On reading
You could call reading a form of non-doing, or doing nothing, particularly since it is unlikely you will be able to select entirely worthwhile material. See, that's wrong. OK, now I myself see. It appears I need to make not a point but a series of points. We shall see.
The first point, then, is that there is no such thing as less than worthwhile material.
But it turns out I can't just make that statement, I need to explore it. It seems to contain within itself a series of hypotheses. One would be that just the act of reading is in some way worthwhile. I'm sure you will instinctively agree that this in some way makes sense. It sounds reminiscent of a meditation technique or discipline. It even sounds more sound than the suggestion that meditation is worthwhile. That's because it is more materialistic, and thus less paradoxical.
Still, while the idea that reading in and of itself is worthwhile sounds in some way probably right, the idea that reading just anything at all would be worthwhile sounds a little off. I notice two possible interpretations of the idea of reading just anything at all. One is reading completely at random, and that appears to have some merit, or even to be a kind of necessity. And then the other is the idea of selecting material, either because of lack of understanding or, as it may be, deliberately, that is in some way egregious, or, as it may be, just mediocre.
I need to clarify my earlier point. The idea that reading is a form of doing nothing is not, perhaps, what it seems to be. It is true that reading is a very quite activity, and that it in that sense resembles doing nothing, and, in fact, it might in that sense in fact be a form of doing nothing, and it is possible that is one of its merits. This is something we can inquire into. However, there is another question - the first being whether or to what extent reading is doing something - and that is whether reading is productive.
