It’s a fine perspective, but:

> We can only read a text once

Is clearly false. OP is expressing a choice, not a truth.

turtletontine 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I think their point is clear if you read the rest of the sentence: “… given the number of compelling works and the limited time available to us”.

Yes, it’s the OP’s choice, it’s their information diet. You COULD read the good stuff over and over, but you risk falling behind the flood. This is their approach to keeping up. It makes me a little sad, sure, but as a practical solution I get it.

I certainly don’t use this approach to literature. I’ve reread my favorite books a few times over the years (Cat’s Cradle, White Noise), but I’m sure that’s not the kind of thing OP is talking about.

▲

chaps 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I recoiled at that a bit too, but I think what they mean is similar to how some games can "only be played once". Best example of that is Outer Wilds, where attaining information is the goal of each gameplay loop. Once you've acquired that knowledge already, the fun of acquiring it can no longer be experienced since you already know what the "next step" is.

▲

m-hodges 2 days ago | parent [-]

Quite often, the meaning of a text relies on the contexts you bring to it. I’ve had many experiences where I’ve returned to a text after reading others, and gleaned entirely new or different insights from it. I disagree with the idea that first exposure exhausts the knowledge (or in OP’s perspective, “Bayesian system”) that can be acquired.

	▲	chaps 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I didn't say it exhausts the knowledge.. what I'm saying is very much the opposite of that -- knowledge is front and center. I'm more referring to the experience and new lenses on past similar experiences, which I think we're in agreement on. Go play Outer Wilds if you want to experience what I mean. It's the only game I've played that's affected me so strongly in this way. "No man ever steps in the same river twice"

▲

wiseowise 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> We can only read a text once, given the number of compelling works and the limited time available to us.

You deliberately pulled it out of context, didn't you?

▲

m-hodges 2 days ago | parent [-]

No. I hold my reaction even with OP’s “given”. You can, in fact, read a text more than once, given the number of compelling works and the limited time available to us.

	▲	IAmBroom a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Yes, it's your choice to do so, and OP's choice to (oddly) presume we can't do it.
	▲	wiseowise 12 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		If reading is all you want to do in life – sure.