2010 YAHOO! I finally finished the Teahouse!

After three arduous years of continuous back-breaking labor, my epic backyard project is FINALLY complete.  The Taj Mahal and Sistine Chapel can step aside, there's a new cultural icon on the block, the Tea-House/lawnmower shed.

When we moved into our house in 2001, the old potting shed in the corner of our backyard was a quaint, cute little space where we stored the lawnmower and wheelbarrow.  Eventually, it became engulfed in Coral Passionflowers transforming it into a lush, beautiful, (quaint) storage space.














Suzanne and Gizmo lounging by the shed, circa 2005.



 
The legendary freeze of '07 turned our lovely storage space into a disgusting eyesore.

Right about that time, my dearest friend Joal upgraded his woodshed into this magnificent Saloon in Astoria, OR.  The Saloon, and the aforementioned Taj Mahal became my inspirations, along with Suzanne's love of Japanese teahouses.  Thus was born the great Tea-House lawnmower shed project.


It took me a couple weeks to raze the old shed and make new foundation footings before Joal came to visit for JUST ONE WEEK, September 2007.  In that week, we rented a truck, purchased all the materials, including enough lumber to replicate the Empire State Building, and essentially built the Tea-House.  Somehow, inexplicably, Joal did this with almost no written notes;  Zeus H. Houseguest! how DO people do that?!?



This photo shows one of the difficult set-backs.   Suzanne's been working her guts out (like us) for the last three days, (the first week of the new school year), and just before leaving for work, she has come out to see our progress in the light of day.  Naturally, she's shocked and frightened to see the Empire State Building in our backyard and requests a size reduction.  Joal and I had performed the Herculean task of installing the rather sizable main cross beams the evening before, but we resolutely and cheerfully took them down and cut off 1 1/2 feet from the support beams.  No problemo, onward and upward! (or downward, in this case).  Of course, everyone except Suzanne will now have to duck to come through the doors of the Tea-House.
 
I was nothing more than an apprentice to the great master architect/designer/carpenter. That's him in the background, trying to figure out what to do with that 2x4.  Right after this photo was taken, I told him where to put it. 

My dirty little secret is that Joal built the Tea-House, I just did the finish work.



Day 5, that comical look on Joal's face is because we've just suffered a devastating visit from a neighbor threatening to sic the dreaded Santa Cruz planning department on us.  So, we 'postemptively' visited them ourselves, and found out how to make the Tea-House legal, (DANG! why didn't we think of doing that in the first place!).  He's holding a brand new reciprocating saw, (the ULTIMATE in destructive woodworking tools), and we're chopping the walls off and moving them in about 4 feet from the back and side to comply with county code.  The decking on the outside can stay, and that will fulfill the ostensible purpose of the shed:  lawnmower and wheelbarrow storage.

The task of chopping walls down and moving them struck me as insurmountable.  Heretofore, I had learned volumes about carpentry from Joal, but I feel grateful and privileged to have witnessed his grace and optimism (not to mention skill) in meeting this absurd challenge.  It was truly a thing of beauty.  Wish I could do that. 

Then Joal left.  For the next year, with many helpful emails, phone calls and even faxed full-size paper templates, I managed to finish putting up the complicated roof.  My left foot is almost touching one of the four corner up-turned "hip-rafters."  To conform to that distinctly Asian curl, I'm installing redwood bender boards, usually used for separating curving flower beds or gardens from lawns.  Ultra-labor-intensive;  each and every bender board required at least three trips up and down for measuring and sawing.  I discovered all over again how much fun it is working in high, difficult places.  If only I knew what I was doing!



I also learned how to put in a cedar shake roof.  So far, no leaks.



Exquisite wood-shavings.  Over the course of the following year, I learned how to use a plane.  For my first of seven Shoji screen doors, I worked with this classic American Stanley bench plane (given to me by Pops, Suzanne's Grandfather).  Then I stepped up (WAY UP, $200, the most expensive hand-tool I've ever IMAGINED, let alone purchased), to a "kanna" the traditional Japanese plane.  According to my Shoji "bible" by Jay van Arsdale, "the smooth shear of the wood fibers by the razor-sharp blade combines with the friction heat of the gliding surface to burnish and seal in the wood's natural oils."  Consequently, no need for shellac or finish of any kind.  Woodworking with that creamy white Port Orford Cedar is heavenly, because the grain is so clean and even, and the scent is like an overwhelming evergreen forest, AHHHH!



