Becomeing a Minimalist

[Twelvefret]

For some reason, I didn’t combine owning fewer things and owning nicer things in my mind. But the truth is, they go hand-in-hand and are directly related.

https://www.becomingminimalist.com/benefit-own-quality/

Coming across this quote last week I began to ask myself if I wouldn't prefer to have less, but what I do have to be of better quality.

I've tended to get into activities, acquire the needed equipment, but ultimately acquired "unnecessary, but nice to have" or doubled up on things in case another similar necessary item failed.

Take as an example a time piece. I have a very nice Hamilton automatic watch that I acquired nearly 20 years ago. I have a tendency to get another one without a need for two watches. Maybe I am alone in being this way.

I've begun to give things away that are nice to have, but that someone else might need.

Another question, why don't we use something until it wears out? I find I have a satisfaction in seeing items used to failure or unusable.

[HHP]

I don't think quantity and quality are mutually exclusive. Just a matter of how the economics work out for you and which you get more satisfaction from having.

As far as using something to failure, that almost never works out. Failure is generally preceded by a period of degraded performance leading to ultimate failure. Failure has an ugly tendency to occur when you can least afford it to.

Would you buy low cost tickets on an airline that has a policy of flying their planes to the point of failure?

[Twelvefret]

Originally Posted by HHP

I don't think quantity and quality are mutually exclusive. Just a matter of how the economics work out for you and which you get more satisfaction from having.

As far as using something to failure, that almost never works out. Failure is generally preceded by a period of degraded performance leading to ultimate failure. Failure has an ugly tendency to occur when you can least afford it to.

Would you buy low cost tickets on an airline that has a policy of flying their planes to the point of failure?

The context of the topic contrasts having a half dozen guitars costing $5K or one vintage and correct guitar costing $30K. Since I am physically only able to play one guitar at a time, it might make more sense to have one very good guitar.

I was thinking about how one could use a product well, making necessary repairs and performing maintenance in order to fully utilize. I have a neighbor with a million six 1959 Mercedes diesel that he continues to employee. The high mileage champion is a Volvo with 3 million miles.

[HHP]

Originally Posted by Twelvefret

The context of the topic contrasts having a half dozen guitars costing $5K or one vintage and correct guitar costing $30K. Since I am physically only able to play one guitar at a time, it might make more sense to have one very good guitar.

I was thinking about how one could use a product well, making necessary repairs and performing maintenance in order to fully utilize. I have a neighbor with a million six 1959 Mercedes diesel that he continues to employee. The high mileage champion is a Volvo with 3 million miles.

That's OK if you assume all guitars do the same thing, I don't. I suppose if you only do one thing, one is plenty.

I more align with the quote "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"

[fazool]

I am a huge advocate for this belief. A lot of the "stuff" I have all has different, additional uses (like a gigantic assortment of hand tools - each with a different purpose) but the duplicate and unnecessary stuff is more of a curse than a blessing.

[fitness1]

Two and a half years ago, I sold off about 80% of my possessions and went from 1400 sq ft of living space to my current situation.

Because of my Dad's deteriorating health, I started spending the nights there, and I have a bed, a laptop and a few things in the refrigerator.

I had my fitness studio in an additional 650 sq ft in my home, I moved that into a 975 sq ft commercial space downtown with an 180 sq ft office and a 100 sq ft storage room. Everything I own fits in the office and storage (280 sq ft)

I've always been a "champagne taste on a beer budget" guy, so yes, most of my things are of great quality.

I'm looking for property locally so that when my parents are gone, I can build a 400-500 sq ft tiny home.

It will feel like a mansion to me.

[rmyAddison]

Your life to do with as you please, that simple...........

I enjoy the fine things decades of work have afforded me, I also enjoy helping others, giving to charity, and volunteering.

Most things in life are not the either/or propositions some folks make them out to be, a generality not aimed at anyone on this thread............

[RP]

I think that the follow-up question to the one asked by the OP would be, "Is minimalism a means to an end i.e having less but nicer stuff or an attempt to simplify his life?" The first part of this question is an economic one. If I have $10 to spend, do I want to get one item for $10 or 10 $1 items? However, the second part of the question deals more with a philosophical way of life. I want to simplify my life and therefore I'll purchase a single $1 item.

Switching to guitars, there are some who enjoy owning/buying/playing the best that they can afford while others enjoy the variety of having several different guitars that may (or may not) complement each other in different ways...

So, to Twelvefret I would ask, is your interest in minimalism based on the economics of being able to purchase a single really nice guitar or a desire to simplify your life with fewer instruments????

My gut feeling is that minimalism is a relative concept and akin to a very simplified version of the Schrodinger's cat paradigm. One can be both more and less minimalist at the same time. If I have five guitars (which I do) and sell all but one, then I'm more minimalist than I was before. However, at the same time I'm less minimalist than my next door neighbor who doesn't have any guitars...

[Twelvefret]

Originally Posted by HHP

That's OK if you assume all guitars do the same thing, I don't. I suppose if you only do one thing, one is plenty.

I more align with the quote "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"

I want to make sure I don't appear to be trying to sell this concept, just discuss among those who might have considered minimalism.

