I want to know the answer to the following question:
Who thought Process and Reality was little-read because the reader has to separate them from normal thought?
All the background I'm provided with is that "Though Process and Reality has been called "arguably the most impressive single metaphysical text of the twentieth century," it has been little-read and little-understood, partly because it demands – as Isabelle Stengers puts it – "that its readers accept the adventure of the questions that will separate them from every consensus."". Is that enough to answer the question?
Answer: yes