On Perl's "Understanding Composing"

Felt Sense, eh? Now I don’t feel so bad getting up every five minuets from writing to wonder around the room, walk around the kitchen table aimlessly, and then reread what I just wrote five more times. That’s right, even now I’m about to stand up and drive to Festival to get something to eat so that I can break this topic up in my mind. I’ll be right back to reread it.
Ok, to the point.
I like how Perl calls attention to this aspect of the writing process, and the retrospective and projective structures that underlie this ‘felt sense’. Thus to lead my discussion I’d like to ask: How does this aspect of teaching writing compare to other views that we’ve studied and how can it be cultivated among our students?
First of all this concept of retrospective and projective structuring closely aligns with the ‘rhetorical problem’ as posed by Flower and Hayes in which the more complex the problems (and the struggle to propose solutions) the more fruitful the writing becomes. The inner problems of retrospective structuring and the outward problems of projective structuring seem to create more opportunity for the writer to produce an effective piece. As Nietzsche would say conflict produces creativity. Both reaching through the haze of trying to understand one’s thoughts (retrospective structuring) and of trying to have others understand those thoughts (projective structuring) is the point of contention that creates good writing pieces.
How do we stimulate this ‘felt sense’ in others? Perl suggests that the writer’s must become readers who get lost in and excited by a piece of writing. It would seem that reading ‘options’ must be necessary. Getting young writers to choose book topics and literature that excite them and by encouraging them to wade in the complexity of the text will help stimulate a personal connection with their topic.