Employing a combination of Japanese hand-tools and modern electric tools, I continually struggled to improve my nascent "joinery" techniques. Pictured is an embarrassingly sloppy version of a "suicide" (one-way trip) wedged mortise and tenon.  Those hand made wedges alleviate the need for glue, nails, screws or other fasteners.  As I've said before, it's old-school, real old.

VICTORY IS MINE! She LIKES it!  (Since this photo was taken, I've covered all of that metal hardware with nice warm wooden valances). 

I am not a serious tea-aficionado, so during these 3 years, I've often wondered what this space was REALLY going to be used for.  A hot-tub? a second office?  From the git-go I was confident that it was, at the very least, a "sculpture" to my love for Suzanne.  Plus, I'm quite fond of woodworking, heh, heh.

At the end of the Tea-House project, I had the delightful pleasure of designing and building this small piece of "furniture."   It is based on the Shinto torii symbol, which "marks the transition from profane to sacred."  Though it reminds me of a high-school wood-shop project, that level of simplicity seems quite appropriate.  I just haven't figured out where the profane stops and the sacred begins!   Note the serendipitous echo between the handle of the tea-pot and the curve of one of my earlier projects in the distance, the arbor-bench.

As I've half-jokingly (and 3/4 SERIOUSLY) said before, "now we have a place to drink tea the way Zeus intended!"All silliness aside, I'm happy to have a beautiful place to store the lawnmower, (in back and on the side, out of sight).  More importantly, the Tea-House is a place to sit, and just be, a sanctuary from the storm of everyday life, with Suzanne, and with each and every one of you, whenever you can join us.  Slowly but surely we're perfecting our tea ceremony skills.  Please come on by.

To see Joal's masterpiece short-film compilation of the first week of construction:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcWRPIMnMwY

Thanks for watching, and if you're at all interested, here are a few more photos:  http://picasaweb.google.com/107161978117607741609/TeaHouseEmail#

Love mas

2008 I BELIEVE I THINK I KNOW

I BELIEVE I THINK I KNOW
By Mark Swanson

“Welfare is destroying the lives of children in this country!” “God
answered our prayers and diverted that hurricane away from our
state.” “Just rub this miraculous cream into your skin and watch the
pounds melt away!” Every day I encounter one outrageous claim
after another, from television, books, and conversations. Whether
they come from politics, philosophy, or science, they seem to demand
a judgement: “right or wrong?” “good or bad?” “true or false?” Are
there any “correct” answers? Are all opinions equally valid? Do we
“know” anything? Is there any point in distinguishing between objects
or ideas, or are we all “one” with the whole universe? I believe that
there are some “right’ answers and there are some basic, practical
methods for finding them. I believe that to be taken seriously,
extreme, outrageous claims require stronger than average evidence.
I believe that some opinions are correct and others are ridiculously
invalid. I believe the the word “truth” has a fairly clear-cut, useful
meaning. I believe that truth is “absolute,” and other things, like
perspectives and beliefs are “relative.” I believe that anyone who
bothers trying to communicate, has bought into the system of
“reason” in spite of their protests otherwise that “the heart” is the real
way to “know.” I believe that truth and happiness may not be
connected. Absurd, false superstitions may be the best route to
happiness and the highest truth may actually lead to depression.
Intellectually, I am certain that my grasp of truth is imperfect, even
though emotionally I feel like I really KNOW. So, while reading my
ideas, remember that I understand that I am doing little more than
defining the words and concepts the way I see them.

