Intellectual Justice: Epistemic Level of Perceiving a Book Beyond Adler

Abstract

The Research Paper looks back to the famous work of Adler & Doren (How to Read a Book), a seminal work which helped readers to know style of reading. The authors proposed four ways of reading based on purpose- elementary, inspectional, analytical and syntopical. This paper goes beyond and suggests the fifth way of reading rather perceiving a book that is epistemic level. Reading a book is not a passive task. The four ways have shown paths and helped readers to understand purpose of reading and giving the reader freedom to choose the style accordingly. From elementary to syntopical reading, comprehending, grasping structurally, critical analysis and a compared confluence. This research paper though appreciates their work but does not stop here. It goes beyond and analogise epistemic reading as the fifth way. Since then, times have changed, interdisciplinary and trans-disciplinary approaches are now to be catered. So comparative reading should further be transformed as cross-disciplined approach. This paper further proposes a Moral-Sharma Technique of reading based on Integrative Infinite Wisdom outcome. So, this fifth way not only transformational but also pushes the boundaries of learning to moving data into information, from information to knowledge, and ultimately into Infinite Integrative Wisdom (IIW), where knowledge transcends disciplinary restraints, integrates diverse perspectives and culminates in a holistic understanding directed towards wisdom. This principle of Seemateet Budhi Matta is based on transcendent wisdom of Upanishadic approach. Epistemic reading mulls over multidimensional perceiving, thinking and experiencing as whole through the senses and mental faculties. This approach pushes the reader from spectator position to content creator of knowledge in furtherance.  The paper does not discredit Adler’s work it only points out how the methods of reading can be developed way wider in contemporary challenges. In this work authors also go beyond from print reading to Braille script to audio books. They also analogize that like in evidence law an oral witness is a person who even cannot speak, even an expert can interpret witness’s sign to the court. So, this research differs in three dimensions from Adler’s and further augments the avenues, one- crossing the border of disciplines rather only textual analysis or even trans textual reading. Secondly, mere interpretation to co-creating something on wisdom level. And thirdly it not only reading text on print or digital media but also Braille script and audio books and the like as source of perceiving content.