2021/01/21

Testimony of simplicity - Wikipedia

Testimony of simplicity - Wikipedia

Testimony of simplicity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search

The testimony of simplicity is a shorthand description of the actions generally taken by members of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) to testify or bear witness to their beliefs that a person ought to live a simple life in order to focus on what is most important and ignore or play down what is least important.[1]

Friends believe that a person’s spiritual life and character are more important than the quantity of goods he possesses or his monetary worth. Friends also believe that one should use one’s resources, including money and time, deliberately in ways that are most likely to make life truly better for oneself and others. 


The word testimony describes the way that Friends testify or bear witness to their beliefs in their everyday life. 

A testimony is therefore not a belief, but is committed action arising out of Friends' religious experience. Testimony to simplicity includes the practice among Quakers (members of the Religious Society of Friends) of being more concerned with one’s inner condition than one’s outward appearance and with other people more than oneself.

General explanation[edit]

Early Friends believed that it was important to avoid fanciness in dress, speech, and material possessions, because those things tend to distract one from waiting on God’s personal guidance. They also tend to cause a person to focus on himself more than on his fellow human beings, in violation of Jesus’ teaching to "love thy neighbor as thyself". This emphasis on plainness, as it was called, made the Friends in certain times and places easily recognizable to the society around them, particularly by their plain dress in the 18th and 19th centuries.[2]

Personal pride does not end with noble blood. It leads people to a fond value of their persons, especially if they have any pretence to shape or beauty. Some are so taken with themselves it would seem that nothing else deserved their attention. Their folly would diminish if they could spare but half the time to think of God, that they spend in washing, perfuming, painting and dressing their bodies. In these things they are precise and very artificial and spare no cost. But what aggravates the evil is that the pride of one might comfortably supply the needs of ten. Gross impiety it is that a nation's pride should be maintained in the face of its poor.

— William Penn, No Cross No Crown[3]

Simplicity to Friends has generally been a reference to material possessions. Friends have often limited their possessions to what they need to live their lives, rather than accumulating luxuries. The testimony is not just about the nature of one's material possessions, but rather also about one's attitude towards these material goods.[2] Many Friends who have been considered exemplary have also been wealthy; their commitment to the testimony, however, led them to use their wealth for spiritual purposes, including aid to the poor and oppressed. On the other hand, some Friends, such as John Woolman, gave up much of their wealth and economic position when they felt it to be a spiritual burden.[2] In recent decades Friends have given the Testimony an ecological dimension: that Friends should not use more than their fair share of the Earth's limited resources.[2]

Like many aspects of Quaker life, the practice of plainness has evolved over time, although it is based on principles that have been a lasting part of Quaker thought. These principles now form part of the Quaker testimonies. Plainness is an extension of the testimony of simplicity and can still be observed today among modern Friends who do not follow fashion trends or purchase extravagant clothing.

This testimony also finds expression in the tradition of plain walls and functional furniture in Quaker meeting houses.

Simplicity in dress[edit]

Traditionally, wearing plain dress was an answer to a number of Friends' concerns. Expensive styles were used to show social inequality and make statements about wealth. Only a select few could afford expensive adornments, which could then be used to exacerbate differences between people based on class, where people in fancy clothing would not want to be seen socializing with others dressed tattily. This was part of the inspiration for the Quaker testimony to equality. In addition, the frequent buying of expensive new styles and discarding what had recently been bought, was considered wasteful and self-seeking, where Friends instead aimed to focus on simplicity, and the important things in life. Notably, Friends did not consider it right to judge people on their material possessions, but this could not be achieved in a society which placed an emphasis on keeping up to date with inconsequential but expensive new trends. At the time, this practice of plainness meant Friends were obviously identifiable.

As fashions changed over time, the Quaker ideal of plain dress stood out against contemporary clothing. As a result, the traditional forms of this practice were dropped by most Friends. Today, it is more likely that Friends will try to put their faith into action by dressing in a plain version of current fashions — such as avoiding clothing displaying designer labels. They may also try to buy only the clothing they need, and pay more for fairly traded clothing that has been made ethically.

