It sounds more like Lucy resurrected. Jan-Anders
18 aug 2014 x kl. 02:44 skrev Dan Glover <[email protected]>: > Dear all, and especially Ant, > > I found this email in my box this morning. Apparently the sender meant > to mark it for moq.discuss but put my email address on it by mistake. > It is apparently from the student that Ant mentioned... > > ------------------------------------------------ > > My Dearest and most wondrous Dr. McWatt, > > I want to thank you for taking so much of your extremely valuable and > extraordinarily busy time to answer my nonsensical questions. Please > disregard my use of the many and assorted words such as you, I, me, > him, her, them, and any other term that might somehow even distantly > relate to an inferred embodiment of self no matter how ephemeral it > may seem or to my inadvertent mentioning of that which might otherwise > be taken as something corporeal like this fictitious keyboard with > which I am (supposedly) typing out these carefully nuanced and > structured sentences meant as but a feeble attempt to convey my > befuddlement at the audacity of your wisdom. > > I offer you greetings. > > If you should ever find yourself during your many and illustrious > travels around and about our most glorious globe in the vicinity of my > poor tribal village in a remote spot of the world please do not > hesitate to contact me. I am of course but one of the many beautiful > daughters of the chief of my village and should you take me up on my > offer please understand it is our custom to share with our guests not > only the plentiful and highly nutritious food that we have so > carefully grown and even going so far as to roast one of the many > greased pigs that we have so lovingly raised from piglets but also > know that we will as a matter of course offer up for your enjoyment > all the tanned and gleaming virgin bodies of our women and girls who > are said to be every bit as desirable as of that of those beauties of > your own Elizabethan era and much easier to undress. > > Needless to say I have pored over each word of your most generous > response to me but still I find I am nevertheless markedly confused > and what's more perhaps even more so than before. I am forced to > apologize profusely and repeatedly and what's more I humbly offer my > profound regrets at my incredible stupidity and beseech you once again > to delve into your massive missive that you have so painstakingly > compiled upon the MOQ and lend to me your most pertinent and > perspicuous teachings which may in time come to annul my befuddlement. > For instance: > > When you say: > > "The four levels of static quality patterns have nothing directly to > do with individuals, subjects and/or objects." > > I can only wonder what is the value of that which has nothing directly > to do with me and you. I of course have taken many liberties in > assuming that by 'individuals' you do in fact mean me and you though > of course if we do not actually exist - if we are in fact but enormous > and walking masses of bacteria that are but convenient fictions > perpetrated upon our world by those who should know better - then I > have to wonder to whom it is that I am writing this long and for me > extremely laborious letter. Should I simply print it out, take it to > the outhouse, and use it as we use all paper products here in my > lonely and isolated corner of the globe? For I am quite certain at the > bottom of the pit that is indeed at the heart of the outhouse there > also lurks an enormous mass of bacteria which for all I know may well > be in contact with the bacteria that comprises you, my esteemed friend > and learned teacher. > > Please let it be known that it saddens me to think as a young women (I > assure you there are but one of me but perhaps you are referring to > the many masses of bacteria that comprise the fictitious me) I would > be banned from Rome and I cannot help but wonder if that was indeed > the case why Rome did not fall far sooner than it did. In my poor > tribal village our strength is found in our children and so far as I > can determine it is impossible for men to conceive. Perhaps you are > only using this anecdote to frighten me away from traveling back to > ancient Rome but I have never entertained any such notions and thus my > continued bafflement as to why you might include this in your > otherwise most intelligent and intriguing response to me. > > In closing, please convey my many regrets to Patrick Doorly at not > having the resources and opportunity to purchase and consume his tome. > Should the time come when my father gathers enough goats together to > pay for such an illustrious book let it be known that he has promised > me it for Christmas, which of course we do not celebrate here but > nevertheless it is a generous and thoughtful offer on his part. > > Many blessings upon you and yours, > > Your Unknown Student > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Ant McWatt <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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 >> >> >> . >> > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
