[MD] Dr McWatt's advice to his unknown student from a remote spot of the world.

[Ant McWatt]

Dear unknown student from a remote spot of the world,

I think you have reached a point where you have to decide whether you want a degree just for social reasons e.g. to forward a career, prestige from your family & peers etc., or primarily for intellectual reasons i.e. whether you actually want to obtain a good understanding of the Good (or what Pirsig terms "Quality"). Until you have the latter understanding, I am sorry to say that you will still be trapped in Plato's mind as nearly all people who are dominated by contemporary Western culture are.  A culture where Beauty, Love, poetry, music & the Good are seen as relatively unimportant and secondary to
"material concerns".  Robert Pirsig offers us a metaphorical key (possibly the only one in 2014) to escape this (fundamentally) immoral, unpractical world.

If you do choose the latter, I would strongly advise you as a (relative)
beginner in this area to drop all notions of "subject", "object", "subjective" and "objective".  At least for now.  They are all (Platonic) terms of SOM ("subject-object metaphysics" as Pirsig terms it) and will just confuse you.  This is illustrated in Section 1.1., Chapter 1 of my PhD (starting with a quote from David E. Cooper):

 
"When we refer to people, methods and opinions as objective, the contrast is with ones that are biased, partial, prejudiced and the like.  Objectivity of
this kind is, one might say, an epistemic virtue, something to be striven for
if knowledge is to be effectively and reliably acquired.  But we also
speak… of entities, properties and values as being objective.  Here, the
rough intent is that something is objective if it exists or obtains
independently of what people may think, experience or feel.  Expressions
like ‘objective judgement’ and ‘objective proposition’ are therefore
ambiguous.  The former, for example, may refer to a judgement arrived at
in a suitably impartial, detached manner, or to one that concerns an objective state of affairs - the price of a wine, say, as opposed to its quality."   Cooper (2002a, p.214)

It is apparent that for SOM the notions of ‘subjectivity’ and ‘objectivity’ are assigned as metaphysical terms (referring to types of reality such as mind and matter) in addition to being assigned as epistemological terms (referring to ways of knowing; as in the ‘spectatorial’ accounts of knowing criticised by Heidegger).  A further SOM semantic construction of note is that being a ‘subject’ (for instance, being a centre of consciousness) is not usually considered problematic but (with the simple addition of a seemingly neutral suffix) being ‘subjective’ (as a criticism of being engaged in conscious activity that will lead to an incorrect relation with an object) is.  On the other hand, it is considered problematic to treat people like objects but unproblematic (in most contexts) to treat them ‘objectively’ (i.e. without prejudice).  In this context, to treat people ‘objectively’
entails that they are not treated as ‘objects’.  On the other hand, it can
be argued that it is only by subjectively identifying and empathising with
their subjects that anthropologists, for instance, can arrive at fair-minded,
informed and more ‘objective’ accounts.  Yet, this shows an ambiguity in
SOM as we observe ‘subjective’ knowledge (gained through empathy and
identification) mysteriously becoming ‘objective’.


------------CUT----------


Moreover, it is apparent that the terms ‘subject’ and object’ are usually complementary, in that a knowing mind is a ‘subject’ insofar as it is aware of an ‘object’ while an object is termed an ‘object’ insofar as it stands or, at least, can stand, in a certain relation to a subject.  On the other hand, the terms ‘subjectivity’ and objectivity’ are usually perceived as being opposed, in that as one increases, the other decreases.  Finally, as noted above, an ‘object’ can be an object of thought, a grammatical object or a physical object.  It should be noted that the above illustrations are by no means exhaustive so, in consequence, pinning down the meaning of particular SOM terminology can be often like catching the proverbial ‘greased pig’.

Considering the ambiguities surrounding subject-object terminology, it comes as no surprise to  discover that Pirsig (2002h, p.530) was considering a complete jettisoning of SOM terms when constructing the MOQ...

 
END OF QUOTE


You stated in your last e-mail of August 15th:

"I tried to make a relation between the four patterns of static quality
maintained in your thesis but as far as I can perceive they are patterns
defining one's interpretation about one single object (as the instance given in p. 89)".

The four levels of static quality patterns have nothing directly to do with
individuals, subjects and/or objects.  For instance, Buddhism and modern science show us that notions of "the individual" or "the self" are largely just useful fictions.  Contemporary biology tells us that out of all the cells that make-up the average "human" body, only 0.10 % are genetically human.  99.99% of these cells are actually non-human and largely consist of bacteria that live on the skin or in the gut and do things such as breaking down food and dirt particles.  A quick Google search will indicate the truth of this matter as of 2014.  (Of course, future scientists might think something else).


You then stated in your last e-mail:

"I am seeking the measures being causes of a change in quality (and it goes without saying that a measure which can improve the quality of an object might act vice-versa for another, e.g. compare the role of time in changes applied to the knowledge (extended) and a cellphone (out-dated)). After the classification of them, I will focus on the influence of such indicators on the education of architecture."


Hmmm... The four levels of static quality patterns actually refer to how Pirsig thinks the "Everyday" or mundane universe is best divided and includes every sub-atomic particle, every virus, every tree, every animal, every society and every idea (including this one!).  The only things not included within the realm of the four static patterns (and this is the important, critical point that Plato got wrong) are the (essentially) formless Beauty, Love, and the Good.  They can only be understood by metaphor in the form of poetry, fiction and music. 

(In fact as a young women, you might be interested to know that not only would Plato have banned all poets from his ideal Republic but also all women,
all musical instruments, most modern technology and, for some weird reason,
sounds of water too.)

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-aesthetics/


In other words, everything that can be measured in this life (such as
Love) is not necessarily the most important or valuable things.  Beauty,
for instance, can not be measured in the same way as a length of string or a
duration of time.  We are brainwashed in the West to think otherwise but
it's simply not true. For instance, when you see a beautiful painting, do you
first get a ruler out to make sure the artist has faithfully followed the
"Golden Ratio" before you decide that you "like" it or, as Pirsig would say, do you see that you simply like a painting on "face value" (i.e. Dynamically - in the moment) and then - if you're really interested in it - work out later why?  If the former, my guess is that you will soon be banned from your local fine art galleries for being a crank! :-) 

http://www.goldennumber.net/art-composition-design/


This is also why I highly recommend you to buy a copy of Patrick Doorly's book "The Meaning of Art" book which shows in great detail what a lot of
nonsense the "Golden Ratio" is!  As a bonus, it also has a damn good overview of the MOQ.  My review of Patrick's book can be read here:

http://moq.robertpirsig.org/Doorly.html


That is end of today's "lecture".  I will go through my books this weekend and find my favourite architecture texts for the next stage of your research.  But, in the meantime, please don't include the following words in your e-mails to me: "subject", "object", "subjective" and "objective". 

Thank you!

Yours sincerely,

Dr McWatt

 
.