The AIME project is, among other things, an experiment in the digital humanities. As such, we are very interested in receiving feedback on your experiences of reading the Inquiry, either with or without the digital publication etc.
Below, Bruno Latour asks Adam Robert from the AIME Research Group about their experience of reading the Inquiry.
Question to Adam Robert (AIME Research Group):
The AIME team is very keen to see that the work done renders the book more readable. We would like to know if the reading group you have assembled finds the digital site (with its three additional columns) particularly useful. In the discussion so far the material accumulated on the site does not seem to figure at all.
In regards to the digital site I can only speak for myself, but I think I have an answer. AIME is a very comprehensive and in-depth text. In some ways it is not unlike Process and Reality — all the pieces need to come into play before the whole project can become visible. I have yet to finish AIME myself.
Our reading group is currently working through Chapter 5, and will finish Part 1 in the coming weeks. While discussion continues avidly with each passing chapter, many of us are also heeding your own advice in Chapter 2 — we would rather read the whole text, rather than make any assumptions "after only a few pages." At least in my case, this has made me less willing to leave comments on the digital site. I, and I'm sure many others, don't feel we can make contributions until the whole project comes into view, and that means a careful reading of the text first. That is one reason. I have to admit that when the digital AIME site went live I felt that maybe our reading group was imposing. Of course that is not our intention, and I think the end result will be a deeper grasp of the text, and a greater ability to engage with AIME's digital platform.
Feel free to add as a comment your own experience of reading the Inquiry.