If there is a world outside and distinct from our minds, we probably
get most, (or all), of our information about it from our sensory
perceptions. One problem with perceptions is the experience of
illusions, like the stick bending in water. The reason it is a problem is
that we seem to experience two contradictory properties: the stick
cannot be both straight and bent. The law of non-contradiction is the
most fundamental and indisputable rule of reason, so to save the
outside world we need a hypothesis that explains why this illusion is
only an apparent contradiction. Otherwise, some people, like
Eastern spiritualists (“its all Maya”), and philosophical idealists,
(Plato’s cave-allegory), will throw the baby out with the bath-water
and dismiss the outside world altogether. My hypothesis is that all
human experience has, by definition, a “subjective” component
(inside one’s mind), and some human experience has an “objective”
component (outside and independent of one’s mind). Arthur Danto
uses the phrase “vehicles of understanding” to refer to whatever has
meaning or content AND may be true or false. To understand this
“vehicle” is to grasp its meaning, i.e. to know what would be the case
if it were true, (“knowledge” would be to know that it actually WAS
true). There are many words for these vehicles: “pictures” in
imaginations & books; “propositions” are units of language: “ideas”
may be in the head: “impressions” are in the senses. Danto calls all
of these vehicles “representations.” The question is always open
whether there exists something outside the representation; some
representations are only psychological, or as I would say:
“subjective.” For example, I have in front of me my grandfather’s
wedding ring. Using several sense organs I seem to perceive several
properties of this ring: hardness, shininess, silver color, circular
shape, 21 millimeters diameter, and a ringing tone when tapped with
a coin. My representation of this ring is subjective (by definition), but
also objective in a way that my current representation of a 200 mile
tall 5-legged unicorn is NOT. These two representations differ in
some very important ways: 1. “agreement” or “testability:” any
reasonable person would agree with my description of the ring. As
W. V. Quine says: “observation sentences are infallible if we toss out
disingenuous examples and new speakers of the language.” 2.
“Persistence” and “passivity;” each time I go away and come back
the ring is the same, there is no psychological sense of “creating”
these sensations as with the unicorn. My grandfather did not create
the properties of the ring that he experienced, and after he died, its
properties continue in a stable, coherent pattern through time. The
representation of the unicorn is subjective only (dependent on my
mind), while the representation of the ring has both subjective and
objective components (dependent on me and independent FROM
me). If we now designate as “true” any representation that accurately
reflects the objective, independent world, we can make sense of the
apparent contradiction of the bent stick. “Is bent” and “is straight” are
contrary properties and sticks cannot be both. One of the properties
cannot really belong to the stick. The representations of straight and
bent are inconsistent with each other, but one can be objective
or “true,” and the other can be subjective only (without objective
content) or “false;” both representations are “in the mind,” but only
one of them corresponds to an external reality, so the other is false.
This hypothesis of subjective ideas (in our minds) and objective ideas
(in our minds, but accurately reflecting real objects outside our minds)
gives us a clear, simple explanation of illusions that can coherently
explain the outside world.

To say the common sense “real world” is
all an illusion in favor of some unseen other world is an outrageous
claim which counters reason and most (if not all) evidence, though I
concede that the possibility of life after death is a strong motive for
wanting to believe it. For those who would dismiss all perception as
illusion there is a logical reason why this position is just plain silly. To
make sense at all, the very concept of “illusion” must necessarily be
contrasted with the possibility of “authentic” or “real;” to quote
Gordon Ryle, “there can be false coins only where there are coins
made of the proper materials by the proper authorities.” In other
words, some perceptions must be accurate, and in fact, it is in
contrast to these true perceptions that we find out about illusions in
the first place. While I concede that sensory perception is very
susceptible to error, in most cases it is quite easy to find the causes
and to avoid them. All sensory perception is “constructive” to some
degree. It is determined or influenced by beliefs, expectations,
metabolism, and even the specific design of our sense organs. The
only way we could completely escape this limitation of experience,
would be to literally “become” the objects we perceived, i.e. 100%
“objective.” Since this is probably impossible, it is important to
recognize and admit our limitations, while still understanding the
difference between “good” perceptions and “bad” ones, without,
once again, unnecessarily tossing the baby out with the bath-water.
Some perceptions, in good light with good visibility and an alert and
unimpaired observer, lead to reliable and accurate beliefs. Some
perceptions, with bad light, hazy visibility and impaired observers,
(fatigue, alcohol, bad eyesight), lead to incorrect belief. There is a
huge difference between seeing a person clearly in daylight, (and
cross-checking with other senses like hearing them speak, touching
them, and smelling them), and seeing a vague image of a person in
the bushes in the dark with no sensory cross-checking. I admit that
the first type does not guarantee error-free perception, but some
people’s outrageous claims indicate that they don’t realize that the
second type almost DOES guarantee mistakes. On purely logical
grounds it is clear that the first type of perception will yield more
accurate results. We also have vast amounts of empirical evidence
of the first type being more successful in helping us understand and
predict our world than perceptions of the second, vague type.