Goncharenko centre 2025-9-28: Essentialism + stoicism + other topics + post event notes, in particular about why this is the last meeting for now at the Goncharenko centre

Post event notes: See farther down on this page, partially mixed earlier.

Translation: auto translation of this page into Ukrainian

This meeting was not structured by a text I had written beforehand. I wanted to show some videos from NL [ that didn't happen, so instead I wanted to do that at the meeting at my house on 2025-10-4 if enough people wanted to come ], talk a bit more about the book "Essentialism" (by McKeown), and perhaps other topics.

In the meeting I heavily criticised the book "Essentialism" which gave as response from one attendee that I don't like any such books. Well, yes, I don't, and there are good reasons for strongly criticising this book (and all other 'self help' books that I read so far).

I sort of digressed but also not, about charities: It seems that what happens in NL with charities, doesn't happen in UA. In NL people who are collecting for charities often come round to houses and apartments (these are usually unpaid volunteers), and ask for donations, or they do it on the street, talk to people, then ask for donations (the latter are often paid workers).

Example: I was in Amsterdam several years ago. A woman approached me (Oh, no! It is for charity, I immediately knew it). She told me about the cause, which was to make children in a hospital go to have fun excursions or something like that (this 'charity' was possibly 'Clini clowns'). [ I was not impressed. Being in hospital is not a problem, it only feels that way if people say "Oh you poor kid!" or if they are there for a long time perhaps. I think it was a bit later when I was getting closer to finishing house renovations that I decided to not even contemplate donating anything, I would do that only in Ukraine where help is needed far more than in NL ].

She then said/asked: So, for how much can I write you down to donate each month? I said that I was not going to do that. I was willing to donate 10 euro cash, but instead of that she wanted a small amount per month automatically deducted from my bank account. I didn't want that for several reasons, one of them was that I was going to leave NL. I mentioned that I had plans to move to Ukraine and that I don't want any steady deductions from my bank account, I didn't want connections that are not needed for me, that I would need to think about, to quit etc. I may have mentioned then already that I prefer to give to people who need money in Ukraine (where help is needed much more), but it may have been later with other people collecting for some charity that I mentioned that.

One attendee mentioned a book summary club, where you are member for free for 7 days, you get summaries of books and you can read various full books (1 per day), after that it will be 50 euro per month. That seemed quite a lot of money to me. You could read a lot of complete books besides the summaries, but it still seemed a lot [ unless you actually read many books each month ], She said that she remembered in time and she quit before the 7 days were over. [ I didn't mention this in the meeting, but I do not go into any agreement of "free now, pay in 7 days" (or "free for a month, pay when the first month is over") where you need to cancel before that time to not be forced to pay. I dislike that in principle, so I will not do it. There are apps on the Android app store that you can only use with such a method, I am not interested in such apps, I remove them immediately when that becomes clear. ]

Back to the woman collecting for charity: After a while a man (her supervisor) came to us: I think it was then that he admitted that they wanted not cash, but automatic deductions from a bank account each month say 1 or 2 euros, for the reason that then they get more money... [ but perhaps she already admitted it earlier, I don't recall the order exactly ] So why would that give them more money? The attendees guessed correctly: People let these automatic deductions continue, they forget about it, or they know and realise but think "1 or 2 euro per month is not much, it is fine".

In the meeting I asked: "How much do you think charities should give (by law) to causes for which they collect money, in the UK and USA?". All but 1 of the estimates were far too optimistic! One attendee said 5%, and yes, that is it. To me that is ridiculous, it should be at least 80%. [ Even then, there is the possibility for a loophole to make such charities not a charity, think about how! ]

Then one attendee asked how this section about charities was related to "saying no" that is listed as an essential skill in "Essentialism": Well, I started this digression because I wanted to know whether in Ukraine there is the same situation of people collecting on the streets and collecting going round to houses and apartments (attendees said: the first: yes, the second: no) and you should learn to say no when encountering people on the street who want you to donate money. However, it depends on your personality. I never really needed it, for me it wouldn't matter. This is because I never decide anything on the spot. I let it sink in, then decide later. I do this also with things that I want to buy. So generally people cannot convince me to buy something either. When I want to buy something in a shop then either I will think about it, or I already made the choice and will buy it. I asked various people collecting for charities for the website of that charity, to read more about it so I can think about it [ later I stated to people who are collecting for charities that I don't give to charities in NL, only in Ukraine. ]. They usually then state that they do not want you decide later, they want you to decide when they are there. [ I am sure that this is because then people often don't give anything when they are not pressed and can look on a website (they may not even look on that site and just let it go, too busy with other things, or just not interested), and perhaps they also don't like it because then they do not get credit for that donation. ]

To me what the people who are collecting want is not important. I decide whether, when, how much and how I donate. I make a few exceptions now and then but in NL almost never.

