It depends.

I was curious about this book and even tempted to buy it once or twice. Generally I find it more useful to write my own thoughts on ‘how to read a book’. I don’t agree with everything stated above and I’d be surprised if anyone did - I learn more about reading from Kant’s COPR and certainly didn’t adhere to those guidelines. Plus most people who read philosophy don’t actually read it. They just read ‘guides’ and then enter the text loaded with preconceptions - especially in academia where students have to cram rather than read complete texts.

From my experience the best way to read such stuff is the hardest way. That is to approach it like a battle, to wrestle with the ideas and meaning. To oppose what is written and to try to bend to the will of what is written. I read Kant with a combination of disgust and repulsion, and with appreciation and awe.

If you’re not struggling then what you’re reading is banal or you’re not trying hard enough. Assume both to be equally true and the chances are you’ll learn how not to try if nothing else :)

I bought it because I didn't know how to read a book, but then I realized that I couldn't read How to Read a Book, either.

Finally someone explained to me that the first step is to open the cover.

I often read the last chapter first and then the chapters in reverse order. This helps me form a mental scheme of logical relations. I speed read nowadays, that is easier than struggling. I increasingly take notes during this process. Then I go back to favourite bits in more detail. Some books have been presented without much reason to their serial format. The more I dip into science, philosophy, history, you name it, the more I can "place" what I am reading.

I've not read Adler. What is above looks good as stated - bearing in mind in most cases I am doing most of this at the mental level only. D A Carson contrasts the 1972 edition of Adler unfavourably with the first edition.

I bought it because I didn't know how to read a book, but then I realized that I couldn't read How to Read a Book, either.

Finally someone explained to me that the first step is to open the cover. — Terrapin Station

Woody Allen once said "I took a class in speed reading. We read 'War and Peace' in 20 minutes. It involves Russia."

Haha, I love that old Woody Allen stuff.

I have found that the books I've read 8-10 times are the ones I understand really well. I always have my trusty pencil in hand and write copious notes and responses in the margins.

I approve of the approach taken by Saint John's College - a critical reading and discussion of the "great books". One learns to read to read a book by way of example and interpretative practice under the guidance of more advanced students or tutors, based on the assumption that the books themselves are the teachers.

One thing Adler does not mention is learning how to ask questions of a text and listen for the answers. In line with this is noting apparent contradictions and figuring out how the author reconciles them or how these contradictions point to a higher level of understanding beyond the contradictions. The assumption here is that if we can see the contradictions they have not gone unnoticed by the greatest minds.

What follows is a one-page summary, mainly chapter and section headings. — tim wood

Useful outline.

Here is an online summary. Apparently, it takes 17 minutes to read.
https://fastertomaster.com/how-to-read-a-book-mortimer-j-adler/

After a quick skim through, I like the idea of reading as a conversation with the author. To keep an open mind. 'Books are imperfect creations of imperfect creatures'.

There's a bit about ensuring the right environment for reading; all the better to focus.
'Respect each session: as life-changing meeting of minds'.
I wonder at 'life-changing'...the potential is there, for sure.

'Active reading is like active listening'.

One thing Adler does not mention is learning how to ask questions of a text and listen for the answers. In line with this is noting apparent contradictions and figuring out how the author reconciles them or how these contradictions point to a higher level of understanding beyond the contradictions. — Fooloso4

I take it that Adler means trying to understand by restating the position in your own words. If you can't then you have to pose questions as to correct meaning.
As you say, the question then is 'how to ask the right questions and how to listen for the answers'. So, what is the answer ?

Reading actively means mastering four levels of reading:

Elementary reading – Turning symbols into information;
Inspectional reading – Getting the most from a book in a given time;
Analytical reading – Thorough and complete reading for understanding;
Synoptic reading – Exploring a subject through wide reading.

Each level in turn is examined after three general tips.

I speed read nowadays, that is easier than struggling. I increasingly take notes during this process. Then I go back to favourite bits in more detail. — Fine Doubter

I tend to skim read and then go back to take notes.
How do you take notes if you are speed reading ?
Some write in the margins or highlight. I can't bring myself to do that.
I tend to have blank paper and pen beside me. Use abbreviations, asterisks and all kinds of punctuation marks !! ?? ( ) [ ] < >.

