The thought — ‘I will just “invest” in this one really great camera, this really great lens and own it forever’ is an un-true notion.
For example, a thought I had in the past:
If I just had a Leica M9 and a Leica 35mm Summilux/Summicron lens, I will stay with this system forever, and achieve ‘camera zen’, and be happy and photographically productive forever.
And this is a huge problem — with almost every single new digital camera — no matter how great, expensive, etc it is … it will sooner or later break, get outdated, get old/boring, etc.
The tricky thing — some things cannot really last forever.
For example, you cannot own an iPhone forever. You also cannot really own a digital camera forever. Same goes with laptops, computers, etc. No device or digital thing is ‘future-proof’.
Why is it that when certain things stop working or break (like my beloved RICOH GR III), it cannot be easily fixed by me, and has to be sent elsewhere?
Or another example, I find a pair of NIKE shoes I really like (Air Force 1, Flyknit, special edition), but once the soles wear out … I essentially have to throw them away, and waste time trying to procure a new ‘perfect’ thing similar to it?
The thing I’m trying to figure out:
How to balance minimalism (minimalist design), and inter-changeability?
For example, I get it– the thin MacBook laptops has nothing interchangeable in order to make it as light, slim and sexy as possible. Yet the tradeoff is that when something gets outdated (like the processor, RAM, storage space, battery, etc) … I cannot easily swap out a new version or one.
Then I figured out, the dilemma:
When it comes to cameras, do I buy the newest RICOH GR camera, knowing that it will only last me 2-3 years before it breaks and I gotta buy a new one, *or* is it better to get a more expensive (bigger, bulkier) but inter-changeable lens camera, that will last longer?
Or with shoes:
Is it better to get uber-minimalist shoes (cheap price) that will wear out in a few months, and just keep buying new versions of it when it runs out, or is it better to buy the more expensive boots (in which you can repair the soles), but the boots are heavier and bulkier?
The notion of ‘unlimited’ seems to be a good one, but in actuality, not good.
For example, better to limit your reps when it comes to lifting weights (better to do fewer reps, with higher intensity/difficulty/weight) than crunching out mindless repetitions until ‘failure’. Ironically enough, you are more prone to injure yourself through doing too many repetitions, when compared to doing a one rep max. For example, when I go for ‘max rep’ bodyweight chin-ups (even a neutral grip), I am more likely to get elbow tendonitis than strapping on four 4-pound plates via a weight belt and doing chin-ups.
Or another example, you’re more likely to ‘injure’ yourself (or cause annoying knee pain) by going for max-rep bodyweight squats, than a one-rep max squat at the gym (no belt).
Something bad about minimalist and streamlined designs:
Either the difficulty, or the impossibility of ‘fixing’ it, ‘upgrading’ specific components, and issues with longevity.
For example, once your iPhone is outdated, it is outdated. No ‘upgrading’ certain components of your iPhone. After purchasing it, you cannot upgrade the camera module, the processor, the memory storage amount, etc. Actually the same goes with MacBook laptops– after you purchase it, you cannot upgrade practically any of it.
Another problem with RICOH GR cameras– they all seem to eventually stop working, break, after just ~2-3 years. For example, my original RICOH GR went kaput, same with my GR II (the lens stopped retracting), and now even with my GR III — the lens is having focusing issues. It is an issue with the minimalist design — because the GR has a lens retracting mechanism, it easily breaks (as it did with the film cameras like the GR1-film cameras). Same went with the Contax T-series cameras, my film Contax T3 had an issue where the lens blades would get stuck when trying to open and retract. Once again — it was a design thing designed to make the camera slimmer and more compact, but it eventually breaks, gets stuck, etc.
Thus the question on my mind:
How do we balance striving towards a minimalistic design, while still offering inter-changeability, fixability, and up-gradeability?
