September 2009 Archives

We’re neurologically, physiologically predisposed to engage our senses, experience a fullness, in natural settings—overwhelmed by the vastness of the ocean but also startled, cleansed, awakened by so many minute details—a nook in the woods, a perch by the river, the enclosure of a cave, the prominence of a mountain peak. Getting there is part of making room for the shift in awareness, part of the preparation—the exertion, the effort, quickening the pulse, breaking a sweat in the climb—clearing away heaviness, stagnation, the goop that otherwise mires us in confusion or resentment. Immersion in a stream or the ocean is often part of this clearing process. Simply exercising may accomplish some of this physiologically, but jogging on a treadmill (especially with headphones piping in the morning stock market report) isn’t really reaching it.

Human-made religious structures, the most basic, intuitive varieties at least, begin with making altars and offerings. These gestures of relatedness and gratitude (or possibly of appeasement—feeding a hungry beast so it doesn’t make your life yet more difficult) can be a way of thanking the place for being welcoming—a gracious host—and attempting to give something back. This in turn becomes a mandate in many cultures to become gracious hosts to our own guests, this being the most direct means of returning the favor that is simply the fact of our existence—the original act of generosity.

Witness Trauma

| Write Comment | No TrackBacks
Original Forest

I lived for the first half of 1989 in a tiny cabin in the heavily wooded mountains of Southern Oregon, a mile or so by well-rutted dirt road and footpath above a ghost town called Golden and a cold stream known as Coyote Creek. The nearest town with a post office was another three or four miles away (and I didn’t know anyone there or particularly want to, so I didn’t hang around much[1]).

I needed a place to go where I could be still for a while. I’d lost two friends the previous year and was at a bit of a loss for what to do, where to go. After finishing college I’d taken a ride from Portland to Alaska to work in the fisheries of Valdez, Prince William Sound (which were more or less intact when I was there, until an incompetent swindler let 12 million barrels of oil drain out of the tanker he nominally controlled that following spring, as I stewed in my canyon), and come back without any plan to speak of.

Ecstatic moments and grim moments swirled into a tangled knot, though not necessarily a tight knot. In fact there was a good deal of looseness in the uncertain antics of those days.

For lack of a better plan, and because I was distrustful of plans at that point, I let myself follow the pull toward the anti-industrial protests of the so-called timber wars of the Northwest. We came from everywhere, true, but this is where we belonged: in the woods, willing to sacrifice comfort and safety to hinder the twisted intentions of junk-bond liquidators and petty tyrants as best we could, by legal means or otherwise.[2] One friend I met at a small gathering, and then at the road blockade that followed, invited me to stay at his place above Coyote Creek. By the middle of January I was ready for a place where I could unravel.

 -----

The dirt road snuck in through shady mixed conifer and second-growth Douglas fir trees (this south slope had been logged in the 1950s), and crossed a small wooden bridge at a level spot along a year-round stream fed by clear springs higher up. From here a narrow path wound its way up the small bowl-shaped canyon. My cabin was about halfway up the slope, a half-hour walk from the bottom, in a small clearing with a plywood platform to one side and the steep drop into the canyon at the back. The view from cabin and deck was immense, multidimensional, deeper than most anything else I’ve encountered. The entire west and north slopes of the canyon were alive with a quiet stand of the original forest, the ancient trees that once blanketed the entire region, of which only scattered islands remain.

There was snow on the ground when I arrived. I had never set foot in this place before but it all felt familiar and right. I had no trouble finding my way up the winding path. When I stepped between two trees near the top, I sensed that I had passed through some sort of barrier, into a set-aside zone, a sanctuary, where everything was somehow more present than in the outside world. In one sense I’d come here to hide, but from the first moments it was clear that in this place, in my grieving and uncertainty, I would also be greeting someone or something with a fullness I might have barely glimpsed before. Certainly not with the intensity I would soon encounter.

  -----

No electricity, no phone. No running water to my cabin, though a two-minute walk brought me to an old bath house, where a spigot piped water down from the steady spring.

Removing myself so completely from the world of social interaction and technology[3] gave me an opportunity to tune in to the rhythms and beings of the place, to sharpen my senses. To live deliberately (as an old surveyor from the Northeast once said), though not really free of the ebb and flow of intense yearning—which would, however, subside more or less of its own accord, tiresome to the point of irrelevance, after a few hours or days. I learned to meditate, forced by necessity (though I would have benefited from the sort of training I later entered in Thailand), learned to discern the varieties of breezes and degrees of agitation or calmness they inspired.

