[ email | Criticism/analysis of society | Travelling | Projects | Goncharenko centre: Talks/discussions » Talk/discussion: Goncharenko centre 2025-7-13: Minimalism part 3: Optimal minimalism: Methods to get you to sort out your life and why maximal minimalism is not minimalism! + other topics ]

Goncharenko centre 2025-7-13: Minimalism part 3: Optimal minimalism: Methods to get you to sort out your life and why maximal minimalism is not minimalism! + other topics

Minimalism part 3: Optimal minimalism: Methods to get you to sort out your life and why maximal minimalism is not minimalism! + other topics

Interestingly, I talked to a guy in a hostel in Poltava in 2016 and one of the topics we talked about was minimalism. He was an American who married and lived in Ukraine, but who got divorced. He spent time with his child in Poltava and stayed in a single room. I got talking to him and he told me a bit about the issues he had, also about for example entering Ukraine with a car but that he later left with it and still Ukrainian government wanted to tax him for it. We got talking about minimalism too. I don't recall how we got to this topic but probably from something that I said about life in NL, that I felt people there are too busy with 'stuff': With obtaining the newest phone, a new car, etc. He then mentioned a guy who had only 25 possessions... Yes, you can live like that with very few possessions, but is it optimal?

[ Interlude: It is interesting that I had so many interesting talks in Ukraine and emails/messages to/from people in Ukraine, about various topics that later turn out to give useful examples... ]

I talked with Vlad about the topic of minimalism in the meeting earlier that day, and he told me his views. For me minimalism was about just keeping and buying what I really need or that are useful, interesting, so not just buying things that I want without there being a use for them. I consider possessions mostly as tools in life, not as goals to own (there are a few exceptions). Further I don't think minimalism should be the goal, but it is the result of realising that only buying and keeping what is useful and really interesting to you, is useful in your life (there are exceptions such as nostalgic items). Therefore for me minimalism was always natural and I didn't need to think about it.

Interestingly the woman whom I mentioned before in a few meetings, from Kharkov, was (and probably still is) into minimalism. For example when we met in 2018 she said that she gave books away after reading them. To me this was strange because re-reading is usually useful, you will not get everything in a book directly the first time you read a book, and you can read it from a different perspective (once you understand more about various topics, you then see everything in a different light), or you can keep it as a reference because you don't remember everything... I mentioned some of these points but she didn't really respond to it. These points are why it is useful to keep books that you found interesting. You may think about only keeping a PDF on the computer, but books have advantages such as quickly glancing through them which is faster than with a PDF on the PC. Though where this is most noticeable is not that important, it is with catalogues with pictures and text, then the pictures guide you quickly to what you were looking for (the pictures give a context for searching, whether to go farther or back, whether the currently shown objects are not far away in number of pages to the object that you are looking for. At least, that is how it works for me).

So what I did in my youth, I think from when I was ca. 13-14: Put everything that I wanted to throw away in a corner, then after going over everything, I threw all that away. There was no problem selecting things: If a book is not good enough, it would go. If something (something for a hobby, anything) was not good enough, it would go. I had no problem selecting things, and I think it was because I always analysed everything while using it. So the "it's not very good" view on a book for example, came not after re-reading when thinking "I want to have less stuff in my house", but this view was formed already immediately when reading the book, and thus the selection process really had already been done in my mind.

I don't recall specifics at the moment except for a few books, but I imagine gifts for example from relatives for my birthday, that were not what I liked, were high on the list of "throw away" (or give away). [ Some of these relatives gave gifts that they liked, rather than imagine what I would like... ]

After university I gathered more things, as everyone does, but it was never really difficult to select what to keep. I kept things in particular based on whether I like it, whether it is useful, whether is has some emotional attachment. Further I kept a lot of things quite well organised.

You may now be interested in what I have in storage in NL:

• writings, books, from my time at primary and secondary schools
• writings, books, from my time at university
• hobbies (computers, computer games)
• Magazines about some hobbies such as computers, bicycles
• Books on various topics (a lot of them about physics and mathematics)
• PC parts (from older and newer PCs)
• tools for hobbies, such as to repair electronics and to modify pocket lamps [ examples: soldering station and accessories for that, multimeter for measuring voltages, temperatures etc., battery charger/analyser for various types of battery, all of these are not the hobbies but tools used for the hobbies ]
• Tools for house maintenance/repair
• Tools for bicycle maintenance
• bicycle parts for repair/maintenance and part to try out (to compare with other parts to see which works best, for example lighting, grips, handlebars)
• bicycle components for reference: some parts I kept and keep as a reference even if they are not good, so when they are not to my liking. In particular I did that when I still sold bicycle lighting and saddles, I would keep many of the lights/dynamos/saddles that I didn't like, just to have as a reference for comparison with other lights/dynamos, saddles). Since then I still kept a few examples of bad lights, and I keep a few dynamo hubs that I don't like for a possible future project (otherwise I would sell them) but I don't keep any saddles that I don't like.

