been thinking about this guy’s comment about how reading is actually the activity where you are reminded about something you’d already thought about. it’s very rare that we learn something new.
hmm…. what he said felt true when I read it on Thursday, but now there are bits in it that I disagree with, but can’t untangle just yet.
like, I /do/ learn about new facts, but things that “stick” more are things I already agreed with, am aware of to some degree, or when a book puts into words a thought/feeling I cannot articulate. when it gives names to familiar things. so we are able to recognise it the next time we experience or perceive it. and through that iteration, we internalise them as truth, more and more. or when it gives structure to things. so it “made sense”.
there’s an element of resurfacing here. there’s also an element of “same stuff, different lens”.
so, when reading: you either made something real (“aform”?), recognising that thing again, or adding more structure to legitimise the thing (often: abstract concepts? aka stuff to serve your narratives. tools for you to build your worlds)
should I start from types of books? hows, whats, whys…. agree on the definition, the desired outcome, the ….?
I think perhaps the thing that’s missing is the idea of the adjacent possible?
Everything you learn with reading is something that you could have thought already, but it’s not necessarily something that you have thought of already.
for certain genres (non technical??) it can only bring forward something we have registered in some form, like a headless pointer