4 ms·

It’s a fine perspective, but: > We can only read a text once Is clearly false. OP is expressing a choice, not a truth.

chaps 1y ago
I recoiled at that a bit too, but I think what they mean is similar to how some games can "only be played once". Best example of that is Outer Wilds, where attaining information is the goal of each gameplay loop. Once you've acquired that knowledge already, the fun of acquiring it can no longer be experienced since you already know what the "next step" is.
- m-hodges 1y ago
  Quite often, the meaning of a text relies on the contexts you bring to it. I’ve had many experiences where I’ve returned to a text after reading others, and gleaned entirely new or different insights from it. I disagree with the idea that first exposure exhausts the knowledge (or in OP’s perspective, “Bayesian system”) that can be acquired.
  - chaps 1y ago
    I didn't say it exhausts the knowledge.. what I'm saying is very much the opposite of that -- knowledge is front and center. I'm more referring to the experience and new lenses on past similar experiences, which I think we're in agreement on. Go play Outer Wilds if you want to experience what I mean. It's the only game I've played that's affected me so strongly in this way. "No man ever steps in the same river twice"
turtletontine 1y ago
I think their point is clear if you read the rest of the sentence: “… given the number of compelling works and the limited time available to us”. Yes, it’s the OP’s choice, it’s their information diet. You COULD read the good stuff over and over, but you risk falling behind the flood. This is their approach to keeping up. It makes me a little sad, sure, but as a practical solution I get it. I certainly don’t use this approach to literature. I’ve reread my favorite books a few times over the years (Cat’s Cradle, White Noise), but I’m sure that’s not the kind of thing OP is talking about.
wiseowise 1y ago
> We can only read a text once, given the number of compelling works and the limited time available to us. You deliberately pulled it out of context, didn't you?
- m-hodges 1y ago
  No. I hold my reaction even with OP’s “given”. You can, in fact, read a text more than once, given the number of compelling works and the limited time available to us.
  - IAmBroom 1y ago
    Yes, it's your choice to do so, and OP's choice to (oddly) presume we can't do it.
  - wiseowise 1y ago
    If reading is all you want to do in life – sure.

I recoiled at that a bit too, but I think what they mean is similar to how some games can "only be played once". Best example of that is Outer Wilds, where attaining information is the goal of each gameplay loop. Once you've acquired that knowledge already, the fun of acquiring it can no longer be experienced since you already know what the "next step" is.

m-hodges 1y ago
Quite often, the meaning of a text relies on the contexts you bring to it. I’ve had many experiences where I’ve returned to a text after reading others, and gleaned entirely new or different insights from it. I disagree with the idea that first exposure exhausts the knowledge (or in OP’s perspective, “Bayesian system”) that can be acquired.
- chaps 1y ago
  I didn't say it exhausts the knowledge.. what I'm saying is very much the opposite of that -- knowledge is front and center. I'm more referring to the experience and new lenses on past similar experiences, which I think we're in agreement on. Go play Outer Wilds if you want to experience what I mean. It's the only game I've played that's affected me so strongly in this way. "No man ever steps in the same river twice"

turtletontine 1y ago

I think their point is clear if you read the rest of the sentence: “… given the number of compelling works and the limited time available to us”. Yes, it’s the OP’s choice, it’s their information diet. You COULD read the good stuff over and over, but you risk falling behind the flood. This is their approach to keeping up. It makes me a little sad, sure, but as a practical solution I get it. I certainly don’t use this approach to literature. I’ve reread my favorite books a few times over the years (Cat’s Cradle, White Noise), but I’m sure that’s not the kind of thing OP is talking about.

wiseowise 1y ago

> We can only read a text once, given the number of compelling works and the limited time available to us. You deliberately pulled it out of context, didn't you?

m-hodges 1y ago
No. I hold my reaction even with OP’s “given”. You can, in fact, read a text more than once, given the number of compelling works and the limited time available to us.
- IAmBroom 1y ago
  Yes, it's your choice to do so, and OP's choice to (oddly) presume we can't do it.
- wiseowise 1y ago
  If reading is all you want to do in life – sure.