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 — tim wood

Interesting. What makes you think this ?

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. — Fooloso4

Where can I follow any 'how to' descriptions or prescriptions on close reading ?
Or did they not spell it out ?

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.

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...

You're welcome :sparkle:
Hope to hear more thoughts...

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'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 the beginning was the herd ... :fire: — 180 Proof

In the beginning was the nerd... :nerd:

Apologies to Daniel but I couldn't resist. Bad of me, I know :yikes:

There must have been this overwhelmimg need in man, right from the "beginning" — Daniel C

Not sure that it would be right from the 'beginning'...whenever that was...

I'll wait, though, for your 4-1-1 — 180 Proof

Please excuse my ignorance but what is a 4-1-1 ?

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.

I might say something more about it when my first read's done. — 180 Proof

And to anyone else not mentioned.

Impressive lists. Impressive amounts of reading.
Sorry to intrude, and it is off topic, but I thought it worth posting here.

How many takes does it take to get the most out of a book. And is it better if you have someone else reading along with you - or at the end of a reading ?

I would like to hear views on how best to read a book for understanding.
In particular, the taking of notes and writing down thoughts; what you have read and its effects.

Also, how best to discuss a book with others; especially in an online forum.
Because this sharing might be life-changing for some...

There is a current thread here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6716/mortimer-adler-how-to-read-a-book

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...

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 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.

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 don't get it. What does morning have to do with red blood cells? — T Clark

Hah.
I could tell you but then I'd have to bite your neck and suck you dry :death:

I think it will get much worse. Basically, if you don't help me deliver Brexit, you are a traitor.
Really disgusted and appalled watching Parliament Live yesterday.
The attorney general set the tone going full attack mode. As for Johnson...
Here, as you say, is the worst example:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/25/pm-branded-a-disgrace-after-saying-best-way-to-honour-jo-cox-is-to-deliver-brexit

Now I need to take a break. Keep up the good work :sparkle:

Get Ready For Brexit.
Get creative and design a satirical poster - @Punshhh and any other artists, your time for fame ?

'Led By Donkeys' response to the government's £100m advertising campaign. They have a mock-up of a government website and an online tool that lets users design their own “get ready” poster.

'Comedy masterminds Armando Iannucci and David Schneider have kindly agreed to choose the best five entries which will go up on billboards in the real world. Deadline for submissions is Wednesday 2nd October at midnight. Good luck!'

Details here:
https://ledbydonkeys.com

Why do you call it an intervention in politics? Why not say it is a decision based on constitutional principles? — Benkei

Unfortunately, that it is a political intervention is exactly what it is being wrongly portrayed as.
It is seen as an attempt to stop Brexit. Against the 'will of the people'.

Ken Clarke speaking of this:

The most important task is to decide as quickly as we can how we are going to move forward on Brexit. It’s not true, which is being repeated over and over again by ministers, that everybody who’s involved in parliament is just trying to stop Brexit, defy the people … I voted for Brexit three times with a deal on these three preliminary points. I think the best thing to do is to produce a majority in parliament on a cross-party basis –  — Ken Clarke

Someone commenting btl:

'That statement needs to be enforced, to stop the Beeb and the Tory gutter press using it for their populist agendas. Since they’re spreading lies and stirring up hate, they should be taken to task over it.'

I think that it should be 'reinforced' not 'enforced'.
No matter. I hope when Parliament resumes it hammers home the message and effectively counteracts the pervasive lies.

Lies and liars need to be called out as such. Using facts and evidence.

Wow - what a bloody day :smile:

My apologies. — NOS4A2

Very kind of you.
I won't be making any more fuss about off topicness.
A bit of a waste of time, as are some 'sorries'.
An apology is empty and meaningless if the action is repeated.

:roll:
Not damned Trump again. I give up.
Let's bring him in to every political discussion, why don't we.
Just like the worst of journalism.

Well, that's another bad story. So what would be the best way forward ?
There has to be something in place whereby we don't rely on a private individual to hold government to account. Do we have to keep returning to the Supreme Court every time a Johnson comes along...

The Brexit referendum was a farce. Still think the result should be overturned. Null and void it too, please.
Moving on...

All thanks to Gina Miller.
— Punshhh

Not just her. There were 2 cases being discussed and I think one was by a group of MPs. — Michael

Indeed. Gina Miller has been excellent.Twice over.
And yes, the Supreme Court upheld the decision made by the Scottish court.

'The SNP’s Joanna Cherry led the legal challenge brought by 75 parliamentarians in Scotland’s top civil court, seeking to block the Prime Minister’s decision to suspend.'