[Twelvefret]

Originally Posted by RP

So, to Twelvefret I would ask, is your interest in minimalism based on the economics of being able to purchase a single really nice guitar or a desire to simplify your life with fewer instruments????

The economics are the same. You can have $30K tied up in one product or six products costing $5K each as an example. The simplification comes with maintaining one product versus 6 products, I suppose.

Like I said, I've not completely bought into this to date, but it's something interesting to think about. If I have six shirts, but only routinely wear three of them doesn't it make sense to give the other shirts away and just keep what I am going to use?

[Pitar]

I grew up in a household valuing material possessions more than children. As a kid I could not stay in the house except on the worst weather days. Once I made my bed in the morning, and had it inspected, I could not re-enter that room until bedtime. In other words, I grew up in my parent's house, not mine, and they made that clear. Maybe it was because, like Calvin, I always carried a hammer in one hand and a handsaw in the other. Who knows?

Anyway, after left them at 17 with their cents of values I became the minimalist I probably was at heart already. I was comfortably and happily free of all materialism for the next 12 years.

Then, a marriage betrayed me and the next thing I knew I was worried about my lawn, house, cars (plural), kids, insurance out the kazoo, entertaining 3 other opinions - wife and 2 sons - about running my life, pushed into being the head of household and tackling a level of responsibility in life I had neither interest nor desire to embrace.

It was good for 12 years. This last 32 have been all compromise.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Twelvefret

I want to make sure I don't appear to be trying to sell this concept, just discuss among those who might have considered minimalism.

I think there is sage wisdom in objectively examining the effect "more stuff" has on one's life and how that relates to more complexity . I know I am constantly looking for ways to pare down the quantity.

[RP]

Originally Posted by Twelvefret

The economics are the same. You can have $30K tied up in one product or six products costing $5K each as an example. The simplification comes with maintaining one product versus 6 products, I suppose....

That's the economic side, but in my mind, the philosophical side of minimalism asks a different question. Scaling down the numbers a bit, assume that one can have a maximum of $5000 tied up in guitars, would one opt for 10 $500 guitars (or some combination thereof), a single $5000 guitar, a single $500 guitar or no guitar at all? Which of these possibilities would offer the desired life with the least amount of stuff????

Not making a value judgment, but it seems that although you began this thread pondering minimalism, it's really about economics. You've alluded to both shirts and guitars, but my guess is that guitars have more intrinsic value to you. Most of us have formed attachments to things that have more intrinsic value than other things.

I live in an 880 square foot cabin in the woods with no cable tv, landline and my neighbor allows me to glom off of her internet connection. My cellphone is a flip phone that serves my needs just fine. I know that some AGF members are into watches, but my $15 Casio from Walmart suits my needs just fine. However, I have five amazing guitars. I don't consider myself a minimalist at all, but admit that my guitars are my most valuable possessions and other stuff like sports coats/suits (don't own any), family heirlooms (don't have any), furniture (it was inexpensive, comfortable and fills the need), watches/jewelry and fancy cellphones mean little to nothing to me. That's just a matter of my personal priorities. If I won the lottery today, I can't imagine that the aforementioned classes of items would become more important because it's not a matter of economics, just priorities...

[Twelvefret]

Originally Posted by RP

That's the economic side, but in my mind, the philosophical side of minimalism asks a different question. Scaling down the prices a bit, assume that one can have a maximum of $5000 tied up in guitars, would one opt for 10 $500 guitars, a single $5000 guitar, a single $500 guitar or no guitar at all? Which of these possibilities would offer the life that I desire with the fewest number of possessions????

Not making a value judgment, but it seems that although you began this thread pondering minimalism, it's really about economics. You've alluded to both shirts and guitars, but my guess is that guitars have more intrinsic value to you. Most of us have formed attachments to things that have more intrinsic value than other things.

I live in an 880 square foot cabin in the woods with no cable tv, landline and my neighbor allows me to glom off of her internet connection. My cellphone is a flip phone that serves my needs just fine. However, I have five amazing guitars. I know that some AGF members are into watches, but my $15 Casio from Walmart suits my needs just fine. I don't consider myself a minimalist at all, but admit that my guitars are my most valuable possessions and other stuff like sports coats/suits (don't own any), family heirlooms (don't have any), watches/jewelry and fancy cellphones mean little to nothing to me. That's just a matter of my personal priorities. If I won the lottery today, I can't imagine that the aforementioned classes of items would become more important because it's not a matter of economics, just priorities...

I make no ideological value judgement on what others do. I think minimalism is personal and I am not trying to sell the concept.

You say you have a Casio watch. Do you have one or several? What happens when the battery runs out? Do you purchase several in case one stops?

[RP]

Originally Posted by Twelvefret

I make no ideological value judgement on what others do. I think minimalism is personal and I am not trying to sell the concept.

You say you have a Casio watch. Do you have one or several? What happens when the battery runs out? Do you purchase several in case one stops?

I know that you're not trying to sell the concept and sorry if I implied otherwise. I suppose as I think about it, the notion of minimalism as a relative concept rather than an absolute makes perfect sense to me.

I own just the one Casio, and will return to Walmart for a replacement if it stops running. Being retired, my primary need for a watch is when I go to the pool 4-5 days a week for therapeutic swimming...