Lively Thesis Point

Astral Facts, May 2009

Thesis of Life
Astral: (Theosophy) Consisting of, belonging to, or designating, a kind of supersensible substance alleged to be next above the tangible world in refinement; as, astral spirits; astral bodies of persons; astral current.


Sometimes - actually, make that often times - students sit in my English comp classes with that look that says,

“Like why do I need to know all this – it’s not like I’m going to get a job in a verb conjugation plant or something!”

After all, isn’t school supposed to be preparing the students to be successful in life?

Of course, it would be professional suicide to stop to address – or even consider - that statement at the time. It’s like the windshield wipers on my car that need replacing: I can’t change them when I’m driving in the rain, and when I’m not in the car or it’s not raining, it’s no longer an issue.

Recently I was in an audience somewhere, and the topic did intrude into my somewhat idle mind.

I started with the question, “What do English composition instructors really teach?”

Personally, I tell my students they need to start with some purpose. What do they want to accomplish in their writing? (Of course, the real answer is that they want to get an A, pass the class, get credit toward their degree, and all that stuff swirling around in real life,) but I ask them to focus somewhere outside that unacknowledged reality.

In English teacher jargon, we like to stress the formation of a “thesis” or thesis statement. Of course, we don’t hear that term used out in the ‘hood, so we call it “my point” – as overheard on the street corners, back alleys, and corporate boardrooms – “ma point is….” and “don'cha git ma point?”

Then I tell my students they need to have good reasons for others (the audience) to “git it” like they mean it. Frequently, teachers tell the students to come up with three solid reasons. That way they can triangulate the point and get that nice five-paragraph essay that has a good strong conclusion. Just like Jack McCoy does on Law and Order, merely having the three key reasons (something like the motive, means, and opportunity) doesn’t mean much without good solid evidence.

So I tell them to use the “e+e” formula: present the evidence (examples) that relate and then use the second “e” – explanation. This explanation needs to do more than just identify the meaning of the evidence. The explanation also needs to include commentary on the significance of that meaning.

Unfortunately, the part often overlooked is the conclusion. All the explanation of the significance of the particular examples should be driving the focus toward the closing and the reinforcement of the “ma point" set up at the start.

Unfortunately, people often just end up with an R’s Я Us that repeats, reviews, restates, and basically regurgitates with a “See, I’m right!” emphasis. However, that doesn’t offer any real value to the readers. Thus, a good conclusion goes beyond the simple R’s Я Us statement to offer some benefit or application of the content.

It’s all pretty simple when you think about it, and it works when writing a cover letter on a job application (when my point is they should hire me), a letter of complaint (when my point is they gotta make it right), a proposal for community improvements (when my point is this is the best thing to do), etc.

So let's go back to when my mind was seemingly in idle mode (back in my introduction).

I was attending a religious service in Maple Valley early this month and the main speaker showed a YouTube clip on the big screen. It was two women in a parking lot (apparently a scene from Malcolm in the Middle) letting things get out of control when one of them accidentally inflicts a “door ding” on the other’s vehicle.

Here’s a link to the clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiNEM4rrtwo

Of course, everyone in the place had a good hearty laugh. The commentary that followed primarily focused on how these women had the kinds of natural reactions we all experience.

Frankly, I was a bit troubled by calling this a “natural” reaction. It seemed to me the better term might be “common” reaction. I would think the “natural” reaction would be the initial apology which the second woman was expecting. Of course, she then would naturally say, “not a big deal, I don’t see any serious damage” and they would have gone off their own ways.

A couple weeks later I attended a different kind of religious event in Seattle. The main speaker then focused on simplifying our lives down to a common statement of purpose. I thought,

“Dude! That’s exactly what I’m trying to teach in my composition classes!”

It’s like asking what is the “ma point” to focus everything around?!

The speaker’s suggestion was

Inherit the Original Love of the Creator

which is probably not too different from

Don’t leave a big carbon footprint,

Do unto others ...,

and similar versions of “The Golden Rule” :http://origin.org/ucs/ws/theme015.cfm

It seems that in our current troubled times of budget crunching, dinged doors, road rage, and hectic encounters, that basic stuff of English& 101 (which is just an extension of everything I needed to know in kindergarten) might be worth reflecting upon – both for idle and active minds.

We just need to clarify the meaning, present the "e+e", and confirm the significance is connected to that original "ma point" while driving the content toward the conclusion that includes value and application.

How simple is that?!

Walter Lowe
Astral Facts is a monthly presentation of Humanities Science, produced in the bowels of the Humanities Science offices.

The Name Game: Rose, Whereforth Art Thou?

Astral Facts, April 2009

The Name Game

Astral: (Theosophy) Consisting of, belonging to, or designating, a kind of supersensible substance alleged to be next above the tangible world in refinement; as, astral spirits; astral bodies of persons; astral current.

Rose, Whereforth Art Thou?

Someone has asked about Humanities Science and how it differs from other disciplines, such as Natural Science or Social Science, and what do I think? The differences can be described in response to that question.

