"Rather , pure quality should be taught," i need some time to study this material,Dan.
But your endsentence triggered a remembering in my head , related to this endremark on the paper you made. This one,from an interview done with Pablo Picasso. Picasso suggested to make a painting in the optic to create a masterpiece, only to take some very well chosen colors, no more. I need to study the paper. Thx a lot for providing material, Dan. greeztz, Adrie 2010/10/11 Dan Glover <[email protected]> > Hello everyone > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 4:03 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dan asks: > > > > If students know what quality is why is their writing so bad? > >> > >> > > > > John answers: > > > > We all may experience the same wind, but the ways we trim our sails and > set > > our rudder is different for each and every sailor. And some ways are > better > > than others, that's all. > > > > However, you seem to be asking why is there so much poor Quality in > sailing > > and I'd say it's because each sailor gets so attached to his view and his > > choices, that he stops paying attention to the wind-experience. > Betterness > > exemplified is what get us out of our ruts. Set a good example for us > Dan, > > and I promise we'll improve! > > Hi John > > The quote is not mine... it is an extract from a letter sent by Robert > Pirsig. It is the Freshmen Paper on Quality that he mentions in ZMM. > Here is the entire letter: > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Here is what you are looking for: > > ================================================= > STARTS > > Bozeman, Montana > April 2, 1961 > > Professor Edith Buchanan > Department of English Language and Literature > University of New Mexico > Albuquerque, New Mexico > > > Dear Prof. Buchanan: > > > Professor Grieder has given me a copy of your letter asking for > information from persons with good thoughts about teaching or persons > who are doing unregimented, unorthodox teaching of English. I would > like to answer this request in some detail, partly because of interest > in the conference you are planning, partly because of a need to clear > in my own mind what I have been doing, and partly to make a useful > record for future teaching and graduate work. I gather from newspapers > that there is a great amount of complaint at present about Freshman > English instruction and that many departments are looking for new > answers. > > The answer presented here is in the disguise of an old answer, so > that at first it doesn't appear very new. The problem being fought is > the old problem that is renewed each time a student brings in a > rewritten paper saying, "Is this what you want?" The question seems > ordinary enough to the student but every time one tries to answer it > honestly it becomes a frustrating and subtly maddening question. An > instructor often gets the feeling that he could spend the rest of his > life telling the student what he wanted and never get anywhere > precisely because the student is trying to produce what the instructor > wants rather than what is good. > > One also notices that on many of these occasions the particular > student is as frustrated and angered as the instructor. The student > keeps trying to figure out how to please the instructor and to his way > of thinking, the instructor doesn't seem to know himself. The student > turns in a rambling paper. He is told he needs better organization > and should make an outline. He goes to work, makes an outline and > writes a new story that follows the outline but is told the story is > too dull. He goes to work, tries to brighten it with choice bits of > liveliness and brings it in. He is then told the story sounds too > artificial. He begins to look at the instructor with a deep feeling > of estrangement. He decides in his own mind that from the evidence > available it is clear that he is talking to an incompetent instructor. > He goes his separate way with little accomplished and the cause of > English composition has fallen another tiny step backward. > > I suspect that the particular problem involved in this situation > is a deep one, a fundamental problem that pervades all teaching of > English composition and perhaps all teaching. Because instructors are > compelled to say what they want they do say what they want, and when > they do, they force the students to conform to artificial molds that > destroy ideas that students have on their own. Students who go along > with their instructors are then condemned for their inability to be > creative and take a stand of their own or produce a piece or writing > that reflects a student's own personal standards of what is good. > > At this point an instructor's disciplinarian hackles can rise and > he can say that in the final analysis he is teaching conformity and > that the students had better learn to like it. He can argue that > students should learn to be creative only after they have learned the > discipline, presumably when they are all through school. When he says > this it is unlikely that he is thinking much about the fact that when > they get through school they will enter another form of > work-discipline which will carry them through until they are ready for > retirement and death. The disciplinarian argument, carried through, > seems to lead logically to the conclusion that the purpose of a > college or university is to train willing and obedient servants, not > to encourage the growth of free