[I]t is a maxim of universal application that every man is presumed to know the law, and it would seem inherent that freedom of access to the laws, or the official interpretation of those laws, should be co-extensive with the sweep of the maxim. Knowledge is the only just condition of obedience. The laws of Rome were written on tablets and posted, that all might read, and all were bound to obedience. The act of that emperor who caused his enactments to be written in small letters, on small tablets, and then posted the latter at such height that none could read the letters, and at the same time insisted upon the rule of obedience, outraging as it did the relations of governor and governed under his own system of government, has never been deemed consistent with or possible under ours

It’s funny how the idea of publication of the law on tablets comes back in the idea of publishing the laws. My associate and I went to the Roman Art from the Louvre exhibition at the Seattle Art Museum this weekend, and they actually had one of those tablets. The tablet (in greek) was a declaration by one of the Roman Emperors that a city and its markets were an autonomous city. It was, as stated in the law cite, designed to be published where readable by all and sundry — publish itself comes from a latin verb (publicare) that means to make public.

The other place where this shows up (in books I’ve recently looked at) is in Jaynor Jaynes The Rise of Consciousness in the Decline of the Bicameral Mind, which talked about similar tablets back in Sumeria. The main difference in the conceptualization of the tablets is that the Roman tables were designed to be read as a letter, and the Sumerian tablets were designed as the recording of a narration of a letter that should be read back. However, both of them were mounted in public places. Even if you don’t take Jaynes’ belief that it reflects a different stage of human consciousness, it’s at least a very different conception of people’s literacy.

Yeah, welcome to pointless literary reminiscing, this must be a blog or something

It’s really possible to half-ass your way through life. A lot of people do this, even consciously. I find that I have to constantly examine myself and my motives to make sure that I don’t. I end up constructing the ‘Analog I,’ which is a term I picked up from Julian Jaynes’ The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, to try and figure out both what my motives are and to figure out if I’m acting consistently with those motives.

If I think I should be doing something, than generally it’s worth doing right, and part of not half-assing something is figuring out what it means to do something and then do it with full commitment. I think part of this is figuring out what I can actually succeed at. The best example of this is probably relationships — I know that I can make one woman really happy in a relationship; why would I want to make two (or more) women vaguely satisfied? I’m therefore comfortable monogamously, and don’t have any real urges to fuck up. Or, more realistically, no urge to act on urges to fuck up.

This is mostly important in my life because I do a lot of things, and I get crazy ideas for projects and then do them. So, to keep things sane, and to keep one project-of-obsession from destroying my life, I consciously analyze myself and my motivations for my decisions. I like this system better than the 4 Hour Work Week system of just neglecting anything that isn’t important. For me, there’s the right amount of attention to be paid to all things, the Quality of Service item.

I’d like to compare these two quotes.

from the 4HWW blog entry above:

As tempting as it is to “just check e-mail for one minute,” I didn’t do it. I know from experience that any problem found in the inbox will linger on the brain for hours or days after you shut-down the computer, rendering “free time” useless with preoccupation. It’s the worst of states, where you experience neither relaxation nor productivity. Be focused on work or focused on something else, never in-between.

A koan from Basho:

As two Zen monks walked along a muddy, rain-drenched road, they came upon a lovely woman attempting to cross a large mud puddle. The elder monk stopped beside the woman, lifted his arms, and carried her across the puddle. He set her gently down on the dry ridge of the road.
After bowing politely to the woman, the two monks continued down the muddy road. The younger monk was sullen and silent as they walked along. They traveled over the hills, down around the valleys, trough a town, and under forest trees. At last, after many hours had passed, the younger monk scolded the elder, “You are aware that we monks do not touch women! Why did you carry that girl?”
The elder monk slowly turned and smiled. He said, “My dear young brother, you have such heavy thoughts! I left the woman alongside the road hours ago. Why are you still carrying her?”

Anyway, that’s the difference in approach I’d like to make clear. I strive for mindfulness, and frequently make it or don’t. The floor of my apartment remains a mess, but I think that effort of committing to things and giving them my full attention is worth it. After all, never whistle while you’re pissing.