[QatzelOk]

Would it be good or bad to stop reading entirely?

Perhaps you could stop reading novels and newspapers first of all. And then gradually move on to NOT READING anything.

This might involve giving up some things like driving a car and using dangerous chemicals around the house - both of which require a certain amount of reading.

Might this be something that could improve your life?

[Nets]

Good idea. I'll start by not reading your posts.

There, my life is already improving.

[Ombrageux]

The problem is not with me, it is to get the liberal elites to stop reading.

[Unperson-K]

Perhaps you could stop reading novels and newspapers first of all. And then gradually move on to NOT READING anything

Perhaps we should pack ourselves into air tight containers buried deep under the ground. Would we be safe from text then, Qatz?

[QatzelOk]

I'll start by not reading your posts.

You've already failed to do that. Why set yourself up for failure?

...

The problem is not with me, it is to get the liberal elites to stop reading.

They're the ones who started the whole "read a book and then try to make it come to life" movement, so I acknowledge the pertinence of what you just wrote.

...

Perhaps we should pack ourselves into air tight containers buried deep under the ground. Would we be safe from text then, Qatz?

The sarcasm text has served you well in this thread, Kirry. It's obvious that you've read more good books than you've breathed good air.

[ThereBeDragons]

Would it be good or bad to stop reading entirely?

Bad.

Might this be something that could improve your life?

Probably not.

[QatzelOk]

Well, Dragon, I see you've almost given up on writing.

Which may be related to what I'm proposing.
---

Most of the survival-endangering social behavior of the last few centuries has been provoked by a text of some sort. The Enlightenment -which killed God and thus allowed mankind to do whatever he wanted to with the planet and its inhabitants - was the first text-based transformation of humanity's way of being in this world.

Wouldn't it be easier to live the good life and to pass it on to future generations if we DIDN'T get programmed by the fabricated and self-serving texts of the text-distributing castes?

[ThereBeDragons]

What is this "good life" you speak of? It's hard to figure out where you are coming from if this question isn't answered; you never responded to what you thought about the entirely textless hunter-gatherer life when I asked in the other thread, so would I be accurate in saying that that isn't your conception of it? Are there other historical societies that are characteristic of the "good life"?

[QatzelOk]

you never responded to what you thought about the entirely textless hunter-gatherer life when I asked in the other thread

That's because you provided it as a tangent in the first reply after the OP.

In this thread, that same tangent would be on-subject.

Do textless people live higher quality lives (real life) than those who struggle to live up to the fabricated yearnings of their texts?

[ThereBeDragons]

That's because you provided it as a tangent in the first reply after the OP.

I thought it was on-topic because the premise of the thread was technology and it's lack of it; they are one of the few people today who have not embraced the earliest "technological innovation" of agriculture although they have language. In case, this here is definitely tangential so I'll drop it.

Do textless people live higher quality lives (real life) than those who struggle to live up to the fabricated yearnings of their texts?

Perhaps they are happier than we are. But I would not choose to live like them.

[QatzelOk]

Perhaps they are happier than we are. But I would not choose to live like them.

Do most text-users choose a life of misery?

Do they lose the ability to investigate life on their own?

Is text a kind of semiotic steroids that gradually destroys the natural ability to find meaning?

[ThereBeDragons]

Most people, text-using or otherwise, are not living miserable, meaningless lives, or at least they would not say so. You may believe they are living in a text-induced stupor which is a mere shadow of life, but this is a premise with which most people would disagree.

[QatzelOk]

Most people, text-using or otherwise, are not living miserable, meaningless lives, or at least they would not say so.

The text-users have been trained to not talk about things such as this. By text.

And it's rare that something - like TEXT - criticizes its own utility.

[Zyx]

I believe that there's a truth to Philosophy through which texts corresponding to this truth would be legitimate reads, the rest are utter nonsense.

I wouldn't read a Newspaper, for instance.

[QatzelOk]

I believe that there's a truth to Philosophy through which texts corresponding to this truth would be legitimate reads,

Could this because philosophy texts DON'T CONTAIN self interest, while all other kinds of text are just long, complex product placements?

[Eauz]

No, we just need more people to read Marxism.

[Zyx]

Could this because philosophy texts DON'T CONTAIN self interest, while all other kinds of text are just long, complex product placements?

Well, I think that 'truth' is very important.

It would seem that all text is an argument, even how we phrase our text.

For instance, what I wrote above is an argument claiming all text is an argument.* I could have written that phrase differently, saying "I have heard that all text is an argument" giving the idea doubt, or I could have written, "Some fools have written that all text is an argument" or even "Kant himself said that all text is an argument" and in this last example I'd be simultaneously arguing that Kant were a great Scholar or reliable source.

The point is that the element of 'truth' is what distinguishes what ought to be read and what ought to be avoided.

"Self-interest" may not be the necessary matter to avoid. It'd depend on the definition, for if one can arrive at 'self-interest' through 'truth' then so be it, eh?

*This claim is actually mostly used for fiction, but obviously can be extended to non-fiction. Even describing the legend of a sword contains an argument, you see. One can say "Zeus forged the blade" or "People believe that false deities made the sword but I think that Timothy just made it" or "I don't know why people put value in this sword, but it's said that Odin crafted it--whatever." Each sentence has many messages and what makes something readable is whether these messages are carefully crafted as subordinate to 'truth.'

[Nattering Nabob]

Would it be good or bad to stop reading entirely?

Perhaps you could stop reading novels and newspapers first of all. And then gradually move on to NOT READING anything.

This might involve giving up some things like driving a car and using dangerous chemicals around the house - both of which require a certain amount of reading.

Might this be something that could improve your life?

I think it would be great...

We could go back to storytelling...

Then all the lies would come from someone we know like in the old days...

[QatzelOk]

For instance, what I wrote above is an argument claiming all text is an argument.* I could have written that phrase differently, saying "I have heard that all text is an argument" giving the idea doubt, or I could have written, "Some fools have written that all text is an argument" or even "Kant himself said that all text is an argument" and in this last example I'd be simultaneously arguing that Kant were a great Scholar or reliable source.

All text is an argument
An attempt at a neutral statement that expresses personal experience of truth

I have heard that all text is an argument
This statement questions the truth of secondary sources. It puts itelf into question, and this self-doubting is about the author more than it is about text. So here, the self-interest of the author has been publically displayed as part of the story.

Some fools have written that all text is an argument
Here, the author positions himself as a non-fool, which is vain and arrogant. Once again, as in the second example, the statement says more about the author than it does about text. Which is unfortunate, but what do you expect in a text-environment that creates messiahs out of thin air.

Kant himself said that all text is an argument
Name-dropping is a form of product placement (Be sure to check out Kant, Wednesdays at 9!) as well as a form of cross promotion (I, like Kant, am inclined to reason that...).

...

In the last three statements, notice that NO KNOWLEDGE is really gained by the reader, except who that author is, who he wants to be seen as, and what ideas he wants to get out there. And the bias of the author actually means that the statements are probably false, or not personally experienced. It seems like the author doesn't really care about its veracity, only what the statement can do for his own intellectual standing.

Only the first statement (which is stated as a fact) can be considered to be "sharing with others." The others are all just self-promoting lies. And that first statement most closely resembles spoken word (oral tradition) type of text, where you could watch the speaker's gestures, listen to his tone and emotion, and smell his changing hormonal production as he "shares" his experiences.

[NoRapture]

After we got rid of text we could swear off talking. Then music. Mime! Make existence a charade! But The Jew would get his "narrative" in there somehow!