I was already writing about the idea of a 'multiverse' in the 1970s, though I might have called it the 'pluriverse.' How was I to know it would turn out to be the standard model? Actually, I consider myself an enlightenment fossil.

Like our attitude to love, truth and goodness, we seem to be confident about knowing what beauty is - certain, even dogmatic - until we think hard about the idea, whereupon all confidence flies away.

But I do believe architecture, and all art, should be content-driven. It should have something to say beyond the sensational.

What is a garden if not a miniaturization and celebration, of the place we are in, the universe?

Cant you see, we are in a dialogue with the universe?

Science is a victim of its own reductive metaphors: 'Big Bang,' 'selfish gene' and so on. Richard Dawkins' selfish gene fitted with the Thatcherite politics of the time. It should actually be the 'altruistic gene,' but he'd never have sold as many books with a title like that.

A sign to me is a one-liner, a symbol is very complex and my house is a series of symbols.