While I do think that reading the printed version of The Tragedy of King Lear was important in understanding it's concepts, I solidly believe that a simple reading of a play like this pales in comparison to seeing it. The problem with reading the works of Shakespeare is the fact that it is very difficult to understand. Folger helps with this problem somewhat, with annotations, summirizations, and translations on the left side pages, but reading printed versions of literature like this is still confusing.
I have found that three things in particular help me understand Shakespeare's works after I've already read the plays. The first is simply discussing it. Two minds are better than one in this regard, and with more people sharing ideas it's far easier to extract meaning from a passage, especially when different viewpoints are applied.
The second thing that helps me is watching it. I don't think that watching a play would do me much good had I not already read through it, but after the inital reading, watching a performance tends to give people a much better idea of what's going on due to tone, scenery, blocking and general body language.
However, by far the most helpful means of understanding the minute details of a play must surely be performing it yourself. I was responsible for learning Lear's lines in Act II Scene 4 like the back of my hand, and there is no scene in the entire play that I know better. To play a charicter in a work like King Lear, an actor must almost become the person they are playing, or at the very least empathize with them. By putting myself in Lear's metaphorical shoes for a scene, I feel like I learned a whole lot more about him than I had known before I was responsible for being him.
While I'm not the most outgoing person, and would strongly reject to having to perform every scene of every act and memorize a large number of lines, I can absolutely appreciate the value of performing when it comes to a higher understanding of Shakespeare's works.