Declutter Report

[cjsmith]

Puzzles: (Mentioned else-LJ, then brought here.)

On Sunday I went through six boxes of mechanical puzzles -- you know, get the ring off the rope, get the chain untangled from the horseshoes, assemble a cube from these fifteen pieces, that kind of thing. I set aside as many of those puzzles for freecycling as I could manage. I think I kept about half, although they're the larger ones; I'm only down to four boxes. I'll do another pass later.

Labels:

The hard part of letting go wasn't that I loved each individual puzzle. The hard part was that I loved my image of myself as a person who enjoys puzzles and owns many fun puzzles. It was that self-image I was letting go of as I set aside each puzzle. It's hard to let go of a cherished label I have put on myself.

On the other hand, I find it easy to pick up new labels for myself. Because labels can come with a lot of physical baggage, I guess I've got to learn to let go of the ones I no longer need.

What labels are you holding on to? Do you add new ones easily? Do you let go of old ones easily?

If I had been asked a week ago "What would it take for the label lover-of-puzzles-and-owner-of-many-fun-puzzles to no longer fit you?" I would have said "I'd have to not be me any more." Today I say "Heh, all it took was needing some shelf space." I wonder how many more like that I've got. They can be hard to see.

Decluttering in passes:

Often I can get rid of half of a pile, or perhaps a third of a pile, in an hour. Often it would take me all day to get rid of three-quarters of that same pile. So I'll do the half and let it sit for a few weeks.

I am currently due for new passes on jigsaw puzzles, clothing, old techie books, and believe it or not, shoes. (Hey, those can be hard to let go of. It took me fifteen years to find hiking boots that fit. If a miracle occurs, I don't want to spend another fifteen years in bad boots.)

Comments

[quasigeostrophy.livejournal.com]

I have a tough time with labels. Some of them seem to imply stereotypes, and in an effort to remain (and remain perceived as) an independent thinker, I tend to shun a lot of them. I have a number of conservative political views (mostly in regard to economic policies), but I refuse to wear the label "conservative" because then someone may assume a lot of other beliefs I don't necessarily hold. I will proudly wear "geek", "polymath", "autodidact", or more specific flavors of geek (geography, map, weather, etc.). I've also discovered that in many of my widespread interests, there are people who wear the label who are much more extreme than I. I don't consider myself a "gamer" even though I like to play a number of games, including RPGs. And because of my desire to treat them more as a tool than an end in themselves, despite a confident knowledge in them, don't like to consider myself a "computer geek".

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

Oh, good point: I hadn't thought of the labels we shun. I have a pile of those too, and prominent in that pile is a large set of political labels. You say "because then someone may assume a lot of other beliefs I don't necessarily hold." and I'll occasionally phrase it more like "I haven't drunk ANY group's Kool-Aid." :-)

Which labels, if any, come with physical baggage? Map geek, perhaps? For me, "puzzle geek" and "voracious reader" and "private pilot" all take up shelf space. "Mobility impaired" takes up all KINDS of space I haven't figured out how to organize; where do you keep ten pairs of flimsy shoes, a scooter, the cane, or the spare parts to the wheelchair? The more I think about this, the more I think I have a huge amount of STUFF and there's probably a whole lot of it I really don't need. :-)

[quasigeostrophy.livejournal.com]

Yeah, map geek, reader, photography geek for me all come with physical baggage. I have an overflowing 4-drawer file cabinet for maps. Bookcases are all over the house. And then there's the darkroom. In order to declutter for moving, many long-unread books are going to Half Price Books, and my darkroom equipment will be stored with a friend (I've decided that, as long as materials are available, I don't want to abandon that method of photography - who knows? Someday if I'm old and only able to putter about the home, working in the darkroom might be a good thing to get back into). :-)

[recordersmith.livejournal.com]

I cant throw out a book. I just cant. Or a piece of fabric. Or leftover embroidery thread. Or a piece of jewelry.

I can at least justify the music and instrument collection as something I'm doing something with (tho to be fair I play the harp about once a year, the piano is dreadfully out of tune, I still havent sat down long enough with the shakuhachi to get a reasonable sound out of it and the cornetto is now out on loan because even after fighting with it for 6 months it still sounds like I'm strangling a duck when I try to play it)...

But I definitely do seem to have the collector gene.

On the other hand, I dont think that one has to absolutely have an immediate use for everything one owns. And I do periodically pick up a piece of needlework or wear a piece of jewelry that I havent looked at in forever. It's kind of fun to rediscover things every now and then. (Oh yeah, so-and-so gave me that, what a nice memory (I've gotten rid of the things with not-so-nice memories attached)).