Many people spend tons of money upgrading their car (buying new parts, additions, customizations, rims, performance parts, etc), or by upgrading their entire car (buying a Tesla, Lamborghini, Porsche, etc)–
But much more effective than spending all that time upgrading your car and vehicle, why not spend that money on upgrading yourself instead? For example:
Upgrading your body: Use more money and time to workout (powerlift), or buy some kettlebells to workout at home.
More money on grass-fed beef, steak, bone marrow, and other highly nutritious cuts of meat, to fuel your muscular gains.
For example, a lot of people buy a new carbon fiber piece for their car. Why not use that time and effort to augment your own muscular width instead (getting the infamous ‘wings’ in your back muscle, from doing deadlift, kettlebell swings, chin-ups, weighted chin-ups, etc).
Or instead of getting a car with a faster 0-60 time, or upgrading your car horsepower to drive faster, why not start sprinting instead?
Or instead of upgrading your exhaust, or getting a new muscle car or Lamborghini with a ‘mean’ growl, better to start grunting loud like a beast at the gym when doing a one-rep max.
Or instead of getting a new paint job or rims for your car, or a new carbon fiber hood or trunk or spoiler, maybe just invest that money into more ‘performance’ clothing for yourself. Buy more merino wool clothing, more GoreTex clothing, more military-esque clothing, more elite shoes (minimalist), etc.
To make better photos, don’t show it all. Intentionally obscure parts of the frame, and don’t include certain parts of the frame.
For example in order to make better landscape photos, don’t include all the foreground, middle ground and background. *ONLY* show the foreground or the middle ground or the background.
In other words, if you’re shooting a sunset, don’t include the foreground, only the sky.
If you’re at the beach, don’t show the sand *and* the ocean *and* the sky, only show either the sand, or only the sea, or only the sky.
*EXCLUSION* is the most effective compositional technique and approach.
In Ancient Greek times— being “different†wasn’t the goal… courage was. In the Iliad, strength courage and might is what is valued, not being “differentâ€.
What designs impress you? You gotta see and perceive it in person.
For example, ignore marketing materials and photos. See it in person, touch it in person, hold it in your hand.
For example, I don’t really like any of the new iPhones. iPhone Pro is too big, thick, heavy, and doesn’t feel good in the hand. Also doesn’t have a sexy finish. Funny enough the older matte black finish for iPhone 7 as superior.
Even iPhone Mini— the midnight finish is too shiny.
Even I saw a new Tesla Model S Plaid in real life with a matte black wrap (all blacked out)— I thought I would like it as an aesthetic ideal, but when witnessing it in person, I didn’t really care for it.
Morale of the story: always try it on in person, or test it and hand it in person.
When it comes to design, best for us to consider every single inch; to not compromise any inch of a design of a thing.
For example, my insane huge disdain for chrome accents (cheesy), and also plastic trim on cars.
If I were the creative director of Apple, I would become 1000x more insanely discerning with every inch of Apple product design (iPhone, Mac could be greatly improved in my opinion).
When I meet uber-successful people, after all their success, riches, etc … what is it they all strive towards or ultimately do and become?
They become philosophers, or focus on philosophy.
For example one of my friends at the gym, who is a crypto-whale (apparently is paying $10M in taxes this year alone), after he reached ‘financial independence’, is just focusing on working out and philosophy.
Paul Graham (founder of Y Combinator), essentially is a tech-philosopher.
Nassim Taleb after financial independence, focuses just on writing and philosophy.
Even my sisters’ boyfriends’ uber-successful father (he went all-in on Tesla), just focuses on philosophy.
Therefore, if we think about the end and work our way backwards, it is not riches success and fame which is the apex position, it is philosophy.
How does one ‘become’ a philosopher?
Funny enough back in the day, you were not allowed to call yourself ‘wise’ or a sage. Thus the ‘humble brag’ was to call yourself a philosopher — a lover of wisdom (philo = love, sophia = wisdom). Therefore to be a philosopher was to simply say:
I am not yet wise, but I strive to become wise.
Why wisdom?
