[MD] How to Gut a Book

Tue Feb 6 09:43:49 PST 2007

Hi Dan,

Don't shoot the messenger ... I said it was interesting, I didn't say
I entirely agreed with every word of it.

He is not advocating "cheating" - pretending / claiming to read things
not read. He is simply pointing out reality and fallibility, even
amongst academic professors like himself.... and "confessing before
god" etc. In fact he is advocating honesty whilst admitting hypocrisy
- good character traits IMHO.

(Pirsig doesn't reference Barfield as you know, but plenty of Pirsig
scholars and fans do see the parallels., and it was Lavery who linked
Barfield and Pirsig to his own anti-Cartesian project, also
paralleling Pirsig's main anti-SOMist agenda.)

He is not "putting down" speed reading of the type you claim to use
... he is putting down the focus on the "speed". It's not a matter of
how quickly you read, but a matter of how effectively you extract the
meaning. You actually said something inconsistent across your two
responses ... let me develop one point.

You first said you could speed read with "almost 100% recall", and
then you said, when you speed read you "don't read every word".

In reality, what you call speed reading is closer to his "gutting" -
reading SELECTIVELY - recognising meaningful patterns as you skim a
work, and extracting the key messages from those patterns. You don't
achieve 100% word-for-word recall (god forbid) but you do get close to
100% knowledge of the writer's message (so far as you understand it).
(Cleary if you hit disjointed / inconsistent / jarring patterns, you
re-read those sections, and update what you understand, or ignore a
point, then skim on.)

Taking it further - reading a writer's work "selectively" can
translate to selectively reading second-hand reviews / references /
derived works by others who have already "selectively" read the
writer. And still managing to extract a good approximation to the
author's message. (The Wayne Booth paper I posted about earlier covers
this second and third order rhetoric. In a wider "information"
context, it's called "compression".)

Again, none of this has to do with the qualities of reading a book for
pleasure or the aesthetic value of a given work of literary art ....
that is quite a separate issue, as Lavery points out.

It simply says, you don't have to read every word written by each
author to have a valid, well founded opinion / understanding /
knowledge of that writer's contribution to knowledge. If it's
knowledge you're after, it doesn't really matter who contributed it,
(except for fame and celebrity) so long as you "know" it. That's the
Pirsigian philosophology angle - which I don't wish to over-emphasize,
but you asked.

And, finally, I'm no academic. (I wish).
Just looking for nuggets to apply to real life, whilst holding down a day job.
Ian

On 2/6/07, Dan Glover <daneglover at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone
>
> >From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron at gmail.com>
> >Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> >To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> >Subject: Re: [MD] How to Gut a Book
> >Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 04:20:40 +0000
> >
> >The difference Dan is between 100% recall and 100% understanding, so
> >you kinda make the point yourself.
>
> Hi Ian
>
> Please explain how a person obtains 100% understanding by not reading a
> book. Does pretending as if one has read a book equal understanding the
> book? How much understanding of Walden could Lavery have gained by only
> reading 50 pages or so? Are you saying he understands the book better than
> the person who has read the whole book? As an academic, would you feel
> comfortable having a professor who teaches with books they've never read?
> How about flying on a plane with a pilot who only pretends they know how to
> fly?
>
> >
> >If you want 100% recall instead of understanding, use a photocopier
> >(or speed reading and a photographic memory)
> >If you want to understand, recognise the key patterns in a book, and
> >forget most of the words, in fact don't even feel guilty about not
> >having time to read them.
>
> I take it you don't speed read. A person can't read thousands of words a
> minute by reading every word. Perhaps this is the source of the
> misunderstanding. I've never felt "guilty" about not having time to read on
> account I've never had to read. For me, it would be like feeling guilty for
> not having time to breathe.
>
> >
> >Apart from Lavery (Barfield and the Descartes Evil Genius project) the
> >Pirsig connection is the difference between philosophology and
> >philosophy.
>
> Could you please point me to where Robert Pirsig references Barfield?
>
> >
> >The former is about reading other peoples philosophies, the latter is
> >about recognising a good philosophy when you see one.
>
> I tend to disagree with your assessment. Philosophy is in the doing.
> Philosophology is about the study of the doing. In my (non-academic)
> opinion, of course. I still fail to understand how a person can recognize
> good philosophy by claiming to read that which they haven't. I'm sorry but
> that simply doesn't make sense (to me).
>
> Thank you for your comments,
>
> Dan
>
> >
> >Ian
> >
> >On 2/5/07, Dan Glover <daneglover at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hello everyone
> > >
> > > >From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron at gmail.com>
> > > >Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> > > >To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> > > >Subject: [MD] How to Gut a Book
> > > >Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 23:26:40 +0000
> > > >
> > > >Hi MoQ'ers.
> > > >
> > > >I read a very interesting 1989 article by David Lavery today
> > > >(and blogged about it).
> > > >http://www.psybertron.org/?p=1360
> > > >Pirsig scholars will recognise Lavery as a Barfield scholar.
> > > >
> > > >If you don't fancy reading my stream of thought (aka drivel) just
> > > >click directly on the first link to the "How to Gut a Book" article
> > > >itself.
> > > >
> > > >Interesting, I hope you'll agree ?
> > >
> > > Hi Ian
> > >
> > > I am afraid the article didn't make a lot of sense to me but then again
> >I'm
> > > not an academic like Lavery. I see he puts down speed reading as a poor
> > > relation to "book gutting" yet at the same time admits he freely lied
> >about
> > > reading Walden while at the university and even clipped quotes from the
> >book
> > > to impress others. (Does that remind you of anyone here?) Kind of funny
> >that
> > > I read the same book in less than an hour with near 100% recall.
> > >
> > > I guess I just don't get the point. Perhaps you could help me out. What
> >drew
> > > your interest to this article? How does it relate to the MOQ?
> > >
> > > Dan
> > >
> > >
> > > moq_discuss mailing list
> > > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > > Archives:
> > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> > >
> >moq_discuss mailing list
> >Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> >http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> >Archives:
> >http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> >http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>