The “felt sense” as something that is somehow tied into the physical sensation of a writer, a “bodily awareness” of some kind, doesn’t make intelligible sense to me. In short, I can’t feel it in the way that it’s described in the Perl piece. I can, however, reason with the ideas that drive the “felt sense” concept when they are contextualized as part of the vision and revision aspect of composition—something akin to intention.
“What is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ corresponds to our sense of our intention. We intend to write something, words come, and now we assess if those words adequately capture our intended meaning.”
Beyond who we are as writers, we should be able to relate to this sentiment because of who we are as conscious beings. Intention—not a formulated plan, but an inborn drive or motive—feels like a pivotal and unavoidable step in the process of consciously, perhaps even unconsciously, communicating ideas.
If this is as close as I can get to the “felt sense” concept, I’ll take it, and I’ll run with the idea that intention is a vital aspect of the composition process for any writer.
Can intention, in this sense, be taught? In simplest terms, no, I don’t think so. But, I also don’t think it exists in such abstract terms as “body and mind before they are split apart.”
If we can experience intention and communication, then revisit the latter to “adequately capture” the former, are we not fundamentally moving toward sensational composition?
See, based on your idea of “intention,” it seems to me that it can be taught. When described so methodically and devoid of abstractions, writing starts to become a formulaic process. I agree that some aspects of writing cannot be taught. And those aspects seem to exist in the abstract “feelings” you are shying away from.
I’m not sure intention/abstraction are polarized ideas necessarily, but I think that our desire (as “professional” writers) to claim certain things can’t be taught stems from some kind of emotional bond with the time invested in the field. Some would call this a “felt sense”; I look at it more as an attachment to our investments. Basically, it seems like we all have intention as writers, by your definition, and that intention can easily be taught while the abstractions in writing simply cannot be. Yet these two aspects exist in the individual simultaneously.
But maybe I’m just misunderstanding your intentions here…
Revisiting my composition to adequately capture my intention.
I have not experienced “felt sense” as something tied to the body, but I have experienced it as something tied to the mind in the form of intention—something we may recognize as the natural precursor to action. Because intention comes from within and not from without, I believe that it cannot be taught. That is not to say, however, that intention is incomprehensibly abstract, or that it has no value.
Intention seems a crucial aspect of composition, and can be considered useful in educational terms if it is revisited as part of the communication process to better the composition.