In any case this means that I say "I will think about it" and then I can decide later, which is almost always: no. Usually saying no is partly because there is, not just in the USA and UK but also in NL, a problem with charities that do not give enough to the causes for which they collect, or they pay their staff a lot. I mentioned this example: The Dutch heart foundation. The director made I think it was about 220,000 or even 250,000 euro per year, much more than for example the prime minister. Some attendees thought that prime ministers will make more than his official salary, from corruption, well, not really in NL... Many people who collected for that foundation/charity (such people are unpaid volunteers) quit when that become known...

In the meeting one person said she would just keep walking when someone asks her something. That seems a bit rude to me :) [ But I have done that too! :) ]

Another person, actually the one who suggested the topic of church scams and people using begging as a job quite a while back (see the meeting of 2025-7-27), mentioned it again and that she felt the woman she noticed asking for money, often present near several supermarkets, was not really a scammer but this person was doing that instead of work. But that is of course not good. Why not do something useful? [ Unless there really is no other option, such as from a disability ].

We talked also about how to know that a charity is real or not: This is difficult. I mentioned the example in Cialdini's book "Influence, science and practice" of a person who wants to get ahead in a queue, he is in a hurry, and asks whether he can get ahead and people usually allow this. How do you know he really needs to be somewhere else before a certain time? But, what would you do if he tells you a reason, would you check that? Of course not. There is a certain amount of trust and judging people on whether they are telling the truth. You cannot check everything in life! This is also why, what Cialdini didn't understand [ this one of the many places in the book where he shows his incompetence ], is perfectly logical: Even when a person says to the question of "Why are you in a hurry?": "Because I am in a hurry", which means that he didn't give an actual reason, then people generally let such a person go before them anyway.

I mentioned in the meeting an example from Kiev from 2024, and how I deal with charity-like requests. [ I wrote this also in my review of the book "Essentialism". ] I was walking in the centre, a big square (will check which one it is), then saw a lit up 'something'. I just wanted to go to shop and no distractions so walked a bit out of the way but the person at what turned out to be a laptop screen, walked towards me and started talking in Ukrainian. I said to her that I don't speak Ukrainian, at which point she called her friend. This woman then explained in English that the 1st woman was trying to collect money for her studies, by selling a sort of souvenir with people's picture in it, of a fake newspaper page. I said that I am not interested in what they were making, I don't want souvenirs. A bit later a friend of them, a guy, came to them when we were talking about what it was about and what people usually give. The guy said something in the background, about different currencies from not being from Ukraine (I had euros and grivnas), that it would be cool if someone gave say 100 euros. Yeah, sure, it would be. I was not going to be that person. These students were not poor as was clear from e.g. their clothes, and I didn't want a souvenir, so I offered UAH 100 (a bit more than 2 euros) as a token of support, and despite not needing to do any work for this, they didn't want it... [ This is perhaps similar to an experience that I told about in a previous meeting: I was in Mariupol in 2016, at the bus station. I didn't have much time to get to the train so as an exception I wanted to take a taxi (normally I walk to every location). I asked a taxi driver how much it would cost to take me to hotel and then the train station (a few kilometres). He asked a far too high price and one of his fellow taxi drivers asked/stated in Russian "You are asking that much!?", as if I wouldn't understand it! I understood, but I already knew he asked too much. I offered him a bit less, still too much, and he refused, so I walked away. Perhaps this tactic of refusing a payment which they think is too low (at least too low compared to what they think they can get from a person), works in getting more money, but it doesn't work with me. ] One or both of the women said that it was just one euro. Not it is not, I thought to myself, it is a bit more than 2 euros. I then said: You know that there are people who are actually poor, right? I gave nothing and I walked away. [ This shows how I deal with trust, the circumstances made me think they didn't need help and they certainly didn't deserve any help, and that I did not let their claims of what other people give, influence me. Peer pressure and group pressure do not work on me... ]

[ Btw, regarding skipping part of the queue: I did not mention this in the meeting, but I had an experience in December 2024 in Uzhgorod in a supermarket, of a boy getting ahead of me by pushing his things ahead of mine on the band taking stuff to the cashier, and not by trying to get ahead of me himself. At first I let it go but later I got annoyed and thought to myself that this is a particularly anti-social method and I should have paid more attention and put his stuff back behind that of me and not let this happen... ]

So, now to criticism about books: Yes, I was negative about McKeown's "Essentialism". It was to me not useful but that was not the biggest problem. I read out loud the example of Drucker's supposed 'graceful no', which was not graceful at all (his other examples such as from the writer himself were also crude, rude), contrary to what McKeown thinks so he has no idea about proper social interactions. Further I criticised the "name dropping" (naming famous or wealthy persons to essentially promote yourself) in the book. His whole book is a giant advertisement for his book...