However, all of this should not have been necessary. If we had a written constitution perhaps we would not have to deal with this total disaster of a would-be dictatorship.
But it's now back to Brexit.
And more misleading lies...

Excellent, clear cut. Delighted. Now Parliament can continue the good fight...
Scrutinise Tory government to death. They are to be held to account.
Johnson's position should be untenable.

That should only be brought in if it wins in a referendum. We don't need another referendum on it, I'd say. The results would probably be more or less the same as last time. I would vote against it if given the option.
— S

Would you vote for AV rather than PR? — Michael

Objection. Irrelevant, your Honour.

:up: :sparkle:
Looking forward to more of your Brexit and prorogation analysis :smile:

Enough already. There is a Trump thread for this kind of sniping.

Incredible. An important decision to be taken by a show of hands ?

Chair rejects call for card vote - despite admitting there was some confusion as to result.

Jeez :roll:

Love Starmer and how he addresses people attending as 'Conference' - much better than 'Comrades'.
He sounds like a leader.

'Conference, you know where I stand on the question of remain: I’ve said many times that I will campaign for it. But I profoundly respect those who take a different view. And conference, let’s go into this with our eyes open.

In 2016 Labour campaigned for remain. We did so because we are internationalists. We stand in solidarity with our friends and neighbours in Europe. We profoundly believe in peace, reconciliation, human rights and collaboration across borders. Socialist values. Our values. Then and now. And let those values guide us on the road ahead.'

Prorogation decision. Tomorrow 10.30.

Judgment hand-down 24 September 2019 10:30 Courtroom 1

The Supreme Court has now heard the two prorogation-related judicial review cases. These took place between 17 and 19 September 2019.

The judgment hand-down will take place on 24 September at 10:30 in Courtroom 1.

Live coverage of the judgment hand-down can be watched online via Supreme Court Live.

Both the judgment and full video on demand coverage of the Court sittings can be found online via one of the following links:

R (on the application of Miller) (Appellant) v The Prime Minister (Respondent)Cherry and others (Respondents) v Advocate General for Scotland (Appellant) (Scotland)

https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html

Talking about democracy...
and Brexit at the Labour Conference.
Running commentary from Guardian Politics Live:

'The fact that Unison, which controls a sizeable chunk of the union vote at conference, is going to vote against the NEC motion and in favour of composite 13 (see 10.10am), means that there is now a greater chance than we thought this morning that the conference could unequivocally come down in favour of committing to remain now.'

From McDonnell:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/23/mcdonnell-labour-remaining-in-eu-would-be-better-than-any-brexit-deal

"I smiled when you used the language earlier of civil war and revolt but there isn’t any war in the Labour party. It’s about honest, democratic debate,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

Matutinal

...one of the great joys of our creaking, pink-edged tumble into autumn and the misty creep of winter in the willows is that regular, full-fat, white-flour schlubs can start to live through beautiful sunrises almost every day...

...I am not just crepuscular, but matutinal – one who glories in the dawn... — Nell Frizzell

Im looking forward to the intervention of John Major tomorrow. — Punshhh

Today's timetable. https://www.supremecourt.uk/brexit/timetable-of-proceedings.html
Also, link to written cases on behalf of the parties and interveners:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/brexit/written-case-submissions.html

10:30 to 11:00
Oral Intervention by Scottish Government in Cherry/Miller, The Lord Advocate - James Mure QC (30 minutes)
11:00 to 11:40
Oral Intervention by NI Claimant (McCord) in Cherry/Miller, Ronan Lavery QC (40 minutes)
11:40 to 12:10
Oral Intervention by Counsel General for Wales, Mike Fordham QC (30 minutes)
12:10 to 12:30 Oral Intervention on behalf of Sir John Major, Lord Garnier QC (20 minutes)
14:00 to 14:30
Appellants reply for Advocate General for Scotland from Inner House in Cherry, Lord Keen QC (30 minutes)
14:30 to 15:00
Appellants reply for Miller, Lord Pannick QC (30 minutes)

I haven't been watching. But I hope to catch up soon.
Here's the 3 day timetable:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/brexit/timetable-of-proceedings.html

The Supreme Court Live:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html

The point is that the EU appears blind to the demographic consequences of its expansion. — Punshhh

the EU appears blind to the consequences of expansion is far more accurate. It is a political vision to have the entirety of continental Europe included in the EU but it's a vision that's not shared by the EU27 electorate. — Benkei

A divided vision. How to manage ?
It is not the case that the EU is blind to the problems of expansion. The problem might be that some people can make such blind assumptions and run with them.
The trouble is when the anti-EU brigade, like Farage, start to demean and destroy the EU from within its system.That is what I don't get. It troubles me.