The more I dip into science, philosophy, history, you name it, the more I can "place" what I am reading. — Fine Doubter

Yes. I think having a kind of mental map, time-line or context is helpful when reading.

I have found that the books I've read 8-10 times are the ones I understand really well. I always have my trusty pencil in hand and write copious notes and responses in the margins. — uncanni

Really ?
That seems a bit excessive. But I guess whatever works for you. Do you read differently each time and with a different purpose?

A section in the Adler summary about reading for understanding:
There is a distinction between the 'widely read' where there is a lot of reading but with less understanding and the 'well read' where there is less reading but with greater understanding.

Not sure I agree with this. I think both the 'widely read' and the 'well read' can have both increased reading and understanding. It depends on the individual.

'I...write copious notes and responses in the margins'.
You must have exceedingly big margins :gasp:

I have notes all over my books that make their way into my publications. It's just how I do it.

I understand that's the way you do it.
I guess I would need to see an example.
If you have a publication (product) using your notes, could you show the process from start to end ?
Or back to front ?

I really am fascinated by this; it is not an idle curiosity.
And I had another question you didn't answer...

Do you read differently each time and with a different purpose? — Amity

Interesting question: Do we ever read the exact same thing when we re-read? For myself, each reading deepens and broadens the interconnections I make among ideas and concept. Each reading fills in some of the blank spaces that weren't synthesized on the previous reading. Also, keep in mind that in between readings, I may read various other things that make the next reading easier.

The 10 readings was my practice in graduate school when I was teaching myself critical theory, and that was only for the most difficult books, like Bakhtin, Derrida, Lyotard, Irigaray, etc. I should have clarified that I no longer need to read a challenging book that many times. Of course, I read Jane Austen and Charlotte Bronte over and over for the pure pleasure of the prose.

I can describe the process to you, because all the notes are in my books, and of course the article itself is different..

Do you read differently each time and with a different purpose?
— Amity

Interesting question: Do we ever read the exact same thing when we re-read? For myself, each reading deepens and broadens the interconnections I make among ideas and concept. — uncanni

Each reading fills in some of the blank spaces that weren't synthesized on the previous reading. Also, keep in mind that in between readings, I may read various other things that make the next reading easier. — uncanni

Thanks for elaboration. How do you keep a note of the interconnections made between different texts. Do you use some kind of shorthand code ?

I can describe the process to you, because all the notes are in my books, and of course the article itself is different.. — uncanni

I think you meant to write 'can't' - my initial hopes dashed.
I didn't expect you to draw an arrow from your book notes to the finished product.
However, if your article gives references to books you used, then it should theoretically be possible for you to pinpoint the important notes used, no ?

If you don't care, or have the time, to share more, then I understand :smile:
You have already been most generous, thanks.

the effect that a work of the imagination has on you. — tim wood

I wasn't going to respond to this. When someone focuses on a writer I am not familiar with, it seems disrespectful of the OP, but I find that I can't stop thinking about your post. I've only got a little time right now, but I'll come back later and give a more comprehensive set of thoughts. For now, I'd like to focus on one aspect of reading fiction I think is relevant.

There was a recent thread I found really interesting - Is meaning something separate from words. In that thread, I tried to make the case that non-verbal art, e.g. music and painting, doesn't mean anything until someone puts it into words. The paradox of fiction is that, even though it is an art of words, it also doesn't mean anything until someone puts that meaning into (different) words. Seems like Adler is describing a process for extracting meaning from a book. For non-fiction, I am less at odds with Adler's approach than I am with fiction.

Fiction can be experienced without words in the same way that visual art or music can. In reading fiction, it is the experience, not the meaning that is important. Here is a link to a passage from a book by John Gardner - October Light - that I used in that previous thread:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/326674

Fiction can be experienced in the same way that the French horn player describes for music in the linked passage. I think that is the important thing for us to get out of fiction - the experience, not the meaning. I'll write more later.

I hope you think this is relevant.

Here is an online summary. Apparently, it takes 17 minutes to read.
https://fastertomaster.com/how-to-read-a-book-mortimer-j-adler/ — Amity

This much more useful!