Related to this I mentioned being annoyed long ago at an honorary doctorate that a guy got, who achieved nothing in reality. I talked about this a friend at the time, who then said something like this: "You should realise that awards are not given for the benefit/honour of the person getting the award, but for the honour/benefit of the one [ person, university, company, etc. ] giving the award". I immediately realised that he was right.

There was some muttering, disagreement but this is really how it works and one of the attendees then mentioned her achievements in sports and that the awards/prizes were given for example by a company (or with the name of a company on the award). Exactly! That is the same thing. They financially support the event, the awards/prizes, and they do that to get some brand name exposure (i.e. advertising). In essence the institutions or persons giving awards are almost always attaching their name to that of a famous person or someone who they think achieved something important that others in that field see as important, not to really acknowledge that fact, but instead they are trying to make themselves more important with that (so they are advertising themselves)...

At some point I mentioned that I felt that Irvine's book "A guide to the good life" (which was first discussed briefly in the previous meeting) is one of the stupidest books I had ever read, which is why I stopped reading it (I read about 100 pages and a bit near the end). [ more on that in the post meeting notes ]

The topic of not being afraid came up in relation to something else. I mentioned (what I had told before in 1 or 2 earlier meetings), that I wasn't afraid in Zaporizhya with the rocket attacks in October 2022, but that I didn't feel safe on a hill with path next to a steep edge in a park in Lviv in 2024. Sonya asked "what about doing a backflip?". I said: "I have done that in school". She asked "Can you do it now". I said "No, it was a long time ago. I would need to get confidence" [ See the post meeting notes farther on for more and how this relates to other situations where I am not afraid. Being afraid is an evaluation of safety from what you think about the situation, and on what you can do (if you can't do anything about it, then it means feeling afraid is pointless and so you can switch that feeling off...) ]

After the meeting:

I talked a bit more outside with a guy about what I want to do besides, or instead of these talks/meetings, and he mentioned that he uses negative visualisation in some situations and that for him it works. Still I think that my way towards changing your mindset to not be negative about what happens to you in life is better. With negative visualisation that Irvine talks about, which was already a part of the ancient Greek stoic philosophy, you are always walking around with thoughts about negative things. Why? I mentioned similarly that before any interaction I do not think negatively about people. That is often also bad, it negatively influences how you deal with people. Instead I deal with anti-social people after they do something that I don't like [ he mentioned that people may think he is anti-social but that is different than what really anti-social is, to me it is obvious that he isn't that. I am sure he means more 'not very social', such as not wanting to play along/talk along with people, no chit-chat, possibly not liking parties, etc. ]. Then I will tell them the truth, I will be harsh, unfriendly to unfriendly people, just as I did with my former friend from Zhytomyr [ I mentioned her and her actions in meeting 1 ]. I gave her the chance to think about what she did, then when it was clear after about 2 months that she didn't realise this, and didn't want to think that she was herself the cause of the problems she had and of the problems she caused me, I said to her that she was a bad friend, a person who does not help a friend when he really needs help, and I said goodbye. [ see meeting 1 for more on this ]

Post meeting notes from 2025-9-30 about the meeting from 2025-9-28, with a big addition from 2025-10-3 about earlier meetings + a few small even later additions

So, why am I harsh about writers, and other people, such as in meditation and psychology? I will explain with this:

As I wrote in my analysis of the book "A guide to the good life" (Irvine, about stoicism): I just know all the things that I read that are in books/papers about psychology and philosophy of life [ I mean: I know which parts are correct and work but also I know which parts are wrong and don't work, from deductions and/or from experience ] , such as in the books that I read recently and that I discussed in the meetings in the Goncharenko centre. I think it is because of a combination of my personality and thinking about everything (I'm always analysing and thinking for example: Why are things like this, and not in another way? Why do people behave in a certain way?).

