Pack rat or minimalist?

[Flyingcursor]

Then what are you even asking me? Maybe we should take it to PM.

Is that the internet equivelent of "Let's take this outside"?

No, I don't want to fight. I just wasn't sure where we were going there for a minute so I didn't want to just waste bandwidth (I've been making more of an effort lately not to waste bandwidth). Do PMs waste bandwidth, I wonder?

I was just joking.

The question about bandwidth waste is pretty existential. I wonder if everything on the pub is wasted bandwidth.

[Jack]

Is that the internet equivelent of "Let's take this outside"?

No, I don't want to fight. I just wasn't sure where we were going there for a minute so I didn't want to just waste bandwidth (I've been making more of an effort lately not to waste bandwidth). Do PMs waste bandwidth, I wonder?

I was just joking.

The question about bandwidth waste is pretty existential. I wonder if everything on the pub is wasted bandwidth.

That's a deep thought.

[The Weekenders]

Super-size me. Yet I am wistful for those who live on boats and hafta dump it all. It's VERY hard for me to throw away things and I drive myself crazy that way. I have to do a mental thing of putting it in the trash and closing the lid real fast without looking, all the while washed with guilt and adrenaline for having done so. It sucks. Of course I recycle or donate if possible.

Last weekend, they had an electronics waste collecting "event" in a neighboring town. I threw away a perfectly usable 21" B/W Radius monitor , an old Mac, a broken guitar amplifier, a usable but very old scanner, a cheap stereo set that was left in the house we purchased. I waited 45 minutes in a car line to do it. Thankfully, the crew grabbed the stuff out of the car so i didn't have to actually look at my stuff being dumped. I figured out that I paid over $5,000 for that stuff originally (the monitor and old Mac). Just to toss it after not even wearing it out but having it get super annuated.

[BillChin]

I'd like to think I am at a good balancing point. However, someone objective visiting me, would see all the clutter and say otherwise, so I do hoard some stuff. However, I am good about clearing stuff out when buying new stuff and my living space is rather small, and I refuse to rent storage space. It is interesting how I see myself and how others might see me.

I wanted to edit the poll. The last line should be 500 or less items for super minimalist. A person gets to that number very quickly. 50 would only be for extreme situations. Even a backpacker probably takes over 50 items for a week in the backcountry. The 500 number is from an article or book about a super minimalist who counted his items. When he got over 500, he gave stuff away. That's everything, silverware, pairs of socks, toothbrush, toothpaste, pens, pencils, batteries. 500 comes very quickly depending on how you count. A lot of people get to 50 just on pens and pencils.

Several friends of mine are fighting the battle against hoarding. It seems very difficult for them to let go of something that seems to have value but to an objective person boarders on junk. Especially because these folks were raised poor. For some of them, the problem is centered on more inflow than outflow. Even if they make a dent in their accumulation, they are always buying or receiving new items and the pile is always increasing. Old habits are difficult to change, especially when stuff is attached to some sense of security.

There is no right or wrong in being either. I certainly do not think that a minimalist is necessarily a better person than a pack rat.

[Flyingcursor]

In that case I'm a superminimalist. But when you say X number of items could that mean every pencil or sheet of printer paper?

[Jack]

In that case I'm a superminimalist. But when you say X number of items could that mean every pencil or sheet of printer paper?

I'm a super minimalist too, as long as you don't mean each single book. I count all my books as one item (a "library") and all my clothes as one item (a "wardrobe"). Those are really the only things I own in a large number.

[Doug_Tipple]

I feel inclined toward minimalism in many aspects of my life, yet I do tend to accumulate all kinds of things in my life space if I am not careful. My remedy for this is to periodically go through all of my stuff and decide what I can do without, and then give it away.

Moving creates a special urgency to excellerate this process of letting go of things no longer needed, and the reason is obvious: if you don't get rid of it, you have to move it. Thankfully, my current move is not across the country, where everything must go in one trip. I am only moving 60 miles, so I have the luxury of being able to drive back and forth, carrying things in my car.

When it comes to moving, however, I do have a major problem in that I collect rocks. In the 8 years that I have lived in my current apartment I have accumulated several thousand pounds of rocks, which I had placed in rock gardens and flower beds around my house. Of course, all of these rocks have to be dug up and transported in my car to my new home in the city. My woman friend is pleased that I am moving my rocks because, in her mind, it means that I really am serious about the permanence of my new home. It goes without saying that I cannot completely move from my current home until my garden matures in the fall. There are limits to my flexibility.

In short, I would like to be a minimalist, but no matter where I go, little by little, the stuff starts to accumulate in boxes all over the place, that is until I go on another giving-away rampage to clean out the mess.

[BillChin]

In that case I'm a superminimalist. But when you say X number of items could that mean every pencil or sheet of printer paper?

