Margins Of The Soul
I love books, their smell, their feel, and ordering them in categories. I love my library, which is in a wooden shed office in my garden overlooking the sheep that are scattered over the nearby field.
The first hour of reading Adler’s and Van Doren’s book, ‘How to Read a Book’, was like being thumped in the chest. I found myself wrestling with annoyance and sadness whilst questioning how people could dare to skim a book rather than immerse themselves in every carefully crafted page. I felt this sudden feeling of devastation because I have intentionally laboured over authoring books to enable the reader to grasp complex theories and knowledge in a chronological way. I had planned for the reader to walk along a path that enabled their understanding to increase steadily and sequentially. In an instant, I realised that it was highly possible that my audience had not followed the path I had paved before them, and they may not have been analytically reading my books, ‘chewing and digesting[i]’ the contents. In my writing process, I had spent time in empathy for those I was aiming to assist by putting myself in the shoes of those seeking the help that the titles of my books offer and attempting to feel their feelings of hope and desperation. This has kept me focused on my vision that if they could grasp the knowledge I was offering in a thorough sequential manner, then the learning could be applied to their lives, and I would hope that the consequences would be positive transformation and hope restored. The sentence, ‘many books are hardly worth even skimming; some should be read quickly; and a few should be read at a rate, usually quite slow, that allows for complete comprehension[ii]’, was deeply discouraging to my mission and purpose unless mine were some of those that were read slowly for complete comprehension. My reaction to Adler’s proposition that we could choose our interaction with each book felt deeply painful. I reflected with despondency on the futility of my long-held vision of writing books to change the lives of those who are suffering. I wondered how many of my readers had grasped information that could be applied to their context and bring positive change.
The irony of this reaction continued over a week, whilst I felt and acknowledged my annoyance over the matter until I had the sudden revelation that I have actually interacted with books and papers in an inspectional way for many years. Of course, I hadn’t always read the books in an elementary or synoptical way, and I had skimmed the pages laden with rich knowledge, scouring for the exact fact or theory that I needed to either confirm my thinking or to use to demonstrate that I had considered opposing thinking. So, Adler revealed one of my blind spots immediately, which I am still wrestling with. I don’t want to be hypocritical, with standards for myself that I believe to be fair, whilst feeling frustrated that others may skim with speed through my books looking for something within the pages. How ironic the start of this journey is, and one that I trust will continue to reveal further blind spots and break down or challenge established beliefs about how I interact with the world, those who have gone before me and those I am still trying to support. I do hate having blind spots, but I suppose I always will, and that’s a reason why we need each other.
Paul and Elders’ miniature book on critical thinking is an expeditious exploration and exposure of theories and concepts regarding the dilemma of the human’s subconscious relationship with conscious thinking. It exposes and explores a torrent of fascinating summaries of profound and vital foundations that can enable critical thinking and rich questions to be asked that could unlock the potential of deep reflection and revelation. I wondered if some of the theorists cited may have a similar reaction to mine about simplifying their work rather than studying the depth, context and details of their revelations, but I may indeed be wrong. I can’t help but notice that some of the theories are taken from the field of psychology and may seem to have been simplified in ways that deny some of the fascinating life experiences that could impact and change thinking styles without the person being aware. For example, the concept that ‘humans often distort reality through irrational lenses’ [iii] could be re-phrased in a trauma-informed lens as ‘the impact of different life experiences, both positive, affirming or traumatic and challenging, can colour and shape the way we comprehend and view the world around us’. This phraseology, I believe, can reduce shame and thus increase curiosity, enabling the reader to reflect with authenticity and honesty about everyone’s challenge to be fully objective in their thinking. Few people seem to feel empowered to choose the lenses that they wear to view the world, and most are oblivious to their existence, but this knowledge can be transformative. Lenses can be changed once they are acknowledged. Change is possible. Hope for change is catching!
#Adler, #DLGP04
[i] Mortimer Adler and Charles Van Doren, How to Read a Book (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1972), 19.
[ii] Adler and Van Doren, 1972, 39.
[iii] Richard Paul and Linda Elder, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2020), 38.
About the Author
Betsy
4 responses to “Margins Of The Soul”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thank you for sharing your honest feelings. As someone who has never published a book, it is very insightful to hear from your point of view. After reading your post, I can begin to see how it could feel as a personal insult to your work and passion.
I, too, was challenged by the “irrational lens.” There seems to be almost a level of circular reasoning as bias influences reality, but it’s a reality that some biases are unavoidable.
Thank you for your empathy! I find the word ‘irrational’ to sound judgemental and ironically lacking in recognition of the complexity of human thinking. I believe that circular reasoning could be stopped when the reason for bias cane be discovered and processed. It can make sense of the bias, validate the lens, but then offer a choice to continue that view or change now that the original experience has been recognised. That’s my passion, really, to help uncover the subconscious into the conscious so that integration could occur. That leads to integrity. It’s a favourite phrase of mine.
You bring a great perspective as a published author, Betsy. You wrote every word for a reason. How dare someone applies Inspectional Reading to your work! Coming to terms with your now recognized, “do as I say, not as I do,” attitude is an example of applying Adler’s rules for fairly criticizing a book to his own book. I suppose a proper Brit would say, “well done.”
If it helps, my most widely accessed technical paper was premature, misguided, trivial fluff, “hardly worth even skimming.” I trust that the few thousand readers judged it quickly and fairly with the delete button.
Thanks for your empathy, Rich! I did indeed write all my books for a specific reason and the subject matter does need a sequential learning approach. In fact, once I had recovered from my emotional reaction to the concept of skimming books, I did note that Adler and Van Doren make a point to say that books written to teach a subject such as psychology or philosophy (which mine mostly are) often do require an approach that builds up knowledge carefully or it could lead to misunderstanding or gaps in understanding. I just didn’t read that bit fast enough, jumped to some conclusions, and felt self-protective and frustrated. That in itself I found fascinating to psychoanalyse!
.