However, being critical about books is not based on that I already understand the topic and that these writers tell me nothing that I don't already know. They may be useful to some people, but the problems I see are for example:

There is more. Note the following saying: "you are responsible for what you tame", by Antoine de St.Exupery, in "The little prince", which is correct. People are responsible for dogs for that reason, not cats, cats domesticated themselves, or rather, they became the masters who people serve :) This is why I feel more sorry for stray dogs than cats, though I like cats more. The situation of taming is similar to this: Writers are responsible for:

and they do a very poor job... In books and talks about meditation/wisdom of life, a variant of self-help that is not about business, the writers (such as Berthold Gunster, Eckhart Tolle, Alan Watts, Bhagwan/Osho, and many more) cannot properly and clearly explain why it makes sense to meditate and why to live a certain way. They are like teachers who have almost no extra education beyond that of those whom they teach. There is a reason a teacher for secondary school in the classes of the 4-6th year in NL for the highest level schools, needs a university education. In psychological books there are similar issues. They often do not understand people or not well enough, and rigorous analysis is completely impossible for them. I can elaborate much more, but, the criticism I give is deserved. I don't see the criticism that I give, nor the analysis that I do, anywhere else. Truly getting to the essence is difficult, but something I am good at, so I show how it works here and do it as part of my 'project to understand life'. In psychology there are so many problems, dealing with that is for another time (I deal with that in my 'project to understand everything'). I can go more into detail on how I analyse some time. I also wanted to tell a bit about religion, namely how I invalidated various claims by religious/meditation groups about what is the meaning of life. This can be done with a certain type of reasoning. I feel that proper analysis (which makes such reasoning possible) should be taught, but that is not done anywhere... I wanted to introduce this in a school long ago in NL, which was looking for a teacher of physics, and they were absolutely not interested...

These meetings are in some way related to this goal of mine, but I may move on to something else: a course for at a university (if they are interested) about general analysis and understanding life, and I will be publishing my analysis too. I may put more time in completing the latter the coming months.

I am thinking too of a course for people who have been or may become traumatised (such as in the army). Yes, you can change your mindset, with the method I mentioned (and which I mentioned in my "list of life") and let negativity go.

I sometimes get affected by what people do and say, but it is more a disappointment and realising mistakes I made. For example, the reason that I was affected by what my former friend from Zhytomyr said in 2022, with her criticism of me which created a bad situation, was not because I didn't like the situation and that it was clear immediately that the friendship was over, nor did I care at all about any criticism about me, but it was that I got blamed even though it was clearly all her fault, and that being understanding of why she behaved that way and explaining how the issues she had probably caused her outburst, didn't have any effect. I had trouble walking (after a fall with a bicycle, I later realised it caused a pinched nerve in my foot), so I was somewhat dependent on her, and she then blames me for her issues in life. Who does that to a friend? Who behaves so insanely? It was to me insanity, totally illogical. I was not unhappy because of her actions, and later I did not care about losing a friend, but what was an issue was that it took time to get over the feeling of being in the twilight zone, to realise that this is possible, that there are people who are that twisted as she is. That I was affected was also partly from self criticism, realising my mistake in not letting my original judgement of her have more weight (I didn't like her the first time we met, because she criticised me about my clothes, just like friends of 'M' that I mentioned in the first meeting did), then I could have prevented this situation from happening.

Addition to the post meeting notes, from 2025-10-3

I got annoyed on 2025-10-3 by statements from a few attendees on the Telegram channel for these meetings, showing that they are not willing to do effort. So I added this section, looking back to earlier statements I made regarding my dissatisfaction about the same issue, which were warnings that I may quit if that continues:

I mentioned before, in a meeting, and in the notes of several of the meetings, the issue of many people who attend the meetings not doing effort but that I do effort, without getting paid (so I need to get something else in return) and I expect people to come to meetings to do effort. After all, it is for themselves, to improve themselves, get some exercise in talking, listening in English, learn expressions, but also thinking about how to deal with life, how to understand it, how to deal with problems in life. I want to hear their thoughts, to make it interesting for me, which is my payment. But if there is no effort then their insights are not as deep and thus less interesting to me...

Examples of my warnings: I told in the meetings of 2025-4-13 and 2025-8-17, which attendees who were not present then could have read later in the meeting notes:

2025-10-15: Note also that in the post meeting addendum of that meeting I wrote:

Continuing with the post meeting notes that I wrote on 2025-9-30

Then to the book "A guide to the good life", first discussed in the meeting of 2025-9-21, I didn't tell much in the meeting about it except that I thought Irvine is emotion poor/autistic, and I will continue here: This is one of the stupidest books I have ever read. [ 2025-10-5: See my criticism here: book review: "A guide top the good life", about stoicism, by W.Irvine ]

To a person who has good intentions and tells me something that he realised which I know to be wrong or incomplete, I will not be harsh, but people who publish books should be judged to a higher standard... The publishers should already have taken care of a lot of the problems that I noted, but they don't do a good job either.