What I really need is someone to come over, watch me try on every piece of clothing I own, and make me get rid of everything that doesnt work.

[quasigeostrophy.livejournal.com]

I cant throw out a book.

I don't. That's why the ones I know I'm not going to read again (due to obsolescence, changing interests (I've been called by a friend "the man who collects hobbies"), whatever) go somewhere like Half Price Books, where they can at least get me a bit of remuneration and someone else a chance to get his/her hands on them.

I find that I do fight the pack rat gene - I have it from both parents. It's easier for me to part with things if I am going through them in the presence of someone else. If I'm alone, I'll second guess myself and start thinking about some sentimental value or something that will cause me to try to hang onto more of the stuff.

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

I cant throw out a book. I just cant. Or a piece of fabric.

I find it's even difficult for me to throw out the little tag-ends of fabric that are left over when I've cut all the pattern pieces out. I'll have a piece that's maybe ten square inches, in a really awkward shape, and I'll think "But it maaaaatches. It might be uuuuuuseful". *snort* THAT I could improve on!

I'm very fortunate to have freecycle in my area. People will drop by to pick up an amazing variety of useless objects if they're free. I can't bear to part with fabric, but I have parted with books.

I agree with you about not requiring an immediate use for things, even things kept for their usefulness rather than for sentiment or for beauty. (Witness my hiking boots. I haven't hiked since I was 35!) On the other hand, space is money, and carrying less of a load does have benefits, so there's a balance there somewhere. I am currently on the "too burdened down" side of that scale.

[recordersmith.livejournal.com]

I have finally instituted the rule that I cant visit a fabric or craft store until I have completely at least one project. This doesnt prevent me from getting materials for 3 more projects when I'm there, but it does mean I complete things occasionally.

And that last little bit of fabric is perfect for a patchwork quilt. I tend not to throw out any fabric that is over 4 inches on a side. Sometime I'm going to do a patchwork quilt that is a rainbow of colors shading from one to the next across the whole quilt. And that'll use all those last little bits. Since I tend to make blouses out of quilters cotton anyway (I like the designs better than what you can find in clothing fabrics) what I have will actually work well for that kind of quilt.

I was thinking recently that a good rule for buying clothing might be that for every item I buy, I have to discard something else from my closet. Seems it would make me 1. think more about each thing I buy and 2. end up with a wardrobe of only the things I really like.

I may have to try that. Not willing to do that with the jewelry habit tho.

clothes, and rules for not getting more [whatever]

[moriamerri.livejournal.com]

Clothes are one of the areas where I do okay. Not perfect, but it is not a big problem area, and I have a general sense of balance about how much space there is and what kinds of stuff I like and use. Here's a guideline I've been using with clothes.... (I started doing this AFTER having done a general evaluation of what's in my closets)... after washing/drying clothes, while I'm FOLDING them, I notice and set aside clothes that have stains or rips. I often get rid of one or two items while folding a month's worth of laundry.... stuff like "oh I see that big stain is still there" or underwear that's been around too long -- this is stuff I notice anyway while folding clothes. Doing this "as I go along" seems to help me keep a sense of balance and usefulness with my clothes. And since the stuff was just washed, it can go to goodwill (or, it can go in the trash or rags.....) However, this does NOT address the stuff that is never worn (as it is NOT being washed). That takes looking in the closet. I should do the whole collection again soon.

My hope has been that my discarding a little clothing on a regular basis, I will get used to the idea of evaluating the usefulness of things. Not sure if this is true, but it's a hope. Other areas where I do pretty well: food containers (tupperware, water bottles etc); dishes, pots, kitchen implements.

Not buying things: For a long time I've had a rule against buying bars of soap. I don't use them, I use liquid soap. But I am attracted to all the pretty and yummy-smelling soaps. The rule was originally that I could not buy bar soap until using up the bar soap currently on hand -- however, since I never use any up, this is pretty much a general ban. I used to have a similar rule about pens, I think. (I've used up the backlog). The really scary one is that I stopped renewing magazine subscriptions. (This is a BIG problem area). I'm ready to renew some again -- not that I've handled the backlog though.