individuals capable of thinking for > themselves. But this conclusion is in such obvious violation of the > whole American way it is absurd. We are, in fact, dedicated to the > ideal of free thought, and when we insist upon conformity to what we > say or feel is good in English composition we are not following that > ideal. I am not interested at this point in whether this is necessary > or not, I am simply pointing out that it is wrong and will continue to > be wrong until solutions are found. I suspect that this fundamental > wrongness is the basis for much hatred and apathy that English has > earned in the past and will continue to accrue justifiable hatred in > the future. > > The classroom dilemma of saying what you want without producing > conformity is a dilemma that, I believe, has a solution. The solution > lies in a common word which on first analysis seems as simple as the > word, "time," and which, on further inspection, turns out to be fully > as complex as that word, "time." The word is quality. When a student > asks what is wanted in English composition he should be told that what > is wanted is quality. This seems ridiculously simple at first but it > is an often overlooked primitive concept that is absolutely necessary > to put across before a student can learn to write. > > And it is astounding how many students arrive at the college > level with no understanding that there is such a thing as quality in > writing -- students who honestly and conscientiously believe that good > writing is a matter of pleasing different instructors, students who > believe it is a matter of being flowery, being grammatical, being > profound, being obedient -- being anything, except just plain good. > > It is even more astounding how many instructors are of the same > opinion. All the texts I have read and almost all the teachers I have > listened to are teaching methods of obtaining quality without much > regard for the fact that they are nothing but methods. A majority of > students seem to regard good composition as that which follows a > certain method, or that which avoids error, rather than that which is > excellent. Many (who have perhaps been influenced by a sort of > intellectually shapeless scientism,) believe that quality does not > really exist. > > At this point one could turn sophist and wander off into an > interminable philosophic discussion of what quality really is. For > the purposes of teaching, however, it is necessary to know only that > (1) Every instructor of English composition knows what Quality is. > (Any instructor who does not should keep this fact carefully > concealed, for this would certainly constitute proof of incompetency.) > (2) Any instructor who thinks quality of writing can and should be > defined before teaching it can and should go ahead and define it. (3) > All those who feel that quality of writing does exist, but cannot be > defined, but that quality should be taught anyway, can benefit by the > the following method of teaching pure quality in writing without > defining it. It should be noted that this method does not conflict > with existing methods, it simply shows what the methods are for. > > > > Step One > > > > Assign the question to the students. Have them write 500 words > about what quality is in thought and statement. For many students the > assignment has a shocking effect that makes them more responsive to > the word later on in the course. Instructors should try the > assignment themselves first to know what the shock is like. > > > > Step Two > > > > Prove to the classes that although they cannot define quality > adequately, they nevertheless know what it is. Read two papers, one > extremely good one and one extremely bad one. (Two are appended to > this letter.) Let students decide by ballot which one is best. The > overwhelming majority will always come up with the same answer as the > instructor. (Or if they do not, the instructor will now have > something to think about.) > > > > Step Three > > > > Read four papers in class. Have each student get out a piece of > paper and rank the papers according to estimated quality. Place > rankings on the board as each member of the class gives them. The > following is typical: > > > > First Paper 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 > 1 1 3 2 3 > > Second Paper 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 > 2 1 1 1 > > > Third Paper 3 2 3 4 2 3 2 2 3 4 3 > 4 3 2 3 2 > > Fourth Paper 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 2 > 4 4 4 4 > > One can see from the distribution that although there are some > individual variations, the class as a whole has agreed that the second > paper is best, and that the last paper is worst. The first paper > seems to be running second and the third paper third. At this point, > and not until this point, the class is ready for discussion about why > one paper has higher quality than another. I personally am reluctant > to give my own opinion during these ratings, although sometimes when I > disagree with the class the temptation is strong. During one > assignment I included a paper of my own so that I could discuss its > superior points. To my chagrin three different sections rated it > second. I showed the four papers to a reader and discovered that she > also rated it second and I have now come to that conclusion myself. I > gathered from this incident and others that it is excellent discipline > for instructors to let classes come to their own conclusions. > > > > Step