In one of the editions of his book, Adler sets up his program by describing a speech he gave at a national educators' dinner - what association I forget. He starts out telling the folks already busy with dinner that in his experience as an educator he had found that reading was difficult both to learn and to teach and that lots of folks couldn't read - no one paying much attention. And, he went on, he would venture to say that even among his audience a lot of people couldn't read. Because his audience were all MAs and PhDs, this did get their attention; they put down their knives and forks and gave skeptical looks. He then went on to make his case, saying that, given a difficult book that the reader did not understand at first reading, what techniques could the reader employ to come to an understanding of the author's points? What were they? How could they be taught? And the expressions on their faces changed as they took on the weight of the challenge.

Perhaps he made up the story, or embellished one; because it did not appear in later editions. But it has always engaged me to think of telling a bunch of professional educators at a dinner they paid for they couldn't read, and making it stick. (I have my own issues with professional educators - always and forever to be distinguished from people who actually teach, usually called teachers.)

The site you provided does indeed round out the outline above and provide more besides. One of the miracles of the internet that an old folk like me doesn't think of.

One of the effects of it on me is an implicit acknowledgment that some books - some ideas - are just plain difficult and require real work to begin to understand, and that, a fortiori, it is acceptable and permissible to undertake to do that work. I know from experience that many students simply have no idea whatsoever of this possibility and give up difficult material because a) they thought they should get it more-or-less immediately, and b) didn't.

I'm sure you've observed books well-used and studied. In my experience (of others' books), the margins are filled with notes, questions, answers, ideas, challenges, the book itself having been taken over by the reader and turned into a personal memoir of the acquisition of the author's ideas contained. I have myself got inexpensive composition books (sewn-in pages, about @ $1 at Walmart) and tried to build a something similar to accompany the text. And you may also have noticed that to save money, the margins in books have grown narrower, and end pages more-or-less eliminated.

I have on my bookshelf books I want to be intimate with - but that have so far resisted my advances. Perhaps many PFers also have such books. At the top of my list is Gadamer's Truth and Method. From Adler I get that I can do it - I can do it; it's possible. But to start I have to learn not to fall asleep reading it.

I often read the last chapter first and then the chapters in reverse order. This helps me form a mental scheme of logical relations. I speed read nowadays, that is easier than struggling. I increasingly take notes during this process. Then I go back to favourite bits in more detail. — Fine Doubter

One of Adler's "instructions" is first to just read the book through, plow through it without stopping, it being ok to note where problems are, but not to stop with them at first read. I do not recall him recommending reading backwards, but why should he object? And I read backwards sometimes too. Often enough in a technical book a later chapter will be about some technique that in itself I don't get, but that in an antecedent chapter will be the agent that makes that earlier chapter jell.

Of course if you read murder mysteries that way you lose some of the fun (and some people will hate you for it!).

There was a recent thread I found really interesting - Is meaning something separate from words. In that thread, I tried to make the case that non-verbal art, e.g. music and painting, the art doesn't mean anything until someone puts it into words. The paradox of fiction is that, even though it is an art of words, it also doesn't mean anything until someone puts that meaning into (different) words. Seems like Adler is describing a process for extracting meaning from a book. For non-fiction, I am less at odds with Adler's approach than I am with fiction.

Fiction can be experienced without words in the same way that visual art or music can. In reading fiction, it is the experience, not the meaning that is important. Here is a link to a passage from a book by John Gardner - October Light - that I used in that previous thread:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/326674

Fiction can be experienced in the same way that the French horn player describes for music in the linked passage. I think that is the important thing for us to get out of fiction - the experience, not the meaning. I'll write more later. — T Clark

If you listen to any of Bruckner's symphonies, you will suspect that's the who/what Gardiner's describing, "Oh When the Saints" with french horns a give-away.

But for the rest, you've got a lot going on. I buy the idea - not my idea - that at one time generally, but now mainly with children, and in those occasional moments when experience irrupts into adult consciousness, as with poetry, or again with an experience of redintegration, or music, that words were not as they are now, i.e. mainly the abstract signs of abstract categories of things, but rather the names of things the things themselves being the source of experience, and their names then becoming a secondary source of that same experience.

"Refrigerator." Now just a word for an appliance, which during its years of trouble-free operation is a not-very-interesting tool. An acquaintance, however, shared that "refrigerator" for him always conjures a feeling he never quite understands, as if the word itself was something, contained something, which of course it isn't and doesn't.