The natural scientist would be concerned about the brain and what physical phenomena (biological, chemical, electrical, etc.) go on when a person thinks. The social scientist would focus on the mind and what emotional or social factors influence the process. The humanities scientist would focus on the imagination that provides the content (images, structure, colors, etc.) and meaning of the thoughts produced.

Of course, these have crossovers, for many the social scientist is interested in the culture and values that influence the social behavior and often the humanities scientists would consider the behaviors that stimulate and perpetuate the imagination. The natural scientists help us build and regulate such design and action.

Thus, as a humanities scientist, I was intrigued by a recent letter to the Seattle Times advice giver “Ask Amy” when a divorced woman (we’ll call her Rose X) unexpectedly ran into a friend and her teenage daughter. This friend was unsure of how to introduce her to the daughter. Rose was no longer “Mrs. X” so maybe she had reverted back to her unmarried name (“Ms. W”). In the awkwardness, the woman told her friend’s daughter to use her first name, “Rose.”

[http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/columnists/advice/chi-0401-ask-amyapr01,0,5970918.column]

As a humanities scientist, I was intrigued by the values crouched behind such behavior of calling Rose “Rose” – something Shakespeare might also have considered– for the use of the language is quite revealing. At what level is it appropriate for one person to address another in the familiar form of the first name?

During my senior year in college I worked in the produce section of a market, and I often chatted with Bob, one of the butchers. Eventually, I learned his name was Bob Gerde and his son Jon was one my classmates from junior high and high school. Jon’s best friend Jim often accompanied Jon there and he had known Bob for over 15 years. Even so, he always called him “Mr. Gerde,” while I, who had known him only a few months, always called him “Bob.” It was a habit Jim felt uncomfortable to break, for that manner of addressing others was used to show respect and a social hierarchy between adults and children.

However, around this same time, Paulo Freire, a Brazilian educator, published Pedagogy of the Oppressed, which stressed problems with rigidity in the vertical hierarchy of the subject: object views of the teacher:student relationship. Freire felt this was a very static model, which deadened the vitality he saw missing in education, something he termed the “banking system” style. In this metaphor, the teachers deposited knowledge in the minds of the students and then they tested the students’ knowledge. Like a depositor checking his bank statement, the teacher made sure that what was deposited equaled what was withdrawn. Discrepancies were noted and corrected.

Instead, Freire created a dialectic view that proposed the teacher should also be learning from the students and, to complement this, the students were also serving as teachers in the relationship. Thus, all participants should be transformed through the education process, viewed as a dialogue, with the participants working in cooperation. In other words, with teacher as student and student as teacher, the classroom is a place of horizontal relationships more than simply a vertical down line.

This egalitarian view is quite popular in education now, 40 years later. Theodore Dalrymple, in Our Culture, What’s Left of It, notes the significance of the teacher and pupil terminology change. As he points out, “pupil” implies the existence of some “master” standing in a higher or authoritative position. Although popular terminology in education 40 years ago (Q. “Why did the cross-eyed teacher lose his job?” A. “He couldn’t control his pupils.”), this phrasing is quite archaic these days.

This week my students and I have been reading and discussing Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll House, wherein the central struggle is precipitated by one man, Torvald Helmer, becoming the manager of a bank and firing an employee, Nils Krogstad, not knowing that his wife, Nora Helmer, has illegally borrowed a large sum of money from Krogstad. As the plot thickens, the audience learns that Helmer’s main reason for the dismissal is because he and Krogstad had been friendly acquaintances in their youth and Krogstad is now addressing him by his first name, Torvald, in front of the other employees, which Helmer feels is publicly humiliating and showing a lack of respect for him and his position.

Of course, the students blame Helmer for being so picky, for the “first name basis” seems to be the norm these days. These same students write a paper or participate in a discussion on something written by Ernest Hemingway, and they frequently comment on “Ernest’s” characters and ideas. Listening to this for me is like fingernails on the chalkboard – Oops! - another dead simile. Some even go to the extreme of referring to what “Ernie” has written!

Thus, like the divorcee who says “Rose” is good enough for the teens to use or the education model that suggests the voice and experience of the teacher has no more authority than the real experiences the pupils, sorry- students, bring to the classroom, labels of respect are not so apparent. Perhaps, might it be time to consider “A Rose by another name?”

When Condoleezza Rice was Secretary of State in the Bush Administration, the newspaper headlines often referred to her as “Condi” obviously not to save space if her last name, Rice, is even shorter. And now with Hilary Rodham Clinton as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration, what do the headlines say?

Have you come a long way, babes?

In the play, A Doll House, Ibsen writes with the lines spoken by the husband as coming from Helmer, but the lines from the wife as coming from Nora. Have things changed when the modern day “Rose” rejects “Mrs. X” or “Ms. W”?

A few days ago, one of my students mentioned,

“Mr. Lowe, you are the only one of my teachers who has us use your last name to address you.”

I asked her the names of her other teachers. They were all female names.

Walter Lowe

Astral Facts is a monthly presentation of Humanities Science, produced in the bowels of the Humanities Science offices.