Four > > > > Arrange student papers into groups of four, put each group in a > folder and have all folders put on shelves at the library. Have the > students in each folder rank, in order of quality, the students in the > numerically subsequent folder (with the exception of those in the last > folder, who rate the first). Have them write 75 words of criticism on > each paper, making the total of 300 words of criticism per student. > When they bring their critiques and rankings to the next class, staple > the four critiques for each folder together and later return them to > the folder in the library. All students can then return to the > library to see what others have though of their writing. Repeat this > with many in-class and out-of-class assignments during the course. > > > > Step Five > > > > Many students will have trouble at first with what could be > called "Squareness." They will be unable to trust their own judgment > enough to see what is good and bad in different papers. They will > tend to judge on the basis of principles of good writing they have > learned in previous courses rather than what they see in the papers > themselves. A good way to help them break this habit of squareness is > to assign a subject so limited they are forced to do some original and > direct seeing. Have them write all hour about one side of a coin or > the back of their thumb or a similarly limited topic. They will > discover that they could write endlessly. Point out that they can do > the same with folders in the library, once they start seeing for the > first time. > > > > Step Six > > > > Read two papers in class, one of which violates a certain > principle of good writing, such as unity, and one paper which does > not. Let the class discover for itself what causes the differences > between the two papers. Mimeograph the poor paper and let everyone > rewrite it for greater unity. Read four revisions of the bad paper > and have them rated for quality. I have found it is good to do this > with subordinate aspects of quality: clarity, authority, unity, > vividness and depth. Clarity can be reproduced by teaching grammar, > but only if it is noted at all times that grammar is simply a method > of achieving clarity. Without the goal of clarity and ultimately > quality in mind, a student who learns grammar is simply performing a > stupid and useless memorization. > > > > Similarly, an authoritative manner of writing can be produced by > extensive library research, but library research not intended to > produce a sense of authority and ultimately of quality is futile. If > the feeling of unity can be understood by a student and recognized as > a goal, then statements of purpose, theses sentences and outlines > become valuable. If he does not have this feeling, they are > worthless. An endless variety of principles can be brought in if > their qualitative effect is first noted and taught, and the principle > taught secondarily as as a mere method by which the qualitative effect > is produced. > > > > Step Seven > > > > Keep a record of each student's grades but do not disclose them > to the student until the end of the term. Students can find out where > they stand by reading the papers in the library. Point out that the > grades are relative, and that in the end a student's grade depends > purely upon the quality of his writing compared with other students. > Indicate whatever grade distribution you have been using over the > years. Many students who are used to a normal grading system complain > loudly about having their grades withheld because it makes them worry > about where they stand. Point out that one does not improve if one is > not worried about where one stands. At Montana State College the > majority of entering freshmen do not like to have their grades > withheld, but because of open entrance to the school, the majority of > students at the freshman level are not expected to graduate. A survey > of students who had been without grades for a quarter revealed that > those who were about to receive A's were 2:1 in favor of withholding > grades; those who were about to receive D's and F's were all but > unanimously opposed. A study of predicted achievements showed that > the grades were not out of line with expectations. One can only > conclude that those students who yell when their grades are withheld > are the same students who would be yelling if their grades were not > withheld. Withholding grades improves class performance throughout > the quarter and enforces the idea of discovery rather than conformity > as a method of learning English. > > > > Things can be worked around, different materials can be switched > in and out of the sequence, but this general approach seems superior > to me as a method of educating freshman composition students. Quality > has been taught and made real without being defined. > > > > It also seemed that by the end of one quarter of this system, the > quality of writing had shot up in all sections with incredible speed. > Students, seeing their papers in a folder with others of inferior and > superior quality, were able to discover for themselves why their > writing seemed bad or good. They were able to correct faults without > personal supervision because they sere seeing what was bad rather than > simply hearing a secondhand version from an instructor about what was > bad. > > > > Many also appeared to enjoy and even demand the large degree of > individual freedom which this approach permits. They