But stay with me for a moment: for the child "refrigerator" is not an abstract term for an appliance. It is, rather, the name of that-thing-over-there, the thing that contains food and treats and goodies, and possibly (in his experience) the ground/source of many experiences in which he was dynamically involved. The refrigerator, then, being a nexus of perhaps pleasant and rewarding and caring family occurrences of community, feeding, and rewards. One can see how the word "refrigerator," by an act of transference, can become the bearer, trigger, of remembered experience, even becoming anticipated experience. But its not the word. It is instead our growing out of and away from the immediacy of the word as name of things in the our-world that are meaningful to us, to the word as an empty generic sign.

And in use words as signs and as names is very different, though all-the-time confused. Most briefly, one might say names are used for communal discussion about things of concern and interest, referring, usually, to real and definite things: the this-thing-here, the that-thing-there, that we care about and about which what we do matters.

Whereas words as signs - univocal - are shorn not of meaning but of significance, shorn of the immediate experience of them, leaving only their abstract "gesturing/pointing" at objects we have little or no real interest in, being, rather, disinterested observers/watchers of them. An example comes to mind. People who want to ban or control guns are thinking abstractly (although perhaps not about the damage guns can and have done). But for the owner of that gun, it's my gun, that I have a relationship with, that I have and shoot (presumably) and clean and care for and that I value as part of the furniture of the my-life that is mine! No wonder at the irreconcilability of the two positions!

In short, in reply I'd venture that what you encounter in art is a lost part of yourself that is not easily recognizable as such, and attribute it to the art itself - which is also legitimate because it reminded you of that which makes for you possible the experience of the art as art.

If this is confusing - it confuses me - think about a time you have attempted to share, say, some Bach or Beethoven with an adolescent (younger children, especially young children, can be transfixed - stopped in their tracks - by those composers), only to have that adolescent not comprehend even a little bit what he's hearing, certainly incapable of any appreciation.

I've not read Adler. What is above looks good as stated - bearing in mind in most cases I am doing most of this at the mental level only. D A Carson contrasts the 1972 edition of Adler unfavourably with the first edition. — Fine Doubter

I've not read Adler either - just the summary I linked to.
This is of a later edition which adds 'Inspectional and 'Synoptical' reading.

I found those sections useful. I think @tim wood must be using the original ?
What especially did Carson object to ?

In my experience (of others' books), the margins are filled with notes, questions, answers, ideas, challenges, the book itself having been taken over by the reader and turned into a personal memoir of the acquisition of the author's ideas contained — tim wood

I have seen some highlights, scribbles and squeezed-in thoughts but none that have taken over the book.
That is one way to make a book your own, for sure.

I have myself got inexpensive composition books (sewn-in pages, about $1 at Walmart) and tried to build a something similar to accompany the text. — tim wood

Yes. I have a number of notebooks where I attempt to sort out my thoughts when reading.
It is sometimes too easy to copy sentences and quotes without paraphrasing in own words.
As long as we keep the references in place...

But to start I have to learn not to fall asleep reading it. — tim wood

Yes indeed. There is advice on providing the right setting for a serious 1:1.

'The final tip for active-reading is to set your reading environment up for success.
Make sure your environment is well lit, tidy and allows you to focus.
Treat every session with the same respect as a life-changing meeting of minds.'

I think you meant to write 'can't' - my initial hopes dashed.
I didn't expect you to draw an arrow from your book notes to the finished product. — Amity

No, I meant "can," but I had to rush off after I wrote that part.

What I don't understand is why your hopes were dashed; surely you have a system of your own that helps you to tackle the more difficult texts. I'm wondering if you're putting me on.

I don't think that someone else can teach me to be a good, close reader; that's something I have to teach myself with lots of practice.

Thank you very much for the reading tips.

I see a paradox though. If you don't know how to read how can you learn it from a book which you, obviously, have to read?

If you can read a book about how to read then you already know how to read.

I guess books come in varieties and so we can read a technical book about how to read fiction or non-fiction or a cookbook for that matter.

No, I meant "can," but I had to rush off after I wrote that part.

What I don't understand is why your hopes were dashed; surely you have a system of your own that helps you to tackle the more difficult texts. I'm wondering if you're putting me on.

I don't think that someone else can teach me to be a good, close reader; that's something I have to teach myself with lots of practice. — uncanni

Apologies for the misread.

