Every time you return to the same topics, every time you pick up the same books, those written by others, you end up making comments of a different nature, with which different aspects are highlighted.
So what’s the use of giving your thoughts to the press? A book is not only something physically defined, it is also something definitive, semantically incontrovertible. You can no longer go back, you can no longer disregard what has been written, what has become uniquely fixed on paper.
Paper publishing is the death of dialectics, as it prevents rethinking. To make self-criticism you need to write another book, but in the meantime the previous one remains. And then there is always the risk of having to make a further revision of one’s self-criticism, in a coming and going that ends only because at a certain point one is forced to die.
It is undoubtedly much better not to write anything, or to rely solely on digital writing, which can be changed at any time, without leaving traces of the previous one. Overwriting is the true digital revolution, which is a consequence of the close interaction-user.
But it gets worse. A book relentlessly closes the present within its pages: something that human thought can refuse to accept. Man wants to be able to rethink his past at any time, he wants to be left free to read and reread things as he sees fit. He does not like to mortgage the future, least of all his own, with the interpretations he gives to his own present.
A free and democratic man lets the future build itself. His only concern is to live the present in the best possible way, always considering that nothing is ever the same: everything is in motion, “everything flows”, said Heraclitus, “you cannot descend twice in the same river and a mortal substance cannot be touched twice in the same state. “
It is the metamorphosis that dominates us. When we look in the mirror, even we are not ourselves: the identity changes continuously, progressively, albeit slowly. Those who want to speed up the process are wrong, but also those who want to stop it.
We are never equal to ourselves we
change inside, we change outside
we change even if we don’t want it
and when we don’t do it
with amazement or sadness
the why we ask ourselves.
So why should we give us a fixed, static image by publishing a book? What if this image turns out to be our worst over time? What if we regret having fixed it on paper, as did Augustine of Hippo with his Retractions ? Isn’t it better to inherit your digital writing to those who will take on the task of continuing its spirit by constantly changing its shape?
We therefore leave posterity not simply the possibility of preserving but above all that of modifying without betraying. So no one will be able to say about us: “It is dated”. We will always remain contemporary. The whole line of history will narrow in one place, from where we can look at everything.