to increase knowledge and understanding, not to decrease it. This is why high standards of ethical behaviour are needed in research, otherwise the integrity of the research system is undermined, and it is then no longer possible to trust researchers and what they are saying. This is already happening in the world of STEM research, especially that which is funded by the European Commission. We do not need arts people therefore to contribute further to the problem – which is what is happening. Ethical melt down! No-one wants to talk about it. We do, so let’s START with STARTS – this is the name for DG CONNECT’s appropriation of art for the purpose of pursuing the European Commission’s neo-liberal agenda. STARTS is a case study in ethical meltdown, a case study in the failure of technocracy, and a warning to take action against undemocratic forces seeking to rewrite history, by making art history fit the ideologies of STEM – art-science fakes.
Moving on, the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of fraud is: A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.
To be fraudulent there is a requirement that there was a deliberate intent to deceive. This is what scientific fraud does – the presentation of deliberately misleading results, information, etc.
Alternative words: incompetence, ignorance, bias, vested interests, exaggeration, manipulation, distortion, misinterpretation, … These are words that can also be applied to STARTS. The nonsense talked by people involved in STARTS is not necessarily scientific fraud. Only time will tell what is fraud, and that which is ignorance, etc.
The Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of fake is: Not genuine; imitation, or counterfeit.
Art-science fakes? Art-technology fakes? For those who care to look, there are many. Most people are not able to look because they do not want to look – a form of blindness. This is why the tale of the emperor’s new clothes is important. It very much applies to STARTS. Expect therefore much in the way of art-science fakes and art-technology fakes. It takes expertise to recognise a fake. This is why we developed the expertise. We can use this. We will use this – STARTS as a worst practice case study. A case study illustrating what not to do! And every step they take they just add more material to the worst practice case study.
Meanwhile in China, not being caught-up in the Leonardo Cult, binary thinking, Ancient Greek dualities, Abrahamic beliefs, C P Snow’s Two Cultures nonsense, STARTS nonsense, art-science fakes, and so forth … We do indeed live in interesting times. Hard luck – the age of the West is over. Now we move forward into a post-European era! A post-Enlightenment era! What are the Vainglorious Enlightened Ones going to do? They will START doing what they have always done. They will START with STARTS. People will look back and say – it STARTed with STARTS. Back to this matter of art-science fakes!
To be continued …
Wednesday, 29 March 2017
VERTIGO: Symptoms of Disease – the French policy of l’exception culturelle STARTS to succumb to DG CONNECT’s Gradgrinding of the Arts
DG CONNECT’s efforts to Gradgrind the Arts – known as STARTS – which seeks to turn the arts into numbers – on balance sheets – sounds the death knell of l’exception culturelle, especially as part of the French art world has embraced the STARTS nonsense with great enthusiasm. In future art must have a utility – DG CONNECT’s utility.
Now we are experiencing a spinning inside the head, the results of VERTIGO, and someone is saying: we are bringing together the leading players in a sensitive and the intelligible desire and astonishment: artists, engineers, scientists, and entrepreneurs who change and defy our present.
Back to the matter of art-science fakes once again! Expect to see many of these – but as with all art fakes, it takes an expert to tell what is fake, and what is genuine. This is why we studied art and the state-of-the-art, so that we could tell fakes from what is an original – fake or fortune?
VERTIGO is a symptom of several diseases and disorders, often also associated with a loss of balance and feelings of nausea. Chose your acronyms carefully!
Sunday, 26 March 2017
The European Union is 60. At the birthday party in
Rome, Pope Francis warned
EU leaders that the European Union risks dying if it does not develop a new
vision. But we were also told by EU leaders to stop criticising the EU. Why?
Because they think, like the leaders of the Soviet Union, that it is only the
job of elite rulers to think, while the rest of us just work. In the manner of
Ancient Greece so to speak! This is a measure of how out of touch EU leaders
The EU does not run the risk of dying for it is already dying. The disease is a cancer. It is the cancer of elitism, bureaucracy, technocracy, incompetence, cognitive illusions, corruption, deception, arrogance … This list is, sadly, very long. DG CONNECT’s STARTS Platform is a relevant case study.
At the heart of the cancer is an institution called the European Commission, which is destroying the harmony that once existed among the nations of
Europe, and is becoming a
significant threat to peace, stability and prosperity! It is also a threat to
democracy and is undermining our system of Parliamentary democracy.
