It occurs to me that I ought, from time to time, to let you know what I have been up to on behalf of our campaign to get universities to take up the pursuit of wisdom - and help humanity create a better world.

1. I was the key note speaker at a conference for young scientists in Poznan, Poland, in May. My talk opened the conference. I did what I could to persuade them that we need to bring about a revolution in academia. When I had finished, one of the young scientists stood up and stoutly defended science against what he saw as my attack. I did what I could to explain that I am not against science, just science dissociated from a more fundamental concern to help humanity tackle its problems of living in increasingly cooperatively rational, wise ways.

2. Last September, more imaginatively, I was asked to give a talk up a tree in Regents Park, in London. I imagined myself standing up at the top of a tree, swaying dangerously in the wind, holding forth to an unseen multitude - or to no one. The actual event was more like a seminar, for about 15 people, on a platform half way up a tree, with a roof of wickerwork. It was a delightful occasion, lots of questions and discussion. One of those attending works at helping people organize their campaigns. He visited me a few days afterwards, and made suggestions concerning our Friends of Wisdom campaign.

3. In November of last year I went to a talk by Oliver Letwin on the future of the university, in the houses of parliament, here in London. Letwin is an MP, a policy adviser to David Cameron (then in opposition, now Prime Minister). Letwin's talk was conventional but good: universities, he said, should not be micro-managed by governments. I said my usual piece, and Letwin replied to his misunderstanding of what I had said (which is often what happens). But afterwards we had an exchange of emails, I managed to get through our central message, and he was surprisingly sympathetic. Letwin was once a philosopher at Oxford.

4. Also in November last year, I went to a talk by Richard Sennett at UCL, in which he lamented the loss of craft skills among British and USA work people. I said my usual piece, ill-disguised as usual as a question, and he said he would have a look at my work, but he was inclined to think much too much importance has been given to universities.

5. Also in November last year, after a terrific talk by Robert May (ex president of the Royal Society) about global warming and other matters, I waved my hand in the air to ask a question, but was ignored. So I sent him an email in which I made out our case for wisdom-inquiry. It led to a friendly exchange of emails, but May remained unconvinced.

6. I had another clash with Robert May at a talk he gave at a conference at The Royal Society in London on "Handling Uncertainty in Science". May argued that science is "organized scepticism" but, strangely, attacked Popper! I asked if scientists were sceptical enough about the nature of science - and made the point that scientists take for granted an untenable conception of science - standard empiricism - which seriously misrepresents the problematic aims of science. May failed to answer the point properly - as the Chair person said - so I took the matter up with him once more in a friendly exchange of emails. I managed to convince him that more honesty about the real aims of science might benefit science.

7. At the launch of a new "Institute of Risk and Disaster Reduction" at UCL in May - a big occasion - I made my usual point about the need for universities to seek wisdom. There were four speakers: one of them, Bill McGuire, agreed with me. I sent off email missives to all four speakers afterwards, with a paper of mine attached, and received a very friendly reply from Bill McGuire.

8. At the launch of UCL's "human wellbeing" Global Challenge this June - another big occasion - I waved my hand in the air to ask a question, but was ignored, so I sent in a piece, welcoming the pursuit of wellbeing, but also voicing a criticism - and making the usual point. (Campaigning does burden one with repetitiveness!) Lo and behold, UCL puts my piece out on the internet: see http://www.ucl.ac.uk/gchw-ideas/?cat=10 . One of the speakers was Richard Wilkinson, co-author of the very important The Spirit Level. He gave an account of the book. I hope to say something about it on another occasion.

9. The editor of a forthcoming book, to which I am contributing a chapter, has asked me to interview those at UCL responsible for developing the "Grand Challenges" programme - which amounts to putting the first steps of wisdom-inquiry into practice. Senior people at the editor's university want to know how UCL has done it! So off I went, armed with tape recorder, to interview the vice-provost of research at UCL, David Price, and his team. A very interesting session. It turns out I have had a certain influence on the way the Grand Challenges programme has developed in the last two and a half years - although the main impetus has come from David Price. They consulted me about our "knowledge to wisdom" thesis and argument early on, and I made out the case for wisdom-inquiry as best as I could. "Wisdom" is a part of the programme. At a later date, I will email you the result of my interview. (For the Grand Challenges programme, see http://www.ucl.ac.uk/grand-challenges/ .)

10. Recently, I have been inundated with requests to contribute to books and special issues of journals, and have been labouring to meet deadlines. In a subsequent email I will include a list of my recent and forthcoming publications on "the urgent need for wisdom-inquiry". There does seem to be an increasing awareness of the need for universities to change their ways, and do more to help solve our grave global problems.

11. Two Friends of Wisdom - Agustin Vicente and Giridhari Lal Pandit - have been good enough to write and publish papers subjecting some of my work to critical examination. I am immensely grateful to them for the appreciate things they say about my work, and for taking the trouble to subject it to critical scrutiny. I have just finished my reply to them. All three papers will be published in Philosophia - a philosophy journal. Vicente's and Pandit's papers are, I think, already available on the internet. The publisher is Springer.

Enough of the tragi-comedy of my recent efforts to get our message across. I would, incidentally, be fascinated to hear about what others have done - whether gloriously successful, or tragically farcical. Most campaigning, if my experiences are any guide to the matter, seems to involve the latter.