I stayed at Golden for six months, broken up by some trips to visit friends but mostly alone in my canyon. During those months I would walk or catch a ride into town (really little more than a stagecoach stop) a few miles away for supplies every few days, sometimes not for a week or two or three. I spent my hours walking, reading, carving faces in small scraps of wood, just watching the trees or the hawks, making a fire, foraging for edible plants, cooking rice, dismantling fences, writing, gardening. I left after the place was destroyed by logging, after I determined I had learned as much as I was able to from solitude and desolation.

  -----

The presence of that forest was indescribable.

I would go for days, sometimes weeks at a time with no human contact. The dimensions of loneliness were unfathomable. Yet somehow, within a couple of weeks after returning from any excursions into more inhabited zones, I would awaken to a presence in the place. A Presence. Really. A pervasive experience of communion with a vast ancient being contained in that physical canyon, a moody jealous majestic empress,[4] a non-human non-animal life whose intense demand for attention sharpened all senses. Comfort and discomfort intermingled. No spite, no judgment, but deep sorrow and yearning as well as ticklish whispers and giggles.

Yes, the human mind concocts fantastic visions when stressed by extreme solitude. Yes, she was real. Yes, she was there. And then mercenaries of absent industrialists killed her.

  -----

It’s not as if the place had been untouched by humans, even by possibly inconsiderate, self-serving humans in the past. For a few thousand years, at least, the area had been within the wider hunting and fishing grounds of peoples who were displaced and largely destroyed between 1803 and the 1950s, including through an official, recent policy of “termination” which stripped tribal status from most groups in the region, essentially to impoverish and demoralize the people whose ancestors had been there, and who were the legitimate inhabitants of the place.[5]

Coyote Creek had been mined by Euro-Americans since the 1850s, and the town of Golden was incorporated in 1890. At some point this spot on the creek had a population of two hundred or so, and was known for having two churches (one of which still stands) and no saloons.[6] Gold mining continued to be the mainstay of the small settlements here well into the 20th century.[7] By the 1950s logging had surpassed gold mining economically. But it was not until the late 1980s (and particularly the first week of May, 1989) that some of the steeper slopes of the original forest were cut.

  -----

I’m not opposed to cutting trees. As a carpenter and woodworker, I acknowledge my complicity in the practice, and that using wood can be reasonable and justifiable, often preferable to other alternatives. But cutting trees is vastly different from destroying forests, or damaging otherwise living places. Most of the pressure toward mining timber lands (as opposed to thinning or selective cutting, which need not be so destructive) is of course economic, and intertwined with national and international market dynamics. It has much more to do with the insane overdevelopment of speculative housing sprawl that paved over so much farmland and otherwise disrupted formerly living places in the past 40 or 50 years—now revealed as the land pollution that it is—than with any interest in preserving local jobs (or really anything else local), as the conflict was unfortunately framed during much of that era.

On a smaller scale, it is truly possible to work more deliberately and considerately, in a way that is less destructive of places and resources, with attention to the origins of the materials and to better ways of using them. This is interrelated with designing particular structures that integrate the needs of the users and the place, that have a feeling of aliveness, that provide a sense of refuge—that can truly become homes—the crafting of dwellings.

 -----

In the two decades since I left that place, I've meandered and bounced down a few different roads. But I always come back to that moment, that sense of presence and sanctuary, even though the literal place was destroyed. Perhaps it's more accurate to say I left part of myself there, and at the same time some piece of it got stuck in me. 



[1] There was a pay phone in front of the general store that I’d make use of every week or two or three, mostly to reassure my parents I was doing fine—which I suppose I was, overall, though it’s much more convoluted than that.

[2] My profound affection for the people I knew in those moments has not diminished, though most of them have since drifted or faded from my known world.

[3] Though I did have a battery-powered radio I turned on occasionally, which informed me, among other things, of the oil spill in Prince William Sound and of the demonstrations and massacre in Tiananmen Square.

