Lies Of The Program

The techniques in this chapter are most important and should be thoroughly practiced before proceeding to the rest of the book.

now, this is a contemptable lie.
anyhow, that’s my gut reaction;
a moment’s analysis reveals that
since no “ought” has much of anything
to do with an “is”… at least not
until some philosophical framework
can be put into place… what we
have here couldn’t *possibly* be
a “lie” in the sense of
“statement contrary to fact”
(which is pretty close to the surface
in whatever i think i’m talking about
when i use “lie” *without* first
having somehow established
a philosophical framework beyond
the “common sense” i’m more or less
bound in the nature of the case
to assume in my ideal reader.
geez. okay. come on. really.).

it *feels* like a lie though…
so there’s some belief of mine
that this feels like an attack on.
well? aha. my belief that
“prerequisites are tools of the devil”.

you see somebody copping this
how-can-you-have-any-pudding attitude
right there in cold print and if you’ve
got ears to hear you’ll shove the damn thing
into the shredder because they’re telling
you loud and clear you can learn nothing
from them except that “only by actually playing
will you ever learn anything about playing”.

which is itself sort of “true”.

suppose we begin to sketch out
a duality along the lines theory/technique.

technique without theory–
what our author is in effect advocating here–
is then the famous “training”
that “reform” education would have us
always to turn away from
(but without actually, you know,
*moving* away… mustn’t make waves…).
“school” as opposed to “learning”.

theory without technique?
well, that’d be what the
*counter-reform* party–
i’d’ve included myself
when i still pretended to convictions–
is always attacking “educationists” for.
“whatsoever king shall reign,
i’ll be vicar of bray, sir!”–
it doesn’t matter *what* the “content”,
a real teacher-not-trainer will
teach “the child not the subject”
and so needn’t be accountable
for *any* certain set of “mere” skills
etcetera et bleeding cetera
god knows we never get enough
venom on either side and can always
use plenty more on both.

and, in further defense of the
damnable lie in question
(which remains a damnable lie…
there are actual *songs* in the
back of the book for the love of god;
of course no living teacher
would tell a living student
*not* to try playing around on ’em
until they’d “thoroughly practiced”
i-m, i-m, i-m; 2-1, 2-1, 2-1
“the descending ligado”.
i mean, come on.)…
probably every teacher feels the duty
to remind the student that
the truly diligent student
seeks to *surpass* the teacher; also
“*whatever* i can teach you
you’ll only really learn it
when you make it your own”
etcetera etcetera.

probably our author will have had to tell
every last living one of his
(“frederick m. noad” has here
been assumed “male” for, hmm,
rhetorical purposes) living students:
“you need to practice more!”. anyhow,
this would appear to be something
most teachers need to tell
most students sooner or later.

so he’s just trying to get the effect
in print. failing badly, of course;
most people don’t seem to care
*what* the heck they commit to print
just so they can get it over with.
mr. noad (peace be on him!)
should write out
“teach the whole student”
fifty times before he’s ever
allowed to learn anything else
from *me*.