Today I have encountered a proposal of keeping the bookshops open all the time- 24/7- as a civilized gesture endorsing that books too are essential commodities.
Maybe for this audience, the readers, of course, it could deem interesting and somewhat effective, at least as the immediate response.
I want to make a case for the overhype around books and the bit more abstract activity around it, the one you are doing right now — READING.
Let me build it from a few contextually relevant bases/first principles that I have specifically designed.
Meta-principles
M1: Define principles contextually (whenever possible), according to the specific need rather than trying to force and fit into some existing set/category. M1 is self-governing, applicable to itself as well.
M2: Leverage the thought so we could start from the most abstract versions possible. This will help to grasp the wholistic picture, allow us to operate in a less restrictive setting adding concreteness (via configurations/constraints) in a lossless manner.
M3: Design in a way so that it could naturally evolve towards eliminating the need of itself in a proper way (maybe lossless — in measurable terms)
The specifically designed principles of intermediates
P1: Given two things (say A & B) there is always something in between- the intermediate — say I.
P2: The recognition of I depends on our perspective and abilities. It is totally fine with abstracting only up to a certain degree based on the need and relevance, but the point is to keep P1 in mind, not to be too dismissive or overly fixating.
P3: In case the I is defined as the interplay between A and B then over time (with the interplay) the I would evolve into something distinctly identifiable — with its own traits.
Now it’s time for the replacements. Let's try out a couple of related combinations and make use of the above-mentioned specific framework.
A → Information
B → Consumer/Processor of the information
I → Book (as a rhetorical device — could be an Article, Publication, etc)
Note that A, B, and I could be assigned with any of the Right Hand Side (R.H.S) values and we could make that particular case as well. This isn’t violating anything says M1.
In this so-called ‘information-theoretic,’ universe books, or any organized entity of dense, direct information are possibly more efficient in terms of processing.
Hence, compared to many other information packets, books seem far better, statistically speaking. They should have the bragging rights to be an essential commodity, right?
Not so fast, with the same statistical thinking, we must infer that only a teensy tiny percentage of books are good enough. And even if we identify that a particular book ‘a good one’ only a part of that is worthy/responsible for that call and the rest need to be improved.
Tools have their own evolutions. They do gain their own dynamics, attributes, and identity in a long run. That’s totally fine. Perusing a book to process unintended information and just to have pleasure is absolutely normal.
But when the tools conceal/blurs the actual purpose, especially at a massive level, then more often than not it leads to daunting inefficacies.
Let’s take the below similar scenario.
A → Book
B → Consumer/Processor of the information
I → Reading
Reading itself will gain(has gained) its own distinct identity over time. At least some of us read for the pleasure of reading itself — among other things.
Similarly, in addition to the to-the-point formation, books may carry excessive luggage like boiler-plate, cliche information, political biases, etc.
It is worsened when the book or the information sources are built around persons (leaders/academics etc)— the unwanted luggage gets heavier and heavier.
The growth of the intermediates is not the issue here; failing to hang on to the holistic picture and/or missing the purpose due to I is.
It’s NEVER about the books or reading. It’s NEVER about individuals.
Overhype built around books and reading is the sign/evidence that we might be far from comprehending, creating, and celebrating the underlying dynamics.
The slogans of reading week/month, the sayings about books and reading…
Grrr… the absurdity is just too much to handle, at least for me.
Let’s not beat around the bush — or in this context should I say books instead of the bush?
The best thing that could shape our thinking is…
Not books, not reading…
Not class or caste or other external factors…
Of course, all of these do to an extent.
But for the betterment of humanity (or any species that consume/process information for that matter), none of these external factors should become the primary factor.
The best thing that could shape one’s thinking is one’s thinking itself.
If it’s not the case, if it is not improving, or if it’s reducing in certain aspects then that’s a deadly concern.
For example, if a person could primarily be controlled by any external system then the (again somewhat overhyped) concepts of democracy (which eventually relies on voting), user-orientedness, free will, emancipation, and whatnot — all will collapse.
Rather than superficially promoting books and reading, which are mere external tools that we utilize for acquiring knowledge → clarity (I deliberately avoid fluke concepts like wisdom and enlightenment) we must endorse the real purpose — thinking — as directly as possible.
Let’s rebase our focus — focus more on thinking itself rather than mere external tools.
With this shift in focus, one is better positioned to orchestrate the information sources rather than overly fixating on books and reading.
And it is extremely important to note that enjoying reading is not at all degraded. Let it happen spontaneously. Perhaps as a desirable and if you may, an addictive side-effect of your process. But we must convey the importance of thinking primarily.
It’s much more efficient. For instance, I could list a few things that I do in public/formal discourse.
- Share how I think, the thought flows and frameworks, value systems, how to derive them, the basis of my claims, etc rather than some superficial information and anecdotes
- Transfer the learnings from our fields to the other aspects of life. This should be done cautiously though, one must generalize appropriately and for that must reach deeper planes so they could navigate between fields, exchange concepts.
Let’s think better. Let’s utilize all sources accordingly.
Epilogue 1
There are at least two well-defined distinct activities you are doing right now — reading and thinking.
I have so far mildly ranted about reading, what about thinking then?
Thinking too could be compartmentalized. We do under/overthink. We do think slow and fast. We are very much capable of thinking about thinking as well.
Except for a very teensy tiny percentage of the thinking, the rest too could be improved.
Again, should not fall for the overhype of anything — including ‘thinking’.
I safely assume that at least most of us wouldn’t want to march into a hallucination point of no return?
Epilogue 2
What about my current activity then?
The writing!
M3 comes to aid; I should write in a way that would eliminate the need for it in a proper way.
That is I should proxy, clearly present my thought framework regarding the problem at hand to the core; the more generalizable the better.
This way my writing will not hold anyone dependent on ‘itself’.
Actually, it’s the best win-win approach as when we take a leap (M2) the novel possibilities will just explode.
Of course, P1 comes into the picture as the new leap paves way for the new intermediates.
So, I never look to hold onto some information, thought framework to myself, I present the fullest, at the earliest. That emancipates me and my writing, both.
Ha, this is my first ever post on Medium and I feel good about it — maybe because I am well aware and aligned with my intended purpose.