I'm a super minimalist too, as long as you don't mean each single book. I count all my books as one item (a "library") and all my clothes as one item (a "wardrobe"). Those are really the only things I own in a large number.

Yes, it is difficult to figure out how to count. I think the author I mentioned and my own terms would be one for each pen or pencil and one for each book, or CD, and one for each package or pad of paper (not each sheet), and one for each article of clothing (pair of socks is one). Certainly a collection of 1000 books is a lot more than a collection of 100 books or 10 books or no books at all. Same with CDs or DVDs or clothes and shoes. A person with 20 sets of clothes certainly has a lot more than a person with three sets, like a backpacker may whittle down to.

What prompted this thread was an article in the CS Monitor about a college student who went to school with two bags and came back after a semester with a car packed to the gills.

http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/ ... -hfes.html

Young people often go through changes. The student in the article went from minimalist to pack rat in one year. Most college students tend towards minimalism, because of limited space, limited budgets, limited time.

One good test, is if a person can fit everything they own, other than a few sticks of furniture, into two modest size suitcases, that person is on the super side. If a person is renting storage or have stuff that belongs in storage (unused) overflowing into living spaces, they might be on the other super side.

Again, there is no right or wrong in any of this. However, sometimes people run their lives as if everything that takes place is by accident, giving little thought to where they are, or where they want to be, and how to get there.

[Jack]

Again, there is no right or wrong in any of this.

I strongly disagree!

[Doug_Tipple]

Again, there is no right or wrong in any of this.

I strongly disagree!

Cran, I know that Quakers do not vote; they reach equanimity by consensus. Nevertheless, for this issue I will cast my vote with Bill. People are different, and there is no one way that is right for everyone.

My excuse for having a lot of stuff around is that complexity of mind in many cases requires material complexity to accomplish the mental objectives. For example, if you are interested in making things, you need to have tools to assist in the process. If you want to go back-packing, then you need a lot of gear. The more things that you like to do, oftentimes the more stuff you need to do it with. If I was content merely to read books, I would need nothing more that a chair, a lamp, and something to hold my books. However, I am not content to read about things. I want to ride my bicycle, work in my shop, dig in my garden, and all kinds of other activities that take things to do it with.

[BillChin]

Again, there is no right or wrong in any of this.

I strongly disagree!

Certainly examples can be found on both sides of saintly and demonic types of people. The Unibomber owned virtually nothing and lived on a dollar a day, but is not someone I admire. There are people that live a very good life and have a healthy amount of possessions that do more good in the world than you or I or anyone else on this board ever will.

I acknowledge that in certain faiths, a vow of poverty is a virtue. However, I do not belong to one of those faiths. In my value system, being poor does not have any direct correlation to being a good or noble person.

It is not the best analogy, but is one that comes to mind. Everyone has seen statues of a rotund Buddha. When he was alive some people questioned him about that. This was a time and place where death by starvation was common, so how could he as a spiritual man eat so much and not feel guilty about it. Buddha talked about a time in his life when he ate the bare minimum or even less. He found that this did not make him more spiritual. So concluded the converse was also true, that eating a large amount did not make him less spiritual.

[Jack]

I acknowledge that in certain faiths, a vow of poverty is a virtue.

In no faith are moths a virtue!

[Innocent Bystander]

Everyone has seen statues of a rotund Buddha. When he was alive some people questioned him about that. This was a time and place where death by starvation was common, so how could he as a spiritual man eat so much and not feel guilty about it. Buddha talked about a time in his life when he ate the bare minimum or even less. He found that this did not make him more spiritual. So concluded the converse was also true, that eating a large amount did not make him less spiritual.

I was told once (I can't remember where) about a Christian sect that had fastened on the idea that "there is a little good in all of us". In more detail: all matter that God had created must contain some good (even if it were tainted with evil). So in order to maximize your good nature, and to have a better likelihood of entering heaven, one must get as fat as one possibly can.

I have been a pack-rat all my life, especially with books. My wife has lately joined a website called http://www.flylady.net. She subscribes to it and gets regular emails. It helps you organise and manage and get rid of junk. This weekend I have given away a whole bunch of staves which I accumulated when I was working on Ogham.
So, an average packrat, but striving to be less so.

[Jack]

I was told once (I can't remember where) about a Christian sect that had fastened on the idea that "there is a little good in all of us". In more detail: all matter that God had created must contain some good (even if it were tainted with evil). So in order to maximize your good nature, and to have a better likelihood of entering heaven, one must get as fat as one possibly can.

Until you got to the "one must get as fat as one possibly can" part, that sounded very much like Friends' concept of "that of God."

This thread has inspired me to go through my stuff and give more of it away.

[Lambchop]

Most of my friends know that when they give me a gift, if I can't use it I give it away. Often times, if I can use it, but not at this point in my life, I also give it away.

I think a lot of your friends here do not, in fact, know that.