Wow, what a cool way of thinking about reading difficult stuff--far better than the kind of snobby elitism that implies that if one doesn’t understand the difficult text, perhaps one isn’t “good enough” to be in the club. It reminds me of the “encounters” with deconstruction (Derrida, Saussure ... or was it de Saussure) I had in grad school decades ago. One prof looked down his nose at those who found it challenging and said, “Well, you must go back and read it again,” while another took it as pure play and delight to grapple with the difficulty (as you have done here). You can bet whose seminars were packed.
Wow, what a cool way of thinking about reading difficult stuff--far better than the kind of snobby elitism that implies that if one doesn’t understand the difficult text, perhaps one isn’t “good enough” to be in the club. It reminds me of the “encounters” with deconstruction (Derrida, Saussure ... or was it de Saussure) I had in grad school decades ago. One prof looked down his nose at those who found it challenging and said, “Well, you must go back and read it again,” while another took it as pure play and delight to grapple with the difficulty (as you have done here). You can bet whose seminars were packed.