Wisdom is funny; in some ways it is hugely practical (practical everyday life wisdom), but also in some ways, an ephemeral and intangible thing with no utility.
Personally I see philosophy as a more aesthetic and artistic pursuit — even Nietzsche calls Plato more of an artist than a ‘philosopher’.
Is stoicism philosophy?
To me, I actually see stoicism as different than philosophy. Stoicism is insanely practical — whereas philosophy (in the general sense) is not.
Stoicism as a road and as a means towards the more artistic/aesthetic philosophical end.
Is religion philosophy?
Religion is not philosophy. Religion is more of an ethical-moral code of ethics which is societal-based, community-oriented, and has certain ‘laws’ to govern the people (typically based on fear of punishment in the afterlife).
Start by asking ‘why’?
Every child is a philosopher. Every child always questions the status-quo, and asks their parents and teachers:
Most adults are not wise. And also not patient. Thus they get annoyed by kids, and say stuff like ‘Because I said so!’ Or ‘Because I decide! [the French notion]’
Why? Wherefore? To what ends? What is the importance? Why do we value this? Is it practical? Is it cultural? Do we just do things this way because we inherited these methods from the past, or is there real utility to it?
Philosophers think, meditate (reflect), challenge, and write/share/publish their ideas
What is the greatest joy of the philosopher? To think. To challenge. To pursue their personal curiosities, and to strive to find some sort of answer or reason behind things.
I also find it essential to not only think, meditate (reflect), and also publish. Even the philosophers of the past either orally shared their philosophies in the Agora, or wrote their philosophies in books. Today we can just blog them.
The philosopher channels their ego for a greater purpose
In Western philosophy, the ‘ego’ is seen as evil. To be ‘ego-centric’ is bad/evil, and to ‘have an ego’ is also considered bad/evil. In Western society, to prioritize the individual over the collective is seen as evil. Thus, in order to become more virtuous, one must become less ego-centric.
I say the opposite — the ego is good, and the ego is your personal tool and instrument for the greater good.
Beyond you
This is what I believe:
The more you pursue philosophy, the more BEYOND yourself you start to think. You start thinking hundreds and even thousands of years after your personal death, and you start to meditate questions for humanity and your own progeny.
And it isn’t about being ‘selfless’– it is that you just care so much for the future and the future of humanity that your own personal ‘happiness’ is no longer of much concern to you.
Empty your mind
The best way to start thinking more and becoming more philosophical is via-negativa — subtract noise, distractions, social media, email, text messages, TV, shows, Netflix, films, etc.
Ironically enough, one does not become wiser by reading more books on philosophy. In fact, as Nassim Taleb says– you become wiser by REMOVING junk and foolish ideas or distractions from your mind.
Subtraction
For example, if you desire to become more focused, rather than forcing yourself to ‘be focused’, much more effective to SUBTRACT distractions from your life.
Or if you desire to become more productive, rather than adding more Apple gadgets to your life, for example getting rid of my phone made me 1000x more productive than getting the newest iPhone or Apple tool.
Physiology
The philosopher is not a sickly, ‘skinny fat’, or anaemic individual. The philosopher is strong, robust, in great health, muscular legs and arms, upright position, healthy tan and skin, loves to be outdoors, loves people, sun exposure, lifting weights, and being a part of society.
The true philosopher also should deadlift. I say no philosopher can really philosophize about the body/and/or/mind unless they can deadlift at least 405 pounds (405 pounds for male philosophers, 315 pounds for female philosophers).
Why is the physiology of the philosopher so essential? Simple —
Much of the history of philosophy is beriddled by sickly individuals, who simply seek to understand why they themselves are suffering, and ultimately end up injecting their own malice and poison to others.
Why are we so fascinated by sickly individuals?
There is a bias that typically we are more interested in the morose, strange, and degenerate individual. Why? They are almost like circus animals– strange, foreign, and curious. They catch our attention.