appeared to > enjoy it for the same mature reasons the teaching profession enjoys > academic freedom; not as a casual privilege but as a necessary > prerequisite for an atmosphere in which new ideas are generated and in > which individuals grow. This freedom has been abused and injured at > times, and it has its practical limits. But it continues to exist at > good schools by the very nature of the fact that the good schools > cannot be good without it. When academic freedom is gone the school > becomes dead and boring. It is no longer a good school. > > > > An identical situation exists within an individual classroom. > Academic freedom is as necessary to a good student as it is to a good > instructor. Obviously is can be abused and injured. Obviously it has > practical limits, but a classroom without it tends to be as dull and > dead and lifeless as a college without it. Any system of presentation > of English which extends academic freedom at the student level is, by > virtue of this fact, going to be a superior system. The approach to > freshman composition presented here is such a system. > > > > > > Part II -- Critical Questions > > > > Suppose an essay by John Donne is thrown in for ranking. Will the > students regard it as having a high degree of quality? > > > > Probably not. Any composition student who writes today in the > manner of John Donne is writing falsely and should be ranked down for > it. I cannot agree that one learns to write effectively by imitating > John Donne. One learns to write effectively by discovering for one's > self what is good. Mimicry has never been good writing or good > scholarship. If we try to force it on students we will simply alienate > the best and win the syrupy mimicking affection of the worst. > > > > Would you say that John Donne has no quality? > > > > This brings us again the philosophic question of "What has > quality?" which was skirted earlier. It was skirted for a very good > reason. Once one enters this philosophic jungle one is seldom heard > of again. One can only say that after teaching students what quality > really is, this is an excellent question to present to them. If a > class decides after learning what quality is that John Donne has no > quality, the instructor is faced with a good classroom problem. He > can agree with the class and renounce his scholarly training and > perhaps personal feeling. Perhaps in agreeing with the class he will > have at last discovered the truth about John Donne. Certainly this > possibility should not be ruled out. > > Or, the instructor can become disciplinarian and point out the > reason most students do not like John Donne is that they are > uneducated, that they have an obligation to realize John Donne has > quality and that they had better try to overcome their ignorance > before it is too late. Undoubtedly many students in this situation > will rapidly learn to like John Donne. It can be doubted however > whether this "liking" will be a very passionate liking, perhaps > because of a feeling on the part of the student that in liking John > Donne he has made some sort of compromise with his own honest sense of > what quality is. > > > > A third alternative would be to discover the opinion of the > class, and if it is unfavorable, to disagree as an individual. There > is an obvious danger here, of course, that in the instructional > situation it is almost impossible to disagree as an individual. One > disagrees as an authority. > > > > A fourth alternative would be to withhold one's personal ideas, > bring in conflicting literary criticism about John Donne and force the > student to back up his decision with arguments. Probably an solution > is satisfactory which does not force the student to violate his own > personal sense of quality. > > > > It is generally true that as a person grows older his tastes move > from sweet, cloying foods, vibrant colors and sensational reading to > sour and bitter foods, subdued colors and deeper and more subtle > reading. But it is wrong to force bitter foods, subdued colors and > deep reading on children, insisting that if they don't like it they > are not appreciating quality. It only confuses them about the nature > of true quality, producing a schizophrenic separation of the things > they actually like and the things they feel they are supposed to like. > > > > If you were forced to enter the philosophic jungle and give an > explanation of what quality is what would your philosophic explanation > be? > > > > Any philosophic explanation of quality is going to be both > false and true precisely because it is a philosophic explanation. The > process of philosophic explanation is an analytic process, a process > of breaking something down into words, into subjects and predicates. > What I mean (and everybody else means) by the word quality cannot be > broken down into subjects and predicates. This is not because quality > is so mysterious but because quality is so simple, immediate and > direct. > > > > The easiest intellectual analogue of pure quality that people in > our environment can understand is that "quality is the response of an > organism to its environment." > > > > An amoeba, placed on a plate of water with a drop of dilute > sulphuric acid placed nearby will pull away from the acid (I think). > If it could speak, the amoeba, without knowing anything about > sulphuric acid, would say, "This environment has poor quality." If it > had a nervous system it could act in a much more complex