The history of
Europe is a
history of European Unions. This current European Union will go the same way as
all the previous ones, and will in the course of doing so, bring misery and
suffering to millions of people. It is already doing this, but most people
cannot, or do not want to see. It is also, like the Soviet
Union, falling apart, and is being held together only by fear
generated by EU Institution propaganda, and threats from leaders not to
Europeans need to break free from their past, not to reinvent it in the same form that it was yesterday, which is what the European Union is doing. The European Union is Prometheus. It is also Narcissus. It sits on the rock of the past, bound by invisible and silent chains, suffering the agony of, every day, having its liver torn out by an eagle, only to regenerate again overnight back into the same form it was the previous day. And it has so fallen in love with itself that it cannot see the damage that it is doing. So it sits gazing at its reflection, admiring itself, as it did in
Rome over the weekend.
The EU has been condemned by Zeus and cursed by Nemesis. Time to say goodbye! We are! On March 29th! But it is also time to start creating a new vision for
Europe, in a
post-European era world. This, if you were wondering, is what we are about, and
we use a technique from the world of arts and literature known as
de-familiarisation (from the school of literature known as Russian Formalism),
also called, making the familiar seem strange, as part of the process.
Wednesday, 22 March 2017
To clarify, I am referring to what is often called the Lisbon Treaty or the Treaty of Lisbon, but actually is a consolidated version, last updated in
of two treaties: THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION, AND, THE TREATY ON THE
FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. The two go together.
one of the functions of our Parliament is scrutiny of government. Both houses
do this. It is part of a healthy democracy. An unhealthy democracy does not
allow for Parliament to scrutinise government. Thus, all you people who make so
much noise about the European Union being democratic, will no doubt believe
that one of the functions of the European Parliament is scrutiny of – it would
of course be the European Commission. So how many times does the word scrutiny
appear in the above two treaties – all 400 pages plus of them?
The answer of course is – only once! And this relates to Europol. Yes that is correct, the European Parliament has no rights, duties, or obligations to undertake the scrutiny of the European Commission. I can assure you the European Commission are very happy about this, and this lack of scrutiny is one of the reasons why they are acting now increasingly on their own without approval from Member States. They are out-of-control.
All you continental Europeans, whom we are now leaving behind, are living in what is becoming a dictatorship of technocrats. The destiny of the European Union is to become a dictatorship of technocrats.
It seems that on March 29th we will be invoking, at long last, Article 50, and by the same date in 2019, perhaps earlier, we will be out of the EU, the Customs Union, and the Internal Market. I would wish you good luck, but you will need more than good luck to escape the fate that awaits you – the history of
Europe is a
history of European Unions! Why were you so foolish to believe that the present
European Union would be any different from the previous ones?
You have being duped into surrendering sovereignty to dictators in the form of the European Commission. And I speak from a position on the left, not the right, for this is another lie you have been told – people on the right and the left have come to understand this, but the left does not know what to do about it. It is a strange situation indeed when the right and the left agree with each other. But all you will hear is this constant reference to far right populism – its all European Commission and European Parliament propaganda.
The European Union is not a healthy democracy. It never will be. You will have to live once again in a continent ruled by elites – the capitalist’s version of the
USSR. And very strangely, this also
corresponds to elements of German National Socialism. I know this because I
have been studying this strange ideology. The need to do this arose during the
writing of my forthcoming book – 366.
It was shortly after a meeting of the FET Flagship Interim Evaluation Panel,
which was held in the former HQ of the Nazis’ favourite company – IG Farben –
that I ventured into this strange world, and discovered also about the
conspiracy that took place between the world of STEM, manifested in the form of
IG Farben, and the Nazis. Chillingly relevant given what happened to the
content of the FET Flagship evaluation report in the months following that meeting!
For your information below is the Article (88) from THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION where the word scrutiny makes its solitary appearance.
1. Europol’s mission shall be to support and strengthen action by the Member States’ police authorities and other law enforcement services and their mutual cooperation in preventing and combating serious crime affecting two or more
, terrorism and
forms of crime which affect a common interest covered by a Union policy. Member
2. The European Parliament and the Council, by means of regulations adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall determine Europol’s structure, operation, field of action and tasks. These tasks may include:
(a) the collection, storage, processing, analysis and exchange of information, in particular that forwarded by the authorities of the
or third countries or bodies; Member States
(b) the coordination, organisation and implementation of investigative and operational action carried out jointly with the Member States' competent authorities or in the context of joint investigative teams, where appropriate in liaison with Eurojust.
These regulations shall also lay down the procedures for scrutiny of Europol’s activities by the European Parliament, together with national Parliaments.
3. Any operational action by Europol must be carried out in liaison and in agreement with the authorities of the
or States whose territory is concerned. The application of coercive measures
shall be the exclusive responsibility of the competent national authorities. Member State