So, what are books that are truly good, worthwhile to read? I can suggest books by Stefan Zweig. He write psychological analytical (in prose, not analytical as I do). I can recommend for example "Chess story" and "Letter from an unknown person". [ I will make a list of interesting books at some point ]

Now I will elaborate on being "not afraid": This is about attitude but also about confidence. So, last year in Lviv I was walking in one of the hilly parks and felt "this is not safe" on one of the paths on the side of a hill with a steep drop to the side. This means I do not have "no fear" as in no feeling at all, but that attitude + confidence about for example rocket attacks likely not going to where I stay, but also that having fear is pointless in this situation because you cannot go somewhere else quickly, mean that I have no fear (in feeling). I have no fear of flying because I feel confident in technology. Though note that the first time I flew in an aeroplane was in a small aeroplane with my sister. My parents especially paid for such a trip, on some holiday I think it was, they offered us this surprise, but to me it was so unimpressive that after the flight I didn't even recall seeing anything outside the window while flying... It was like taking a walk, nothing special, and thus I noted nothing in my mind of the experience. I left the aeroplane with a feeling as if nothing had happened... This means likely I felt comfortable with technology even before consciously thinking about it.

Sonya asked "what about doing a backflip?". I said: "I have done that in school". She asked "Can you do it now". I said "No, it was a long time ago. I would need to get confidence" [ because it can be dangerous if you do it wrong; In school the teacher was there to guide everyone with a hand at the back of each pupil ]. The way you would do such a motion, is with progressively more difficult exercises, to see that you can do it. Then if you are good enough, and you are confident enough, then you try it with the teacher as backup, and after that you can do it alone (still with the teacher close by).

This is really the same as walking on that path in the park in Lviv: By doing such things more, you become better at judging what is fine/not dangerous in angles, in terrain under various conditions (such as damp, wet), and thus what grip your shoes have on various terrain and in various weather conditions. Then the feeling of "this is not safe" will go away unless it really isn't safe. In other words, the boundary of what is safe increases once your experience increases and when your estimation becomes better (those are coupled).

The consequences of not enough effort, 2025-10-3

I wrote in my post meeting notes from 2025-9-30, that I may move on to something else than these meetings. I made comments not just in the very early meeting of 2025-4-13 and in the later one from 2025-8-17, but in other meetings too, that I may change what I do if there is not more effort done by attendees. However, it fell onto deaf ears [ another expression ]. There just isn't a willingness to do effort by most people. The final straw [ yet another expression...] for me on 2025-10-3 was people on the Telegram channel for these meetings, complaining about how far my house is (10 km from Kremenchuk). I suggested to have a meeting there to let attendees try something they haven't tried before, tasty different Dutch food. I would make it and we could have a more relaxed talk without time limit for once. What about trying something new? Is there no interest in that? There seems barely any appreciation for what I do... I go the Goncharenko centre each time, 10 km bike ride, then after the meeting 10 km back. I select different teas, I take cookies, cakes, anything that seems interesting to try, from NL, from Lviv, etc. to let attendees have an interesting experience and then people complain about a 10 km trip to my house (well, ca. 8 km from the Goncharenko centre, then a 1.8 km walk), being too much work! Maybe I will return later for meetings about various topics, but for now this was the last meeting.

Side note: I generally don't get disappointed because I don't expect anything but I sort of got disappointed several times in my life:
1. The situation in Kharkov in 2018 (unbelievably bad behaviour by the mother and friends of my friend).
2. The situation in Zhytomyr in 2022 (It was as if reality was changed when my 'friend' acted in a crazy manner)
3. Travelling to the UK in 2018: Why is there so little choice in tea? The English are supposed to be tea lovers!
4. Some parts of meetings at the Goncharenko centre in 2025: That most people are not willing to do effort to improve their lives, to make their lives more interesting.

For the future I have no plans to do what I have done so far in these meetings at the Goncharenko centre. At some point I want to organise 2 different meetings, when I am ready organising pictures and texts:
- 1. about ruzzian propagandists, their methods, examples, types of people who post etc.
- 2. about bus stops and other buildings with mosaics, and other interesting buildings.
I will write on my site when these will happen, possibly at the Goncharenko centre, in that case the centre will make an announcement too.

I also have an idea for a sort of course as I mentioned above, for at a university, and for people who may have been traumatised from the war, or to prevent people such as soldiers to get traumatised, using my list of life. The 2nd would require translation into Ukrainian and someone who can teach this in that language... If you know someone or are willing to do this, contact me.