way to > overcome the poor quality of the environment. It could seek analogues, > that is, images and symbols from its previous experience, to define > the unpleasant nature of its new environment and thus "understand" it. > > > > In our highly complex organic state we advanced organisms > respond to our environment with an invention of many marvelous > analogues. We invent earth and heavens, trees, stones and oceans, > gods, music, arts, language, philosophy, engineering, civilization and > science. We call these analogues reality. And they are reality. We > mesmerize our children in the name of truth into knowing that they are > reality. We throw anyone who does not accept these analogues into an > insane asylum. But that which causes us to invent the analogues is > quality. Quality is the continuing stimulus which our environment > puts upon us to create the world in which we live. All of it. Every > last bit of it. > > > > Now, to take that which has caused us to create the world and > include it within the world we have created is clearly impossible. > That is why quality cannot be defined. If we do define it we are > defining something less than quality itself. > > > > To be sure, all that has just been said can never be more than > an intellectual analogue either. I have written it to suggest rather > than define the nature of quality. Like all other intellectual > analogues of quality it is both true and false at the same time. For > example, it is stated that "Quality is the response of an organism to > its environment." It can be stated with equal truth that "Quality is > the refusal of an organism to respond to its environment." The great > artists, musicians, philosophers and scientists of history have all > refused to follow the line of least resistance that their environment > has imposed on them and added some mysterious personal spark that > changed the environment of others in the future. One can thunder as > loudly for this definition of quality as the other. It makes no > difference as long as we all know what quality is. > > > > A seeming inability to directly perceive quality is sometimes > known as "squareness." Squareness results from two habits of mind~ > intellectualism and conservatism. > > > > Intellectual squareness is usually found to result from a > deep-seated prejudice that those things which cannot be defined do not > exist. With it there is the belief that such things as beauty justice > and truth are just states of mind, not actualities. There will at the > same time be the belief that such things as H2O and dollars are > realities not states of mind. The reason a person afflicted with > intellectual squareness asserts that the latter are real is that he > can define them. The reason he believes the former group are unreal > is that he cannot. He will feel that music is somehow unimportant > because he cannot define the differences clearly. He will continually > be seeking to find "meanings," that is, definitions, that he can > impose on art. He will continually find intellectual forms for things > that are without intellectual form. In his prejudiced preoccupation > with forms, definitions, and "meanings" he will be unable to see the > quality of the thing he is observing. Such a person once asked Louis > Armstrong for his definition of Jazz. Armstrong replied, honestly > enough, ~Man, if you have to ask 'what is it' you'll never get to > know." > > > > Conservative squareness, on the other hand, confuses quality > with familiarity. Quality is that environment which assures one that > all is well. Quality is that which does not jar one too much. One > who is conservatively square prefers art forms which elicit a > sentimental nostalgic response rather than those which stimulate. He > will go along with the best authority he can find to determine the > value of anything rather than make value decisions of his own. When > he listens for quality, he listens to his neighbor rather than to the > world. > > > > If students know what quality is why is their writing so bad? > > > > There are many reasons. Some are square. Some do not care. > Some, because of poor instruction, do not know that they know what > quality is. Many students have been brainwashed into believing that > only instructors know what quality is. Often when a student realizes > for the first time that he really does know what quality is in writing > he also begins to care for the first time. > > > > A third reason why student writing is so bad even though > students know what quality is, is that an ability to recognize good > writing comes much easier than an ability to produce it. Usually > students can discern between good and bad writing without being able > to write well. But if a student cannot discern quality in his own > writing there is no hope for him -- no method in the world will ever > help him learn how to write. That is why I believe pure quality should > be taught before any methods of producing it are taught. > > > Sincerely, > > Robert M. Pirsig > > ENDS > ================================================= > > Dan comments: > > I have never taught writing but Robert Pirsig did. I found it > illuminating that he felt the best way to teach writing isn't teaching > writing. Rather, pure quality should be taught. I am still not exactly > sure what he means by that. Any ideas? > > Thank you, > > Dan > 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 > -- parser 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