It is almost like a car wreck– when we see a car wreck, we cannot help but not notice. As much as I hate rubber-necking on the freeway, when it is finally my turn to witness the car accident, I typically also slow down.
What is the purpose or end to philosophy?
The great thing about philosophy is that it is so multi-faceted. For me, it seems the end is more moral, ethical, and aesthetic.
Sociologically speaking– much of how our society is structured and governed is based on ethics and morals.
With art and creativity and photography, it is aesthetic.
Courage in philosophy
To me courage in philosophy is being able to stake a claim without having to piggy-back or quote someone else.
In fact, the biggest boon I got in reading all the old-school philosophers is this:
All the pre-socratic philosophers (who came BEFORE Socrates), were more aesthetic-poets, than being these ‘humble braggers’.
How can doing philosophy benefit you?
Philosophy is both practical and also fun. To muse on certain ideas in itself is a great joy, but also, studying philosophy and becoming more philosophical is practical. For example:
Discovering more focus, purpose in your life
Becoming more zen in life, less of the bad stress, and more of the good stress (eustress)
A greater feeling of control over your personal fate and life
Greater feelings of joy, general wellness and well-being, both physical and mental health.
Ability to enact more impact in the world.
How to get started?
Truth be told, you don’t need to read any philosophers to become a philosopher. However it helps.
For myself, out of all the philosophers I have personally studied, the greatest ones who helped me include:
Seneca (Epistles/Letters to Lucilius, and all his essays)
Better to have a short and curated list of some personal favorite philosophers and just re-read their books and texts, than to try to get a buffet-selection of all the philosophers who existed.
How to share your philosophical musings
I say just blog it. Make your own self-hosted website/blog (wordpress.org), and use a host like bluehost.com or 1and1.com and just start blogging. Better to publish something and have a 1% chance of changing the perspective of 1 other human being on planet earth, than sitting quiet and not sharing your thoughts.
Why does my opinion matter?
Your opinion just means what you think. There is no right or wrong opinion; just personal or impersonal.
“Matter” — your potential to impact or enact change in others.
Once again — better to just share your opinion, and have a 1% chance of changing someone else’s perspective, than staying silent.
Currently I’m having an issue in which my RICOH GR III doesn’t focus or startup properly anymore (lens error). A workaround–
Shoot in snap focus mode, with the pre-focus set to 1 meter.
Funny enough, this has been very liberating. Why? It reduces one thing in your photography process; worrying about focus.
Certainly you cannot focus everything at 1 meter, especially when shooting in auto-iso and program mode (P mode). However, perhaps this is the fun creative constraint:
Assuming you can shoot only at 1 meters pre-focused, what kind of creative photos can you make?
Focus is overrated?
To capture things sharp and in focus; perhaps this is overrated? Maybe better to just shoot everything in snap mode, prefocused (manual focus) to 1 meter?
You can do this with any camera, just put it in manual mode, and pre-focus your lens to 1 meter. And try for a week to only shoot at 1 meter.
What to do
Either
Just get close enough to your subject at 1 meter and shoot it.
Or,
Even if something is closer or further than 1 meter away, just shoot it anyways, and the out of focus effect can be artsy.
In fact, when shooting in autofocus and sometimes making photos of Cindy or Seneca out of focus (on accident), unintentionally the photograph feels more artistic. Assuming our goal is artistic and creative photography, then perhaps intentionally trying to make our photos out of focus, this is better!
Assuming you don’t have a gym membership, you’re a parent and have a kid, and just want more efficiency with time, home kettlebell workout seems to be the best bang for the buck in terms of time and effort and results.
Just get one 48 kilogram (105 pound) kettlebell, and have fun with it at home. Create arbitrary workouts and challenges for yourself.
Having too much money is bad—you spend more time thinking about how to spend or invest your money over just doing things and physical activity or making things.
Using the new WPASTRA theme, and even though there are many things I don’t like about it, the biggest benefit is how ultralightweight it is in terms of frontend file size, which means the site just loads insanely fast.