In my storage everything is organised in boxes, most boxes contain 1 type of item (such as magazines, books, bicycle parts (and bicycle parts is subdivided into several boxes, lighting, brake parts, saddles, etc.), PC parts, PC games, electronics).

I would say organisation is the first part of keeping things as simple as possible, and it is very useful even if you are not going to minimise what you have! But if you minimise your belongings: Keep what is useful, not just what you think is absolutely needed. Your life should be simple, but not too simple! For example, if you have a computer and only keep the housing and keyboard (and not the motherboard, CPU, hard disc etc.), it won't work, it needs a certain complexity!

The 2nd part is: Evaluate what you want, during use, during reading. So already think about what you like/dislike and whether it has been of use. Things that I don't like, or don't use, go on the list of "sell, give away, throw away" in my mind, immediately. Taking action to actually sell it or give it away can take some time.

Whether something is worth repairing is something you can think about. History can be a guide here (to decide what to do with things): Was it useful or was something similar you had useful?

If I don't like something then I will sell it unless it is cheap and not worth the effort to sell. If it is broken then I think whether it would be worth it to fix it, for myself or to then sell or give away. As to clothes: I use all clothes if I like how they feel. Trousers should not be too tight and they should not be too hot. Some trousers I don't use because even in winter I sweat too quickly in them and then they feel sticky, I hate that, and then don't use them. A friend of a relative wanted to get rid of various clothes, he didn't like some pattern on a t-shirt for example. To me it didn't matter, I am not looking at myself in the mirror with it to judge it! :) I use such shirts, even if I dislike colour or patterns, they will be good for example to use while working in the garden or for some DIY work with tools (in which situation the clothes may get damaged but then I don't care about that [ One attendee said the same thing about old clothes or clothes that you don't like, then just use them for cleaning or something else where they may get dirty or damaged ]). With trousers I am more picky: They need to be loose fitting and comfortable, not too heavy. With any clothes that I don't like they get washed and then put into clothes recycling containers. This can take a while but it is not a burden if they are stored somewhere in a box.

In the video that I showed in the previous meeting from youtube, 2 guys talked about minimalism and said they threw away everything that they hadn't used for 6 months. This is a far too short time, especially for things that are used say in the garden once a year or for house repairs. I have a lot of bicycle tools too of which some are used rarely, and some of them I don't need for my current bicycle such as a bottom bracket tool that I have (I have several types of bottom bracket tools, for several types of bottom bracket). Why get rid of it if it doesn't take up much space and if you could use it in a few years' time? (possibly not even for yourself but to help fix a relative's or a friend's bicycle!). Getting rid of those tools means that if I would need it in future, then I would need to do effort and it would take me a lot of time to reacquire them. Note also that if you think all the time about what to throw away, that costs effort! The purpose of minimalism is to keep your mind and your house uncluttered. If you organise things and they are not a mental burden, as with tools (I never felt that with any tools, for the bicycle or for house repairs, such as drill, belt sander, angle grinder, jig saw), then why even think about getting rid of them? Selling and then buying them again later costs more money, and unless you buy the exact same tool again (it may not be available any more!) it will cost a lot of effort to search for (to select) what to buy, you then need to do the whole search process anew! And that is not something I find interesting, nor useful, nor fun. So going for ultimate minimalism is not minimalistic in effort, it takes more effort than keeping things!

[ Something that helps me with not having to get rid of much is that I prefer to buy high quality stuff. This is so for my hobbies, interests, tools for house repair etc. Some tools are cheap but work well, the expensive things are almost always satisfactory. Of what I bought in my youth, many of the items that I bought are now collector's items :) In contrast, a relative said that everything she has from her youth is not worth much. This doesn't mean of course that those items were bad or not enjoyable to use or play with, but seeking out high quality stuff often works well. This may be an interesting topic for the future: Buying cheap or expensive items, what is more useful? ]

I buy things that I think will be really useful, and that will be good quality, and that way I rarely get disappointed and don't need to sell or give away much.

What the guys in the video mentioned, that after 6 months you get bored with 'things': Not so in my case with almost everything I have, because the 'things' that I have are like tools, to be used, or to keep as reference, and only some are are of interest in some way but which do not have direct use, rarely it is something decorative (of which you do get tired after some time). In most cases I am not 'looking at those things' but using them.

