Thought & Talk & the Professoriate

Dear Colleagues,

(Thinking Across the Curriculum series)

Thinking as Converse-Action

The end and the means, the gamester and the game
—life is made up of the inter-mixture of these two
amicable powers, whose marriage appears before
hand monstrous, as each denies and tends to abolish
the other. We must reconcile the contradictions as
we can, but their discord and their concord introduce
wild absurdities into our thinking and speech.
(Emerson, “Nominalist and Realist”)

Writing as adjunct of thinking,
subjunctive maybe—or adjacent:
hard to say what comes between
the stimulus & the response—

“Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Between the conception
And the creation
Between the emotion
And the response
Between the desire
And the spasm
Between the potency
And the existence
Between the essence
And the descent:
a provocation of some
sort: prompt—big bang
or whimper.

I think therefore I spam.

Thinking IS conversation going
on between my ears breaking out
sound and furry furry: think before
I speak is standard advice I dis-
regard and have always urged kids to
Write First Think Later
confident that’s the proper sequence
in the long run over time.

Ah
er
um
it would ahhhhhh
appear ummm
with al due
respect
and er without
contradiction
ahhh

the stammer of the professoriate
thinking-before-it-speaks my god
the pressure to be accurate: listen
to IT: sound of mucus, scratchy go-
to-church pants & tight constraint
of tuxedo junctions as we all lean in
to hear the Word: let there be no
mistaking….

manifestations

Speaking
Thinking Writing


ages, stages, phases

. Literacy
Oral-cy Post Literate
Neo-Oralcy
(conjure THIS!)

Can you tell the differences? The
relationships? Put your finger on
what you bet counts most: which
corner, which angle Be prepared to
defend your answer. Be specific..

We parse IT out, this triad: 3-in-1,
1-in-3 as if some thing other than
all ONE for crying out loud—father,
sum, and wholly smokes. What a mess
& guess it takes to get better and good.

Can you imagine learning to write like
shooting foul shots one-at-a-time, just one
mind you, now come over here and sit on
the bleachers: we’ll workshop your shot:
children what did you think of Sam’s
pitch? delivery? accuracy? follow
through? consistent? coherent?
flow? no? too many details?
not enough? what would
you give it? how
would you assess
71?
82?
93?
What?

And how could he improve his next shot?
Be specific.

It’s all talk, thought: author authorizing
authority authoritatively. Got to love it.
Loose and up-tight: the more the better,
maybe even merrier. How else get good?

xxxooo, Sam