“”You stand there with your skill, patience, and something even more unique- and you feel alone. It is a critical point in your life; you are afraid, yet you want to go ahead and do it. Certainly the odds are against you. Most of the critics…, are concerned with …art trends, ‘forms’, marketing. Most of them wouldn’t recognize a low tone, subtle, and warm piece of wood if they saw it.
People will buy second and third hand imitations, the current overstatement, the by-the-roadside-charming. They don’t want your quiet, out-of-place message. They are not prepared for it because that sort of thing belies their whole way of living,

…most good craftsmen work by themselves doing all their own work. So if you are a loner, you and your work are different from most. Accept that, and be glad. Either you are the competitive, speculating sort, or you’re not. And if you aren’t, then turn this fact into an asset; it can be the greatest asset of all. Realizing it helps you to stop being afraid, and allows you to be proud of living with what you do best.

Stick to what you believe in; go into the work and listen. Forget about competition. Find a pace and a balance that make sense out of long hours.

Try to reach the level where there is no competitor except excellence itself.””
— James Krenov craft wisdom, 4: Forget about competition
May 19, 2011
Continuing quotes on the craft life from ‘A Cabinet Maker’s Notebook’

"feminism isn’t about militating against something, it’s about negotiating perversity."

aliza, when she visited me at the standard on me and marc’s fourth date   (via karaj)

(via karaj)


“One night I was kneeling in there, looking up at the cross, and the whole place became gold — and suddenly I felt something coming toward me,” she said. “It was this shimmering experience, and I just ran back to my room and said, ‘I love myself.’ It was the first time I remember talking to myself in the first person. I felt transformed.”

The high lasted about a year, before the feelings of devastation returned in the wake of a romance that ended. But something was different. She could now weather her emotional storms without cutting or harming herself.

What had changed?

It took years of study in psychology — she earned a Ph.D. at Loyola in 1971 — before she found an answer. On the surface, it seemed obvious: She had accepted herself as she was. She had tried to kill herself so many times because the gulf between the person she wanted to be and the person she was left her desperate, hopeless, deeply homesick for a life she would never know. That gulf was real, and unbridgeable.

That basic idea — radical acceptance, she now calls it — became increasingly important as she began working with patients, first at a suicide clinic in Buffalo and later as a researcher. Yes, real change was possible. The emerging discipline of behaviorism taught that people could learn new behaviors — and that acting differently can in time alter underlying emotions from the top down.

But deeply suicidal people have tried to change a million times and failed. The only way to get through to them was to acknowledge that their behavior made sense: Thoughts of death were sweet release given what they were suffering.

“She was very creative with people. I saw that right away,” said Gerald C. Davison, who in 1972 admitted Dr. Linehan into a postdoctoral program in behavioral therapy at Stony Brook University. (He is now a psychologist at the University of Southern California.) “She could get people off center, challenge them with things they didn’t want to hear without making them feel put down.”

No therapist could promise a quick transformation or even sudden “insight,” much less a shimmering religious vision. But now Dr. Linehan was closing in on two seemingly opposed principles that could form the basis of a treatment: acceptance of life as it is, not as it is supposed to be; and the need to change, despite that reality and because of it.


“I detest the masculine point of view. I am bored by his heroism, virtue, and honour. I think the best these men can do is not talk about themselves anymore.” V. Woolf

"If desire is repressed, it is because every position of desire, no matter how small, is capable of calling into question the established order of a society: not that desire is asocial, on the contrary. But it is explosive; there is no desiring-machine capable of being assembled without demolishing entire social sectors. Despite what some revolutionaries think about this, desire is revolutionary in its essence — desire, not left-wing holidays! — and no society can tolerate a position of real desire without its structures of exploitation, servitude, and hierarchy being compromised. […] [S]exuality and love do not live in the bedroom of Oedipus, they dream instead of wide-open spaces, and cause strange flows to circulate that do not let themselves be stocked within an established order."

Deleuze and Guattari, Anti-Oedipus, “Psychoanalysis and the Familialism: The Holy Family,” p. 116 (via feelingpolitical)


(via indulge-undermine)

(via indulge-undermine)


What a feminine syntax might be is not simple nor easy to state, because in that would no longer be either subject or object, “oneness” no longer be privileged, there would no longer be proper meanings, proper names, “proper” attributes… Instead, “syntax” would involve nearness, proximity, but in such an extreme form that it would preclude any distinction of identities, any establishment of ownership, thus any form of appropriation.

I think the place where it could best be deciphered is in the gestural code of women’s bodies. But, since their gestures are often paralyzed, or part of the masquerade, in effect, they are often difficult to “read.” Except for what resists or subsists “beyond.” In suffering, but also in women’s laughter. And again: in what they “dare” - do or say - when they are among themselves.

… I could not, I cannot install myself just like that, serenely and directly, in that [masculine] syntactic functioning - and I do not see how any woman could.


— Luce Irigaray, This Sex Which Is Not One (Cornell University Press, 1985), p134-5 (via radtransfem)

(via rachelrabbitwhite)


"Everything Has a Cause
The second part to accepting is accepting that every event and every situation has a cause. Accepting that every event has a cause is the opposite of saying ‘why me’.

Now there’s another opposite for thinking events have causes and that opposite is when you say things should not be the way they are. Now ‘should not be the way they are’ in non-acceptance. We never say that about things we’re accepting or we like or we want. We say ‘should not’ about things that we think aren’t caused - they should not be this way.

So the opposite of should not is should. And once you think that everything has a cause, then you think reality should be the way it is. Acceptance from this point of view is when you say ‘everything should be as it is’.

So I’m going to give you an example. Imagine that there’s a child on a bicycle. And the child is on a hill, and the child is racing down the hill, really fast on his bicycle. And he goes into an intersection and coming the other direction is a car. And that car is driving, let’s say at the speed limit - that car’s not speeding. But the intersection’s unmarked. There’s not a stop sign, there’s not a stop light and there’s not a yield sign.

So we’re going to imagine the kid is racing down the hill. The car’s coming the other way and they meet up right in the middle of the intersection. The car hits the kid and the kid dies.

If you say it should not have happened, I would say ‘well, it should have’. There wasn’t a stop sign. There wasn’t a stop light. There wasn’t a yield sign. The kid was going fast. The car was going the speed limit. Something blocked the driver’s view. The child was a child. Children go fast.

If you wanted to say that should not have happened, you would have to create causes for it not to happen. You’d have to do something about all those causes.

That’s an example of accepting reality as it is and accepting that reality has causes. Now, do you think I approve of this? Do you think you think I think it’s good? Is acceptance saying it’s good that the child got hit by the car? No. Is that what I want? No. I were the child’s mother am I going to go on a campaign, get stops signs put there or make the speed limit lower? Yes. Will I teach my child not to race down hills? I will certainly try. “

But, until the causes are different, that event should happen. It was caused.