[moriamerri.livejournal.com]

hello quasigeostrophy -- what you wrote is really intriguing to me. I have been noticing (yet again) my defensiveness around labels and how I'm perceived. I don't LIKE stereotypes and implications, and I don't want to do the work involved in getting rid of them (or is it that I don't know how to do it effectively?) (Yes, "conservative" would carry a lot of implications in a wide range of areas -- or at the least bring up a lot of suspicions....) So many simple labels carry such heavy loads of ideas. "Gamer" is a good example. So is "conservative" and so is "Christian". (I read a magazine article yesterday written by a Christian who was weary of the implications and wanted to clarify her views.) For me it is not just resistance to the implications that don't fit--- I also don't like stereotypes and the implications when they do "fit". (Or maybe its that I never see them as fitting completely.) In some kind of hell I would be a gay man who is a hairdresser and has good taste in clothes.

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

I have no idea how to get rid of stereotypes and implications. I can do some work on what things imply to me, and examine the validity of contents and assumptions inside my own head, but what then do I do about the perceptions everyone around me will have? Those are tough!

[moriamerri.livejournal.com]

Oh, I don't think one can get rid of them [Oh, I see how what I wrote above says the opposite. Maybe this will explain what I was thinking about some, and why I appear to be contradicting myself] - but one can address them (sometimes). For example, one could say "I am a conservative in some areas such as x, y, z". (This implies I'm not a conservative in all areas.) One can say "I'm a conservative, and by conservative I mean a, b, and c." One can say "I'm a conservative, which means a, b, and c, to me, and doesn't imply e, f, or g, to me". This can also result in just highlighting potential stereotypes/meanings (which the listener may not have), however, and it can be awkward and bizarre. It's a bit of a problem. This does get a bit complex for everyday conversation. [This doesn't "get rid of" the implications, but does to some degree get rid of the implications in the specific statement I'm making. At least the ones I've stated.] Whether it is effective to do this is open to question. And I could go on about some of other issues/limitations of these various statements.....

these examples (so far) are all examples that deal with statements. Harder (or trickier?) is specifying the meaning of appearances or actions. If people read me as female they will apply all of their female ideas to me (appearance). Likewise all other implications of what I look like (such as age, hair color/style, clothing, etc). (I still kinda identify as a long-haired woman, although I have not had long hair for a while now..... and I wonder how to express whatever-that-means-about-myself in some other way.)

I suppose whatever you know about someone you can generalize from (or infer things from) -- that they fly planes, have lots of puzzles, whatever.

[recordersmith.livejournal.com]

This made me think of the scene in Princess Bride where Vizzini tries to figure out where the iocane powder is via (insane) logic based on what he thinks he knows about Dread Pirate Roberts.

Assumptions are dangerous and often wrong, but I think we cant help but make them.

[lcohen]

i am working on shedding "person who owns more than 2000 books" for reasons that sound similar.....

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

Wow. Yeah. I too own... well, a lot of books.

I love books and enjoy reading. My self-label is "smart and educated", which I don't particularly want to let go of -- but maybe I don't need that many books to prove the idea.

[rfrench.livejournal.com]

When I stayed with Dan and Jan years ago I looked all over the house to find the collection of books that marked an educated and well-read couple. I never found them. I asked them later, and they said they just go to the library :-)

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

The house we stayed in on Vancouver Island was like that too. That was the couple's primary residence, and there was not a single book in it. I was boggled.

The library works well if you want to read the things everyone else wants to read. The library will pick up a few copies of best-sellers; you may have to wait, but they'll have it. If you want to read E.E. "Doc" Smith, though, or Geza Szurovy on aerobatics, you are completely out of luck. I wonder how anyone with eclectic interests deals with that. I suppose they buy books.

[tiger-spot.livejournal.com]

Or interlibrary loan. You'd be surprised what public libraries (especially larger ones) have; it's not all out on the shelves, but you can turn up a surprising range of stuff if you know what you're looking for.

[rfrench.livejournal.com]

Or they go to a better library.

Sunnyvale's library has John Anderson's "Fundamentals of Aerodynamics" textbook. Not much else, though.

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

Most of the acro books I own aren't even available on Amazon. I'm not at all sure there IS a library "better" enough to have 'em. I suppose that's a bit of an extreme example, though!

labels = identities?

[moriamerri.livejournal.com]

Regarding picking up labels, here is a thought to consider:

A couple of years ago I attended a workshop about counseling people who (may) want to change some behaviors. Or maybe it was more like working with people who are doing things that YOU think are harmful....(say drinking, or smoking as "easy" examples). Anyway, the class was really quite interesting. It started out with a model of the stages of change and how to recognize where someone is relative to change -- from not wanting to change to preparing to change to working on change but "backsliding" and so on.

