Is there rationality in reading?

[cacian]

Do you rationalise when you read?
In other words do you think about what you are reading and try put into concepts?
or do you just take it as it is as if it was a picture and you are staring at it and then walking off to the next picture and so on.

Reading a book seems to be like walking through an art gallery where paintings are looked at stared at and watched. It is a contemplation of images hung on a wall admired up close and from afar. There is no actual physical attainment or events not even a scent of refreshment not even a cup of tea. It is just a look at and it stops there. It is a very sedate hypnotic entertainment of the mind with no consequences whatsoever.

[hannah_arendt]

I always try to analyse, the whole text, the concepts, even the used words because of linguistic point of view.

[cafolini]

Rationalization is inevitable in one way or another. The question is: what matters reason. It is as much of the sober as of the insane. And it is no longer a possible foundation for logic, which is today strictly symbolic by the mechanics of De Morgan's statements.

[maxphisher]

Despite your earlier argument in another thread that critics are worthless, most modern theory suggests that the act of reading is a personal one worthy of personal critical thought. Presently, reader response tends to rule as the underlying foundation for all readings. Much like a work of art, a novel or a work of verse is subject to the meaning that a reader pulls from it. Honestly, this is the most important thing that literature can bring to modern society, the ability to critically read and draw meaning, albeit, without assigning a singular "point." Because literature is open to countless readings and interpretations, I'd argue that it's virtually impossible to encounter a work of literature without "rationalizing" it based on one's biases.

[cacian]

Rationalization is inevitable in one way or another. The question is: what matters reason. It is as much of the sober as of the insane. And it is no longer a possible foundation for logic, which is today strictly symbolic by the mechanics of De Morgan's statements.

I like the sound of De Morgan.
What is his/her statement?
What matters reason? do you mean what is important has an automatic logic to it?

[cacian]

Despite your earlier argument in another thread that critics are worthless, most modern theory suggests that the act of reading is a personal one worthy of personal critical thought. Presently, reader response tends to rule as the underlying foundation for all readings. Much like a work of art, a novel or a work of verse is subject to the meaning that a reader pulls from it.
The idea of a critic is to feedback with the idea of changing whatever it is written. A same book could be passed to different critics and all would argue that their changes are worthy. The only difference is that their critics feedback would differ from one to the next.
How does one finalise one critic over another? In other words where does one draw the line with critics if one critic is going different from another and yet it is the same book?

About reading however many of us read the same book and yet there is no feedback about it in between us.
It is not something we do naturally. We may talk about it we may not critics it between us.
And so this brings me to think about how does one air a book and get to understand it fully if it is not brought out to light?
Thinking about what one read is not just an internal process but an outspoken one to. Boosting those thoughts into words and sound is crucial for a better improvement and understanding of literature.
How does one suggest externalising what one has just internalised?


Honestly, this is the most important thing that literature can bring to modern society, the ability to critically read and draw meaning, albeit, without assigning a singular "point."
Reading is a personal habbit that one does differently from another however the way we process what we read is the same.
The idea is to read something with the view to discuss it and draw from it. Not study it it can get very tedious but more analyse it with others who have read the same. Progress can only be made about what a book is about and how to write another. It is by airing it and bringing it to light life that one can fully grasp the meanings he or she is reading.
Rationality can then kick in.

Because literature is open to countless readings and interpretations, I'd argue that it's virtually impossible to encounter a work of literature without "rationalizing" it based on one's biases.
Rationailty I feel is a two way process. It has to have attendees of readers writers and wannabe writers. To rationalise literature books stories is to open a wave of discussions where what we read is talked about openly between writers readers thinkers with the idea to eventually either rewrite it improve it model it or write a totally new and different one.

[cafolini]

I like the sound of De Morgan.
What is his/her statement?
What matters reason? do you mean what is important has an automatic logic to it?

It's not an automatic logic at all. It took many thousands of years to discover it. Now it is very well established. It is the valid logic of ANY language. Also related precisely to Boolean and symbolic set theory.
As to De Morgan, do your own research. Have fun or choke. Makes no difference to logic.

[cafolini]

Despite your earlier argument in another thread that critics are worthless, most modern theory suggests that the act of reading is a personal one worthy of personal critical thought. Presently, reader response tends to rule as the underlying foundation for all readings. Much like a work of art, a novel or a work of verse is subject to the meaning that a reader pulls from it. Honestly, this is the most important thing that literature can bring to modern society, the ability to critically read and draw meaning, albeit, without assigning a singular "point." Because literature is open to countless readings and interpretations, I'd argue that it's virtually impossible to encounter a work of literature without "rationalizing" it based on one's biases.

I don't think I would use the word "worthless." S*ht has a lot of worth in the planet.
Take the case of Diego Rivera, for example. He was the first one to do what he did. Obviously, in that capacity, he showed a lot of talent. When the critics piggybacked on his talent, a theory of technique was configured, no longer a talent but rather something to be learned. Many lost their talent to the technique, except people like for example, Segui, who developed his own, just to name one among many.

[cacian]

So are you saying technique must be abondoned?
''abondon all hope of succeed ye who must technique''?
I am not so sure I could agree on this. A technique is a skill form and a unique combination of flair logic and sensibilty that is unique to the individual. Technique is a must.
Another description for is technique is an order of successions that are sumultenously successfuls or there is not technique. The end result is success unless you are saying that the human brain is failing to see success by design because somewhere in the brain there is something not giving.

[cafolini]

Technique is intrinsic to talent. Let the ones who have lost it piggyback. They have also lost their talent.

[maxphisher]

I'm not sure I am following where you're going with the whole "piggybacked" argument. As I stated in the thread concerning religion, the job of the critic is not to create a "final" product or an end. Criticism is a process of evolution, and each piece of criticism should be viewed as a stage of dialogue that builds toward a continuously developing sense of understanding. Most contemporary/modern criticism concedes that there can be no final or definite reading of a work of literature, art, etc. It really is just very focused critical thinking... I think it is very rare to find a "critic" who is reveling in the glorious fame of interpreting a work. To assume such is to vastly over-romanticize the profession.

[cacian]

Technique is intrinsic to talent. Let the ones who have lost it piggyback. They have also lost their talent.

It is extremely difficult to lose a technique because instinctive to one. It is a bit like saying once you ride a bike you always ride a bike it is within us and impossible to erase.