My hopes were dashed because I don't 'get' how you can write copious notes and interconnections with other texts in the small margins of a book so that they can be easily managed. Especially after umpteen readings with all the potential changes, deepening or expanding views.
Unless I suppose it is digital...

I tend to be sincere in my questions, explorations and discussions. Hope that reassures you.

Yes, I have gone through various types of note-taking, outlining, editing etc. in order to produce academic essays. Way back.

However, I don't have a settled way of 'close reading' via note-taking.
You are right, it takes practice, patience and perseverance.
Perhaps I was/am looking for a magic wand...witchcraft or wizardry in the art of...

Perhaps I was/am looking for a magic wand...witchcraft or wizardry in the art of... — Amity

That I can supply!! But my description will be a bit poetic, because the experience is profound for me.

I also write copius notes on the empty pages at the beginning of a book, the title page, etc. It's very important that I start "dialoguing" with the book by beginning my own writing process. There was a book that I read repeatedly and ended up erasing and whiting out notes once I had moved far beyond them, in order to begin synthesizing my own ideas, putting what I understood into my own language.

With this particularly difficult text, translated from the Russian, on the first couple of reads, I summarized each main idea and numbered it on each page. Then I'd start at 1 again on the next page. This helped me to remember the sequence of the construction of particularly complex concepts/arguments. (Actually, it was Bakhtin, which we are discussing on my Bakhtin topic.) https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6713/mikhail-bakhtins-dialogic-imagination

I erased all that when I totally understood how he constructed his ideas.

After I understood the steps of the construction, then I could begin to weave all the textual elements together and see wider patterns and designs (textiles). There are a series of movements in the act of synthesis, as ideas can be synthesized in different ways and combinations.

Then I started writing my responses and interpretations of what he was writing--and even objections and disagreements in places. For me, this entire exercise has always been about creating my own ideas and syntheses; I've never been good at spouting dogma. I always look for what hasn't been said.

I see a paradox though. If you don't know how to read how can you learn it from a book which you, obviously, have to read? — TheMadFool

Not a real paradox. How did you learn anything? And there's an ambiguity in (y)our use of "read."

Follow the masters of interpretation. I am partial to Leo Strauss and Jacob Klein, especially their readings of the ancients, but the skills are transferable to reading others as well. Strauss became a controversial figure, but largely because his critics did not learn from him how to read and thus the misread and misunderstand him

Since the topic is Adler I will leave it here.

Adler's depiction of analysis suggests a map where different ideas can be found in relation to one another. The approach has merit as a way to start talking about works. It is certainly the case that many ideas do have relationships with others. But I have two objections and one observation.

It is difficult to hear what is being said if the words already have a place in the commonly received collection of what has already been said. From that point of view, there is no reason to say anything more than has already been said. Reading should catch you alone and unaware of the dangers that lie ahead.

Listening to the new is a problem for books read many times or just for the first time. One quality pertaining to reading very familiar texts is that the words become interwoven in ways that stop being an argument for this or that formula of dispute or decision whereby some predicate can be repeated by another predicate.

Adler's depiction of criticism does not include a place for that form of life.

Since the topic is Adler I will leave it here. — Fooloso4

No need. For my purpose, the thread was - is - about how to read a book, with the implication that really reading a book and understanding it - understanding before interpretation - is sometimes not-so-easy. So perhaps the question to you might be how you handle a book you want to understand but that at first seems opaque?

My own approach is to include other or secondary literature, if available. Even a math textbook can be "opened" more easily if one reads another, similar textbook alongside, the light from one illuminating what is dark in the other - sometimes even by just a remark.

When it come to philosophy, I do not pretend to myself that I'm going to by and in myself cover all the ground that everyone else has already covered - and why should I try to reinvent the wheel? And sometimes really good commentary will expose the shallowness or error of other commentary.

And also, I consider what level of understanding I can handle. I'm pretty knowledgeable, for example, about Godel's undecidability theorems, but there are subtleties I don't feel a need to master, and I leave those alone, or to someone else to explicate.

I suppose, though, that the activity I engage in that leads to my having some satisfaction as to my own understanding, is if I can recapitulate the argument either verbally or in writing. Having experience as a teacher, sometimes I just talk it through as if presenting it to a class. Writing it also tests my recall of the details. Sometimes, though, with some subject matter, I just have to be satisfied with modest understanding.

