You know, I actually see it mostly in terms of efficiency, rather than how "esoteric" it is. You can't even imagine how much material I feel I can skip over simply because, having had a peek at the answer key, I can quickly spot where others are running off the trail and exactly why.
Like, suppose you wanted to learn about chemistry. Would you start with the oldest writings on the subject and work your way forward? Of course not. You'd just get hold of a first-year introductory college chemistry textbook and try to get a basic grasp on that. Then you'd find that probably 99% of everything that has ever been written about chemistry throughout history was incorrect, irrelevant, misleading, or superseded, and could safely be ignored.
I'm basically a very lazy person. Maybe it's my superpower.
If you want to learn about Chemistry or a hard science, maybe. But if you wanted to know about literature (how to develop a plot/character) or poetry, you'd dust off the complete works of Shakespeare. You'd know more about human nature reading Shakespeare than most modern psychologists. Likewise, you'd learn more about politics reading Plato's The Republic than you would most Poli Sci 101 books.
Actually, I think you've hit on one of the reasons why I've been able to penetrate farther than others. Almost all researchers consider works like the Bible or Greek mythology or Sumerian epics to be literature or religion, and study them on those bases. In stark contrast, I consider them to be history, wrapped in a literary cloth and dipped in religion. The goal is to remove that covering to find the truth of the events. Almost no one has this mindset, which I believe is crucial.
That is to say, to me the Bible is like a history textbook, and jokers have drawn all over it for centuries.
You know, I actually see it mostly in terms of efficiency, rather than how "esoteric" it is. You can't even imagine how much material I feel I can skip over simply because, having had a peek at the answer key, I can quickly spot where others are running off the trail and exactly why.
Like, suppose you wanted to learn about chemistry. Would you start with the oldest writings on the subject and work your way forward? Of course not. You'd just get hold of a first-year introductory college chemistry textbook and try to get a basic grasp on that. Then you'd find that probably 99% of everything that has ever been written about chemistry throughout history was incorrect, irrelevant, misleading, or superseded, and could safely be ignored.
I'm basically a very lazy person. Maybe it's my superpower.
If you want to learn about Chemistry or a hard science, maybe. But if you wanted to know about literature (how to develop a plot/character) or poetry, you'd dust off the complete works of Shakespeare. You'd know more about human nature reading Shakespeare than most modern psychologists. Likewise, you'd learn more about politics reading Plato's The Republic than you would most Poli Sci 101 books.
Actually, I think you've hit on one of the reasons why I've been able to penetrate farther than others. Almost all researchers consider works like the Bible or Greek mythology or Sumerian epics to be literature or religion, and study them on those bases. In stark contrast, I consider them to be history, wrapped in a literary cloth and dipped in religion. The goal is to remove that covering to find the truth of the events. Almost no one has this mindset, which I believe is crucial.
That is to say, to me the Bible is like a history textbook, and jokers have drawn all over it for centuries.
I agree wholeheartedly.