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.