I mentioned this to another friend who was present at the talk I had with Vlad. I said that I don't have things for decoration in my house, and he mentioned that for women that is different. True, men are more simple, they don't need decorations. I could have a painting on my wall if I really liked it but in my house in NL and I had nothing on the walls, no flowers in pots (why should I? I had a garden! I mentioned to a relative that plants belong in the garden, not in the house where you need to do more effort to water them etc.) and in my house in Ukraine I have no decorations except a sort of painting used (by the seller of the house) to hide some holes where a TV was mounted :)

As with everything, there is balance. Keep life simple, but not too simple.

With this I come to Vlad's comments:

Vlad said that he organised things in boxes, there are several categories:
1. stuff he didn't want. Maybe sell it, maybe give it away.
2. stuff that needs repair. Maybe throw away, or fix it and then sell it or give it away.
3. stuff of which he didn't know yet what to do with it.
4. Stuff to keep, several boxes:
-- documents (diplomas, official documents)
-- diaries.
-- stuff that he needed.
-- nostalgic items.
-- herbs/food related to making recipes.

Vlad further mentioned that he read about methods to get rid of things as he had trouble to do it himself.

One method he read about and tried was not to think about it, but to feel it. I said that that makes sense because "Feeling is a higher level, more abstract type of thinking", [ which is not about a precise answer for things, but a direction for your wishes + experiences + personality ] so by examining your feeling about that item you know whether you want to keep it or not.

For items that need repair think about this: If it were fixed, would you then use it? If not then sell it or give it away and let someone else fix it (unless you want to fix it to give it to a friend or relative, or if you want to sell it and it is worth much more when it is fixed, then fixing it first could be worth it).

I told a relative about getting rid of things that I would keep anything that is nostalgic. But if you have no such feeling, and the item is not useful or you think it won't be useful, then you can get rid of it. Regarding my old hobbies: I kept most of that stuff. Regarding books from my youth: I have a bunch of them that are in some way interesting, related to hobbies or athletics.

Why maximal minimalism is not minimalism

If you minimise what you have all the time then that costs a lot of work. I think similar to what Covey writes in his book "7 habits of highly effective people". He advocates making lists to organise your life and to achieve goals. I felt at some point in the book that you would become a list making robot! Then not long after that in the book, Covey wrote that you would not become a list making robot!!! What can you deduce from this coincidence?

You can deduce that almost certainly he had someone proofread the book who gave the same criticism to him that I thought about this way of living... [ and he wanted to counter that criticism, but he failed in that ]

This costs a lot of work, and I found that making lists of things to do for me never worked. The lists became longer and most of the points never got done. Why? Because those points were not actually important. Life itself guides you to do what you need to do (or should do) and what needs to be done most of all usually gets done first or at least fairly quickly. [ The only thing for which I use lists are things or food to buy in a shop so that I don't forget something ].

Then when you realise at some point that you need something, that you threw away, or that you sold, then you need to do effort to select what you want to buy, it takes time before you then can do what you wanted to do, and it costs you more money than if you had kept what you had. Therefore what is needed, is really the same as with everything in life: Balance! Simplify your life but don't make it too simple. A certain complexity and amount of stuff works better.

A systematic look at the options and actions

Categories of items, and actions to take:

• 1. You need it, or at least it is very useful in your life (example: An electric kettle is something you don't need, you could heat water in a pan on the stove, but it is useful).
  • 1.1 If it is working put it in the pile of 'keep'.
  • 1.2 If it is not working:
    • 1.2.1 if you can and want to do the effort (or pay for a repair): repair it/pay someone to repair it.
    • 1.2.2 if you can't or don't want to repair it: Give it away, throw it away or sell it, then a buy a different new one (usually of a different type).
    • 1.2.3 If you can't decide yet on whether to repair or replace for example related to costs: If you can live without it for a while (example use a pan instead of electric kettle, more hassle, but it works) then put it apart and think about it.
• 2. You don't need it:
  • 2.1 (You don't need it but): You want it. [ examples: nostalgic items, collecting things, or you already have 2 bicycles but you want a 3rd because you like the different types of bicycles)
  • 2.2 You don't know yet whether you want it: Use the feeling method, or put it in a box, and let your subconscious thinking give you a decision later (could be a week, months or a year).
  • 2.3 (You don't need it and): you don't want it:
    
    • 2.3.1 (You don't need it and you don't want it): it is working/undamaged: Sell or give away or throw away.
    • 2.3.2 (You don't need it and you don't want it and): it needs repair: If you don't want to repair, then immediately sell or give away or throw away.
    • 2.3.3 (You don't need it and you don't want it and): it needs repair: You could repair it first (or let it get repaired by someone else) to then give away to for example a friend, or you could then sell it for a better price than if it is in the state of 'needs repair'.