[4] And I do recognize that using feminine pronouns here has intimations of an old and not necessarily accurate convention. I’m not contending that nature is somehow more female, and culture somehow more male. I’m only referring to this particular presence in this particular place, based on getting to know a living being directly, and sensing the character of that being as feminine. Other people who have known the place concur with this perception. I realize there’s no objective standard for evaluating the truth of the assertion, or of my direct experience whatsoever. I can only say that many people through the ages, of practically every background, have had similar experiences, and that certain features of these experiences will be recognizable as familiar, to the point where consistencies could be charted. What makes it possible to experience such phenomena is not a matter of abandoning a scientific skepticism—in fact that remains a useful navigational tool—but simply clearing away the chatter of a restless mind.

[5] Though some groups have revived in recent decades (notably the Klamath and Modoc, themselves confederations of smaller bands), for the most part the end of the world is something that already happened for the indigenous peoples of the region. Of the Takelma, Latagwa and Calapooya who likely traversed this creek and canyons—there were once salmon up here, within the memory of living residents—and tracked deer through the hills, the Latagwa at least are resisting reports of their own demise.

[6]  “Perhaps unique among Western annals” according to the Josephine County Historical Society, though it seems fair to suspect other settlements in the West may have been similarly influenced by Temperance Societies and their ilk. The extant church building was originally established by a group of Campbellites, who were apparently among the millennialist sects of the 1870s (largely in the northeastern U.S.), who believed either that Jesus would arrive momentarily or that he in fact had already arrived—though he only appeared to a select few.

[7] “Placer activity on Coyote Creek began in the 1850s. Abandoning these claims during the Idaho Gold Rush of 1860, the men returned to find them being worked by about five hundred Chinese for ten cents per day plus rice. The Chinese contractor yielded possession.”

When Gertrude Stein wrote about Oakland that "there is no there there," she was, as far as she presumed, talking specifically about the house she had grown up in, which was, in fact, no longer there when she returned to visit after many years in Europe. So for once at least she felt the peculiar unease of exile, of the disappearance of her childhood home. 

Of course many presumably sensible, reasonable people have imagined she was referring to Oakland in general. And even if they're aware of the detail, they may consider this the correct interpretation, in spite of her intention. 

There's a certain vagueness that's discernible in Oakland, a disorientation, a sense of placelessness. A palpable malaise that isn't simply an artifact of economic hardship or race politics, though of course those are both factors. (Here the proud defenders of Oaktown will commence to harangue me, so before you slam me against a concrete wall, let me just say I'm not trying to insult the place, I'm actually yearning for the possibility of healing it. Of course there are many reasons to love Oakland--all sorts of funky, even some swanky, neighborhoods with various laid-back attitudes or shiny urban intentions, great Cambodian food, a fabulous record store that never gave up on vinyl, the grandest Art Deco theater remaining anywhere, one of the premier jazz venues in the country, all sorts of homegrown art, music, atmosphere, culture, what have you.)

I'm actually getting at something deeper than the everyday traffic and slander, something underneath all the politics and struggle. Because whoever feels like there's something missing has a point. There is something missing. It starts with a pair of trees.

In the early days of the place, the tallest redwoods ever known stood on the ridge of Oakland's hills among a grove that spanned a swath from East Oakland to Moraga Valley. There were two particularly grand redwoods that towered into the sky so prominently that mariners making their way into the Golden Gate would get their bearings, twenty miles out at sea, by aligning their sights with the two trees to follow a clear path through the treacherous rocks and shoals. So the pair of trees were a beacon, a landmark in the most literal sense, guiding pilgrims and opportunists eastward into the safe haven.

We don't know what those particular trees meant to the tens of thousands of inhabitants who lived along these shores for thousands of years, but it's safe to say that removing them--they were logged by 1860--was one detail in the ongoing devastation of this land, which has left it contaminated, buried beneath layers of concrete and indifference, to the point where good intentions will not be sufficient to correct the damage. And that damage is psychic and spiritual fully as much as it is physical. We need a focal point to return to, to orient us, remind us of the non-human dimension. Disorientation is a disease, a displacement, a version of exile. We are unsettled, homeless.


An article in the NY Times about builder Dan Phillips ("One Man's Trash ...") cuts to one of the core issues of green architecture and sustainability: if we can't afford it, it won't be sustainable. Isn't this obvious? So in the midst of all sorts of companies producing and marketing innovative products that might even be useful, here's someone using salvaged materials for practically every aspect of the houses he builds. Beyond that, he will only work for people who work on the houses themselves--the sort of investment that keeps people connected to their places, and perhaps provides an experience of the place with an inkling of the sacred. (Here's a direct link to his website The Phoenix Commotion.)

