Staring at my collection of hardbound books on the shelves in my basement, I'm struck by the thought of their place in the overall electrochemical balancing equation that we call the passage of our lives. The idea may be approximated over several separate viewpoints later stitched together to represent a cohesive whole. We will examine these bit by bit in this essay [it will be necessary to withhold judgement from any independent portion of these viewpoints, because they merely pave the way toward the scaling of the whole.]
The first notion which struck my mind was the identity and nature of the books themselves insofar as how they relate to us. Just what is a book, when you get right down to it? Well, for starters, it's either something which sits on your shelf taking up space and which you will never during your lifetime read; or it's a book you have already read but which you may never again actually get around to re-reading; or it's a book that indeed sometime in the future you will actually read whether it be for the first time or repeatedly. Let's face it, for every library and personal collection of old hardcover or paperback books, there remains a great untraveled portion--a desolate landscape, shall we say--of untread upon paper, scorned pages whose particular arrangement of typed out lettering merely reside for the edification of no one.
One can be easily swayed into thinking "this mass of dead trees" represents all that fine and proper mother nature razed and hacked to pieces and pulped into paper to satiate our own taste for pulpy adventure and topical headlines (so long as they suit our sense of expectation). But seriously, there's an equal argument which maintains that if mankind didn't at least destroy a certain portion of this majestic wild kingdom we're surrounded by--and which helped spawn us into fruition--the relentless drive of nature would continue growing unheeded until it consumed everything in its path (including ourselves and our civilization) swallowed back into itself.
It should go without saying that a certain balance being achieved should necessarily be the goal of anyone or anything trying to get by in the wild empire of this world, be it on this or that side of the divide between industrialized urban civilization and the largely untouched and unseen shuttling empire of the wild crossing constantly between day and night, uninterrupted by millenia, while processing the evolutionary movements of an exploding cultural chain of predation among all the glittering and hissing conquerors and profiteers scavenging for the survival of the fittest among them.
Just as I believe it should be re-stated that the spirit of the problem should always be consciously addressed for every challenging incident one should come to examine and understand in its proper context. The spirit of the problem may be different for each case, yet if addressed with the transparent and open understanding of any committee of individuals concerned, it goes without a doubt that the spirit of the problem being addressed will always be of benefit to everyone involved. Only in the abject and mutual ignoring of the spirit of any problem will technicalities be introduced which may allow guilty parties to get away with their false version of the truth, causing innocent human beings to continue suffering from it.
Civilization must keep a strange balance of not merely cultivating the wild dominions surrounding in order that the overall equilibrium of life on earth be allowed to maintain itself, but also in hacking our way partially into it's sacred domain, by razing just the correct amount of trees in order to situate ourselves comfortably within it. Keeping in mind the argument which asserts with no bones about it that were humankind to stand negligently by and allow nature to take its own course without our interfering in any way, it would literally drown us in a tsunami of creeping, crawling and stinging carnivorous vines feasting upon our species and burying us into the rotting compost heap of their stink-fueled mass grave.
Go ahead and stare nature in the face, I dare you. Do it at night in a remote portion of the woods under moonlight with nobody else around except you and the wind and the towering trees and whatever wolves may happen to be roaming about that particular evening. Never mind the peace you will surely find in the blessing of moon-rays (just the Sun's peering glance, watching over while we sleep) and the softer subtle susurrations of the star's echoing songs like lullabies relaxing you while far away furtive sounds in the forest become closer. Sticks snapping in the distance now appear to be breaking nearer, as some remote nocturnal wanderer approaches. Resting in the mountains late at night far from cities and most humans becomes a holy experience when gazing deep inside to where the stars' old light still burns upon our retinas. What was it we were saying? Oh yes: balance our equation, or perish.
That's right. Remember the Balance when considering whether or not all print material such as books should be banished from our practices upon this earth. Imagine a near well-intentioned future which simply considered the production of print material (such as books) a crime of the very highest order possible, because it is a "crime against nature". Imagine being considered a terrorist because, after all, you have enough print material (such as books) to immolate your entire neighborhood; never mind the rest of the details, for they are unnecessary and rendered moot in the cold scope of the Technical Eye.
What is the Technical Eye? Why that very Highest Ordinance which in a dystopian alternate possible future timeline of our very own, could come about easily just so long as we don't make the spirit of the problem a Mandate to be applied in all cases--in particular those brought before a court of law--considering the spirit of any problem is something to be applied to all possible human cases which may warrant it, and not just those which have made it to court.
Beware the Technical Eye and it's Judgement failing to consider and implement anomalous facts which may or may not make the case exceptionable. Innocence and Justice are served together, they complement each other well. As we begin moving forward through yet another phase of our ever developing digital technology, preparing to arm not just ourselves with recording devices but also making it mandatory for police officers to film their official proceedings, the spirit of the problem will need to be acknowledged, addressed, and represented in all future legal dealings. [My only question to any decent lawyer or judge, should they happen to be reading this, would be to ask if there isn't already such a motion on the books, that of having to necessarily follow the "spirit of the problem" in any given case, which in some odd cases may become necessary to stipulate in order to successfully avoid incrimination on a technical charge. If you know the answer to the legal term for this, please leave a comment below.]
What I'm getting at is that we wouldn't want to erroneously (for example) come to the conclusion that all print material (such as books) would have to necessarily be "outlawed" or banished in favor of going up on the internet or otherwise having been alternately available in electronic format, because just in case we were to lose everything from an EMP or otherwise, it would be good to have a certain modicum of baseline print material (such as books) around from which we could continue to rebuild the course of our lives.
This has been another random, public announcement on [scratchYpost] by yours truly, just exercising my right to practice typing on a keyboard in the language of my choice, here on the blogger domain because it just so happens that was the one I was introduced to, and if it ain't broke, I'll never fix it.