The St. John's Great Books program is (I'm pretty sure) in part based on Adler's own ideas about great book, what and which they are, and how to read them. A motivated and guided group reading is a great thing, but not always available. .

But for the rest, you've got a lot going on. I buy the idea - not my idea - that at one time generally, but now mainly with children, and in those occasional moments when experience irrupts into adult consciousness, as with poetry, or again with an experience of redintegration, or music, that words were not as they are now, i.e. mainly the abstract signs of abstract categories of things, but rather the names of things the things themselves being the source of experience, and their names then becoming a secondary source of that same experience. — tim wood

Whereas words as signs - univocal - are shorn not of meaning but of significance, shorn of the immediate experience of them, leaving only their abstract "gesturing/pointing" at objects we have little or no real interest in, being, rather, disinterested observers/watchers of them. — tim wood

I'm not sure if I get the distinction between words and names, at least not in this context. I wrote previously:

Fiction can be experienced without words in the same way that visual art or music can. In reading fiction, it is the experience, not the meaning that is important. — T Clark

You describe "...moments when experience irrupts into adult consciousness, as with poetry, or again with an experience of redintegration, or music.... " I'm saying that those moments, i.e. direct experience of art without descriptions or meaning, can happen with literature as well as music, etc. I have that experience all the time while reading literature. I'm not sure, are you disagreeing with that or saying something else entirely?

I also said that is the purpose of art, the proper goal of art, including literature. It seems to me that the meaning of a work of literature is something different from that and that the purpose of the process of interpretation described by Adler is to establish the meaning of the book or story.

In short, in reply I'd venture that what you encounter in art is a lost part of yourself that is not easily recognizable as such, and attribute it to the art itself - which is also legitimate because it reminded you of that which makes for you possible the experience of the art as art. — tim wood

I don't think I understand. Of course a work of art, including literature, interacts with my feelings, memories, attitudes to have its effect. Everything we experience does.

I think I am probably missing your point. Also, I think I confused myself.

It's very important that I start "dialoguing" with the book by beginning my own writing process. There was a book that I read repeatedly and ended up erasing and whiting out notes once I had moved far beyond them, in order to begin synthesizing my own ideas, putting what I understood into my own language. — uncanni

Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts and techniques in reaching an understanding. Not many people are willing to set this out. You have inspired me to read Bahktin.

Yes. The whole processing of someone else's thoughts requires listening and taking note of what is being said, not what you think is being said. For that to happen the mind might have to struggle against ingrained beliefs or ways of thinking. It can end up tied in knots if it unravels the text too swiftly and without due attention. I think writing about it helps to clear the mind.

I can see now how you make room for new or advanced notes as you progress and produce your own understanding. I understand the continual erasing; it clearly works for you.
However, for me, I think something might be lost over and above the words.

If a note pad was used then I think you could follow your strains of thought and more easily see the interconnections between texts. For all you know, the original thought might still be of value. I would keep any 'old' writing in, at least, a temporary 'bin'. I used to do that when 'editing' my essays; placing drafts or unused paragraphs in a separate file. For me, there existed the danger of cutting out the fresh ideas and overworking the material.

My view is that mental discourse, or quick flash, between one thought and another can easily be broken. The expression of inner dialogue might be restricted if only a book's white spaces are used.
Then again, thankfully, we are all unique in our mental processing and understanding. Otherwise, what would there be to discuss.

With this particularly difficult text, translated from the Russian, on the first couple of reads, I summarized each main idea and numbered it on each page. Then I'd start at 1 again on the next page. This helped me to remember the sequence of the construction of particularly complex concepts/arguments. (Actually, it was Bakhtin, which we are discussing on my Bakhtin topic.) — uncanni

I have read this a few times and still can't visualise it. How do you link the numbers of the main ideas if you start again on each page ? This sounds confusing. I think perhaps I should leave it there. There are limits to such descriptions...

There are a series of movements in the act of synthesis, as ideas can be synthesized in different ways and combinations. — uncanni

This is new to me. I would like to hear more about this. What are the series of movements ?

For me, this entire exercise has always been about creating my own ideas and syntheses; I've never been good at spouting dogma. I always look for what hasn't been said. — uncanni

Looking for something that hasn't been said is quite the challenge. Creating own ideas and publishing them likewise. I will read more of your thoughts in this forum. Or if you can recommend anywhere else ?

This has been productive, thanks.