Normally you go through the above list of possibilities automatically, no need to think much. I never thought about things to keep them or not for specific reasons: Items are one of:
1. I need it (keep)
2. I like it (keep)
3. It is nostalgic (keep)
4. I don't want to keep it (throw away, give away, sell)
If it needs fixing I will do it myself if possible in most cases.

Part 2: A bit more on scams

Telegram thread. Screenshots. Crypto. Either advertising or a scam. The claims about profits are definitely fake. All participants supposedly made 300$ each time by putting in $1000. Someone contacted me supposedly asking a question but I was sure, and from his comments this became clear it was indeed so, he is part of the scam. The scam is something of taking money instead of investing, or just advertising for a trader to do it for you. If they don't make money "that is how it works". There are many possible ways this continues but I will not pursue it...

For another time: Scams: Louis Rossman: Military. Add video comments about repair. I would call this 'shark' behaviour.

Part 3: What doesn't work from books (maybe for the next meeting)

The examples in Dale Carnegie's "How to win friends and influence people" and Covey's "7 habits of highly effective people": They don't work. Look at the one in Carnegie's book, of talking along with a banker to get him to give a loan. This just doesn't work. There is a similar issue with the example in Covey's book of a software company not requiring a contract breach payment with a bank, risking their future since they work with a small number of clients and then Covey states it works because the bank later gave them a bigger contract. Let us get things straight: That was pure luck. It was not a repayment, because banks and bankers are usually uncaring, emotion poor, following rules. They do not reward you for not keeping to the rules that were set up in a contract, if you do something in their favour. They would give a new contract to another firm if there is one that is cheaper. A friend of mine said about the examples in Covey's book not working: "Yes, but the book is 30 years old". I replied: This method didn't work then, it doesn't work now. It never worked because bankers follow rules (and they don't care about people). It is an exception that is given as an example of how his view of 'getting something back' works in general. It is nonsense.

People talking about meditation and writing books about such topics don't properly explain and they are 'preaching to the choir', i.e. it works only for those who already have this view that that is useful. When you look at books like "Huh" by Berthod Gunster and "The power of now" by Eckhart Tolle, then it is clear that these people cannot properly explain why you should do what they say makes sense in life. What they say does make sense in life but they just can't explain it! There are logical reasons for various things that that I explained in my list of life, and that are similar in essence to what people in such books write but these people don't grasp it deeply enough to be able to explain it and for example Eckhart Tolle talks about 'nuggets of wisdom for which not everyone may be ready'. That is BS! Everyone can be ready for it, if they are told the method, and there is a method (my method, I've not seen it described anywhere else) as I explained. This is similar to just about grasping something and then trying to explain it to someone else. It doesn't work. You need a better command of the subject matter. For this reason a teacher need a university degree to teach the last 3 years of secondary school in the Dutch education system (and that is probably true for most western countries)...

Part 4: An adventure story

To be told in the meeting. I didn't get round to it. Next time.

Post meeting notes:

In the section about the scam channel on youtube, someone mentioned traders and that the thread may be advertising. Yes, those are people who always make money, whether you win or lose. And that the thread is advertising is one of the options, with of course fake profit margins. You don't make 300$ when investing 1000$ in a short time.

I asked about books to be discussed that may not work and 2 people mentioned the book "Think and grow rich", by Napoleon Hill. The criticism they gave was that it is not directly applied to what you do. I read the book partly several years ago and thought 'nonsense'. What the book says is that you need to imagine what you want, write it down (and then read every morning or so). Will it work? It is similar to "The secret", a book and film. Long ago my sister asked me about "the secret" and I said immediately that it is about psychology: You start to put conscious effort into reaching some goal, then that means that you will be looking for opportunities, and you will notice similar minded people whom you wouldn't notice if you have a different mind set. These similar minded people can give you information and opportunities which makes it more likely that you will reach such a goal. There is an important saying about life: "Birds of a feather flock together", which means: type searches for (the same) type... The book/film "the secret" claims that 'the universe wants to give you what you want', which is nonsense. The universe doesn't want anything. People want things.

Someone else suggested "Flowers for Algernon", not really related to topics here about a book that you can criticise about something that doesn't work, but looks interesting, a science fiction story about increasing intelligence and then losing it again. I mentioned that it may be similar to the film "Lawnmower man". I will see. I said that I will read it before the next meeting, if she reads Covey's "7 habits of highly effective people" and tells her criticism. In fact everyone should read that book. It is very good practice to read a book and think about what works, what doesn't and for what reason. This is not just 'psychological' or 'philosophical', but this gives a useful skill that you can apply to everything in life.

Copyright W.H.Scholten, 2025. To contact me you can email or send a message via telegram (via phone +31648816383), or via vk.com (https://vk.com/w.h.scholten, which I don't really use but I will get notified of messages from there). I don't use: facebook, linkedin, twitter.