Here's what I found:
How to govern a fragmented EU: What Europeans said at the ballot box.
The results of the European Parliament election confront EU leaders with a considerable challenge: navigating a new, more fragmented, and polarised political environment.

+Summary+Introduction+The post-political family map+The new political geography+The new policy map+Conclusion+Country analysis

SUMMARY
The results of the European Parliament election confront EU leaders with a considerable challenge: navigating a new, more fragmented, and polarised political environment.
This was a ‘split screen’ election: electors rarely used their vote to endorse the status quo, but they requested different things. Some want to take on climate change and nationalism; others want to regain national sovereignty and tackle Islamic radicalism.
This need not mean a ‘split screen’ Europe: the desire for change is real across the board, and the new EU institutions will need to provide answers for voters on these issues.
To meet this challenge, the larger political families should prepare to work with parties beyond the mainstream, some of which became stronger on the domestic political scene thanks to the election results. They must do this while preserving red lines on European values.
The high turnout in the election gives the EU a mandate to prove it can respond to voters’ concerns. But this mandate is not open-ended – volatility in the electorate could benefit anti-system parties much more the next time Europe goes to the polls.

...This report studies five ‘maps’ which should guide the formation of these new, shifting majorities; the next generation of EU institution leaders should also study these maps carefully to help them identify where best to focus their energy and attention...

[my bolds]

https://www.ecfr.eu/publications/summary/how_to_govern_a_fragmented_eu_what_europeans_said_at_the_ballot_box

There's actually a lot of criticism directed towards the EU starting up with the bureaucracy of the organization, the lack of transparency, the peculiar illogical things like the EU Parliament hopping from Brussels to Strasbourg and back. — ssu

Agree. I am not an expert on the EU. Some here obviously have more political savvy and personal experience. However, there is value in Google and Wikipedia for starters in Eurosceptism:

' The main sources of Euroscepticism have been beliefs that integration undermines national sovereignty and the nation state, that the EU is elitist and lacks democratic legitimacy and transparency,that it is too bureaucratic and wasteful, that it encourages high levels of migration, or perceptions that it is a neoliberal organisation serving the business elite at the expense of the working class, responsible for austerity and driving privatization...'
[ my bolds ]

Note well, 'beliefs'. Where is the evidence? How does it compare to the nation states ?

Who is it that is responsible for the austerity policies ? Which party is it that is now promising money and resources from the money tree they didn't have before?

It was issues brought about by free movement of people which was causing anti EU sentiment i — Punshhh

'Freedom of movement' is important. I think it vital that it continues but with constraints where necessary. Did the UK not already have the power to control the more troubling aspects ?
Why blame the EU ? It encompasses more than the 'they are taking our jobs' and 'benefit scroungers'.
It is not just a one way process.

The real problem is that what the EU needs is self-criticism and a debate how to improve it, which way should it go. It's hardly not only about two options: a) the EU has to be formed to be like the US or b) It's a monstrosity that has to be done away with quickly. — ssu

Agreed. Does this not happen ? What are the mechanisms? Who would win the argument and using what evidence? What are the other options ?

the EU was unable to provide sufficient flexibility. — Punshhh

Why not ? Was it simply a power struggle - a feeling of being under attack ? So much of this is phrased in terms of aggression and war. Johnson now apparently bringing the Hulk into it. His colourful language is not helping matters. He may be flexing his imaginary muscles but flexibility in thought is beyond him and the extreme right-wing contingent. And yet, they accuse others. It's all a bit like bullies in the playground.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/sep/15/hulk-actor-smashes-pms-attempt-at-incredible-metaphor

Wallows sadly* — Wallows

What now, little piggie wiggie?

At least you weren't pricked to death by the punctuation police.
You could be *Bacon sizzling*.

At least here, the rules seem more simpatico:

General Guidelines:

1) Language matters:

This is an English language forum on an academic topic. Posts should display an acceptable level of English with regard to grammar, punctuation and layout. This goes for both native and non-native speakers (although we're likely to be more sympathetic when judging the writing of the latter).

Oh, wow !!!! Now that is 'special' :cool:
The sexy swish of a pick-up master.

Would it tell me what was wrong with my punctuation and how to improve it ?
Would you?

I'll need a deal more than that for my kiss and tell stories. — unenlightened

Talking about diversity quotas...