It's not "Why do we read?" but something related that is coming up a lot in my thinking lately is Walter J. Ong's "Writing is a Technology that Restructures Human Thought".
Isn’t “Writing is a Technology that Restructures Human Thought” another way of saying that “feedback has an effect”?
If so, this seems to be a trivial (still worthy) assertion.
For example, I intend to, say, construct a shed. I make mistakes that I only see because I actually constructed. I revise future endeavours involving sheds.
I admit to not having read this piece, and am merely reacting to the title.
—-
Okay, I got through the first paragraph of Walter’s writings. While I nod to the bitterness (I assent to the existence of it), I do not bow.
Not normally, no. Can you point to a divergence of the bitterness in the subsequent text?
What I find to be the normal pattern (by intuition) is that the condensed leading text belies the expansive following text. This is likely lazy (a shortcut) and I am open to correction at your effort. If a call to your effort (I apologize) is unpalatable then I concede.
If so, this seems to be a trivial (still worthy) assertion.
For example, I intend to, say, construct a shed. I make mistakes that I only see because I actually constructed. I revise future endeavours involving sheds.
I admit to not having read this piece, and am merely reacting to the title.
—-
Okay, I got through the first paragraph of Walter’s writings. While I nod to the bitterness (I assent to the existence of it), I do not bow.