Frances to William with kind regards... You have mentioned some very intriguing ideas, but this assumption of mine about a possible theory of architecture remains alive but tentative and will be researched further. The objective aspects of architectural objects or products can likely be defined globally, because they are sensible facts that are prone to the laws of nature and thus to the laws of logic. The subjective aspects of architectural users can also likely be defined globally, because all normal healthy humans who engage architecture act in much the same way, so that the psychical experience in the brain and mind of humans can be globally quantified. The experience is necessarily related to the architecture, but the experience is an objective logical factor. The mental reactions of individual persons or peoples alone, when held in isolation of all human experiences generally, are seemingly unreliable and thus irrelevant to defining a theory of architecture, because individuals can be experiencing a deluded illusion due to suffering an illness, and not even know it. It is the collective community of normal experience that is objective.
The ethereal sense of architecture is a fact as much as the corporeal stuff of architecture is a fact. If a person believes that an object is architecture, then that that belief is a fact, aside from whether they are wrong or that the stuff is sensed as a fact at all. The mind may usually be strong matter, but all matter is also effete or weak mind, therefore they are both objective material facts that are prone to empirical research. The existence of objective and subjective facts is predicated on premises that are sound and valid. There is nothing spiritual or mystical or magical or mythical about human sentience and experience, or human inference and intelligence for that matter. Even if the feeling for architecture is the only subjective experience humans have for it, the feeling must nonetheless be a reasonable feeling, because human feelings are natural and thus objective logical facts. The logic of relativity must rationally demand that all capable humans so engaged by architecture are held to be brought into a relation with the objective object of their subjective sense, and not into a relation with their sense of the object, because it is after all the object that is sensed and that is architecture and that may even be beautiful, and not the sense or experience of it. The philosophic key here is objective relativism, and not subjective relativism, nor objectivism or relativism or subjectivism alone. The poles of objectivity and subjectivity are bridged by the necessary pivot of relativity. William wrote... I don't see any point in trying to objectively define the properties of architecture, because the subjective participation can't be objectified. If you say that the properties of architecture are validated by the aesthetic response they evoke, then you are saying that a subjective condition verifies objective data. In science objective data must be verified by other objective data in order to exclude the subjective. Thus if something is objectively defined that means it does not require subjectivity. It is such and such whether or not we say so. It's completely impossible to objectify aesthetic response unless we limit the aesthetic to certain brain conditions that can be independently measured and falsified. Why pursue a theory if its most fundamental premise is wrong?