Anyhow, one part of the process was IDENTIFYING with the new behavior. "I'm a non-smoker" or "I'm a person who loves to be physically active every day" or "I'm a person who owns puzzles and enjoys them". This (generally) came pretty late in the process -- after the new (desired) behavior was well in place. Identifying with the behavior was considered a desirable part of solidifying the new behavior.

Letting go of past interests is often quite hard for me. I stop being interested/involved but don't want to get rid of the stuff. I fear I won't find something new, and mourn that I can't do everything. I have papers from hobbies and jobs I haven't been involved in for ages.

I'm still wearing and appreciating the shoes you gave me! (don't need more -- just saying thanks again).

Re: labels = identities?

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

I bet self-identification is a very powerful force. Harnessing that force for positive change is an intriguing concept. For example, I've "had to" (really? had to? hmm) ditch the labels "active" and "runner" and "fit" and "backpacker" and "hiker" and so forth -- but only some of those truly cannot apply, while the others might have a way to stay. What would happen if I vigorously and deliberately self-labeled as "active"? Intriguing idea.

Mourning the inability to do everything is also big for me. I want to be immortal, not because I fear death so much as because I want to DO EVERYTHING! And I don't have the TIME!

Oh awesome! I'd forgotten about the shoes. Glad they are working well for you!

Re: labels = identities?

[moriamerri.livejournal.com]

I've "had to" (really? had to? hmm) ditch the labels "active" and "runner" and "fit" and "backpacker" and "hiker" and so forth -- but only some of those truly cannot apply, while the others might have a way to stay. What would happen if I vigorously and deliberately self-labeled as "active"?

Yes. And there might be some other "parts" (meanings, implications) to each of these things, too. FOR EXAMPLE "hiker" might (or might not) include "I'm a person who loves nature" or "I'm a person who enjoys being outdoors" or "I enjoy seeing many kinds of landscapes" or "I'm a naturalist" or "I study and observe nature".... (For some it could include much more specific stuff about KINDS of places to see [redwoods, seashore] and KINDS of things in nature [wild animals, bugs, birds, flowers, whatever and KINDS of things to know.....]. "Hiker" could also include "I'm a person who enjoys visiting local places" or "I like to see natural landscapes wherever I go". "Hiker" could involve knowing how to pack a lunch, read a trail map, use a compass. Hiker likely includes "I have seen many beautiful natural places" and "I know many parks and open areas locally". I suppose "hiker" could also involve things like deep inner connection to nature, environmental views, love of wilderness (because it is wild), political views, preference for open undeveloped space.....

All of those can be expressed, and can be parts of one's self-concept. Some could inspire other labels or be reconfigured in terms of focus.

"Hiker" also involves some parts that you can't do (at least right now), like walking long distances over various kinds of natural terrain. Here the options I can think of are: you can drop this part from your idea-of-yourself, or you can refine the idea as being temporary or past ("I'm a hiker who is unable to hike" or "I'm not a hiker right now"). Or you can change the meaning of HIKE to include walking small distances in various natural settings. Or it could mean being someone who really VALUES hiking as a form of movement, which I would guess still applies to you. I'm not sure how far I would want to go in the "redefining it" thing -- I'm more comfortable with the stuff in the 1st paragraph.

"Hiker" also involves many experiences you have had. Certainly you should still "get credit" for having seen beautiful places, having climbed mountains, walked long distances, seen snakes, carried everything you need with you -- and for knowing the landscapes of many places, for having been to hiking spots locally and appreciating such things..... I'm sure there is much more......

interpretation adjustment

[layer.livejournal.com]

okay, i've been thinking about this ever since you responded to my post on this topic:

The hard part was that I loved my image of myself as a person who enjoys puzzles and owns many fun puzzles.

here's the thing. you don't really have to give up the label. if you deconstruct the sentence above, only one word changes: you remove "many." you are still a person who enjoy puzzles. your are still a person who owns fun puzzles.

just like i will still be an arthurian and celtic scholar with a library that includes important (and several hard-to-find) references on the topic. it's not a question of de-labelling, more a question of degree.

Re: interpretation adjustment

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

Right: I have to ditch only parts of the label. I thought of myself as a collector of puzzles, and really, that was the reason I kept some of the less wonderful examples of the breed. Wouldn't a collector keep one of everything? But I don't need the label "collector" if that's what it means; maybe it doesn't have to mean that, and maybe I don't need that label.

I still love the puzzles I do have... and I've cut down on the chaff. That's a great result. I bet you can achieve an analogous result with your library. If you keep the gems, then you'll be a scholar with a library that includes only the really good (important, rare, seminal, whatever) stuff. That's pretty cool.