Reuse of building materials has a venerable history. For many centuries, Sardinian builders have appropriated stones from the Neolithic nuraghe structures that dot the countryside. The boomtowns of San Francisco, Sacramento, Benecia and assorted other Gold Rush settlements began with dismantled ships that more often than not had simply been abandoned on arrival. In many parts of the world, the process is simply a given: you use what's accessible. Beyond convenience, it's a matter of necessity. But even where it's not an economic or logistical necessity, at a certain point, it's also a matter of integrity, to use what's at hand instead of generating so much waste.

Let's not forget Gandhi and Laurie Baker. Among Gandhi's dictums was the suggestion to only use materials found within a five-mile radius. (Compare that with the LEED criteria for "local sources"--their certification process recognizes a 500-mile radius as close enough. Of course, we're talking about vastly different infrastructures between India of the mid-1900s and, say, California in the early 2000s. But still, is Winnemucca, Nevada, reasonably local to San Francisco?) The British-born architect Laurie Baker accepted an invitation from Gandhi in the mid-1940s and spent the rest of his life in India designing and building structures that emphasized simplicity, beauty, affordability, appropriateness to local conditions and use of salvaged and local (in Gandhi's sense) materials. He left a legacy of devotion to Right Livelihood that deserves serious consideration.

Take Your Time

| 1 Comment | No TrackBacks
The whole neurotic business of striving toward one accomplishment after another with no pause for a cigarette (at least since tobacco lost its status as a valid pastime--makes me wonder if there's still an Israeli brand called TIME, as there was in 1987) or to dip several toes in the cool, shady creek or, for that matter, to give up on something more or less proven to be useless and not actually even very delicious--how is it possible to get anywhere important when it's hardly possible to get a simple thing done well?

The point is that endless production of useless artifacts (not actually deserving even that description, for the most part) gets in the way of taking it easy (Walt Whitman called this "loafing"), which is not the same as laziness--ease suggests a light touch: this is important. Ease is a necessary condition for generous reverence (and reverent generosity), a receptive atmosphere in which it's possible to hear the crickets and not choke on the coffee. Very important. Taking is more problematic: at least a few ancient attitudes about it are distinctly negative--grasping after wind, greedily pulling too many fish into your bucket, that sort of thing. But still, taking ease really is entirely different than clawing your way through someone else's wad of cash (keep your hands off of my stash ...).

How long does it take to make something? How long does it take to make something better, even modestly better than average? I'll let you know as soon as I finish this instrument I'm working on. It's the harp/santur that gets mounted on/in the south wall of the earthen cottage I've built here, and it's not done yet. In all honestly, it will probably be done in a couple of weeks, more or less. (Not what you were expecting to hear? thought maybe months, or years?) Not a major burden. Previous instruments have taken me anywhere from two or three weeks to two or three years. My favorite luthier, Fred Carlson, builds about one instrument a year, more or less, as his full-time profession. In his case, the question would be more reasonably, "How long does it take to make something outrageously beautiful?" (A couple of years ago I interviewed Fred about his creative/constructive process--I hope to publish some version of that one of these days, with his permission.)

Americans are famously materialistic about time. That comes from the Puritans, probably, or perhaps from the Germans (who have more descendants in this country than any other group). But that first modern American (though he leaned toward France late in life) old Ben (or Poor Richard or whoever) got it wrong, if he was being serious: time is in fact not money (except perhaps in Berkeley, where the local currency known as BREAD takes an Hour as the basic unit of exchange ... if it's still in existence). Okay, perhaps it is, more or less. But not really. What I mean is, the less time has to be related to money, the more valuable it becomes. Our time is precious especially when it is not being bought and sold. As soon as it's commodified, it flattens--has fewer dimensions, becomes dry and linear, doesn't show you much that's inspiring to your life, to your deepest being.

We try to package our moments, stuff too much into prefabricated cartons, received notions of the right way to do things so often resting on no real authority but convention. Stiff habitual patterns. But the devious winds of the open road scatter all those annoying styrofoam shells every which way, no regard for the best intentions. So take your time and play with it. Have a playful attitude. The only reasonable perspective.

About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries from September 2009 listed from newest to oldest.

May 2009 is the previous archive.

October 2009 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

  • OpenID accepted here Learn more about OpenID