Friends used to have a strong tradition of simplicity in dress, more properly called "plain dress". Plain dress generally meant wearing clothes that were very similar to Amish or conservative Mennonite dress: often in dark colors and lacking adornments such as fancy (or any) pockets, buttons, buckles, lace, or embroidery.[4][5] This was widely practiced until the late 19th and early 20th century, when most Friends began dressing more like the rest of society.[2] As the Quaker Oats brand shares the Quaker name, despite having no links with the Society of Friends, there is now a somewhat popular misconception that Friends today still wear the traditional clothing. A small minority of contemporary Friends continue to dress plainly.[6]

Traditional plain dress has survived among the Conservative Friends and Holiness Friends branches of Quakerism, which is today represented by meetings such as the Ohio Yearly Meeting and the Central Yearly Meeting respectively, where there exist Friends who have kept plain dress alive up to the present day.[7][8] The number of contemporary Friends voluntarily wearing traditional plain dress is growing and has been called by some Quakers "The New Plain".[9][10]

However, the vast majority of Quakers today are all but indistinguishable from non-Quakers as far as style of clothing is concerned.[11][12]

Some Conservative Friends do not self-describe this witness as being part of their simplicity testimony, but rather their integrity testimony,[13] viewing it as an obedience to God's will rather than a witness to a human-generated ideal.[14] Thomas Hamm, in his book Quakers in America, describes a transition among most Friends from plainness to simplicity.[2]

Simplicity in speech[edit]

Plainness in speech addressed other concerns than materialism: honesty, avoiding class distinction and vestiges of paganism, and the speaking of truth. These principles were put into practice by affirming rather than making an oath or shaking hands to agree upon a deal, setting fixed prices for goods, avoiding the use of honorific titles and using familiar forms for the second person pronoun. Early Friends also objected to the names of the days and months in the English language, because many of them referred to Roman or Norse gods, such as Mars (March) and Thor (Thursday), and Roman emperors, such as Julius (July). As a result, the days of the week were known as "First Day" for Sunday, "Second Day" for Monday, and so forth. Similarly, the months of the year were "First Month" for January, "Second Month" for February, and so forth. For many Friends today, this is no longer a priority, though the tradition is still kept up by some—especially in the term "First-Day school" for Sunday schools organized by Friends. Many Friends organizations continue to use the "simple calendar" for official records.

Early Friends practiced plainness in speech by not referring to people in the "fancy" ways that were customary. Often Friends would address high-ranking persons using the familiar forms of "thee" and "thou", instead of the respectful "you". Later, as "thee" and "thou" disappeared from everyday English usage, many Quakers continued to use these words as a form of "plain speech", though the original reason for this usage disappeared, along with "hath". In the twentieth century, "thou hath" disappeared, along with the associated second-person verb forms, so that "thee is" is normal.[15] Today there are still Friends that will use "thee" with other Quakers. (Note: in 17th century English the forms above would have been "thou hast" and "thou art".)

In languages that today maintain the T-V distinction, usage varies. Following the British usage, early francophone Quakers preferred the use of the more informal tu to address even those who would by convention be addressed with the more formal vous. In more contemporary times, however, usage has swung the other way, and French-speaking Quakers today are more likely than others to use the formal vous. In part, this is a recognition of the complexity of the notion of simplicity in speech, whose intent might be understood to be not a requirement of informality, but a desire to address everyone "simply", i.e., uniformly. The rejection of the past use of tu by white French missionaries to address Africans may be a factor in the contemporary francophone usage.[16]

Titles, such as Mr., Mrs., Miss, Dr., Rev., etc., are often avoided by many Friends. Instead Friends tend to address each other by first and last name with no title. In many Quaker communities children address adults by either their first names, or first and last names but with no title, and in many Quaker schools teachers are called by their first names as well. It is conventional for Friends who do not know each other well, who in non-Quaker circles would address each other with a title, to use first name and last name together, rather than to adopt the more familiar first name only. Friends also tend not to use the appellation sir or madam to refer to someone of whom they do not know the name, instead using the term Friend. In letter-writing, where others might use the phrase Dear Sir or Madam, many Quakers would instead write Dear Friend, and in such letters, rather than finishing yours faithfully would finish either yours in truth or yours in friendship. This practice is now considered more a part of the Testimony of Equality than a part of the Testimony of Simplicity.

Additionally early Friends and modern Friends do not swear oaths, even in courtrooms (a choice that has been allowed in Britain since 1695, and is protected in the United States by the Constitution, and one that can be problematic elsewhere). When required, Quakers may instead "affirm" that they are going to tell the truth. This was considered an aspect of simplicity because it was simply telling the truth rather than embellishing it with an oath, which is not necessary if one is supposed to always tell the truth. It is also an aspect of the Testimony of Integrity. It comes in part from Christ's teaching in the sermon on the mount:

Again, you have heard that our forefathers were told, "Do not break your oath," and "Oaths sworn to the Lord must be kept." But what I tell you is this: You are not to swear at all - not by heaven, for it is God's throne, nor by the earth, for it is his footstool, nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King, nor by your own head, because you cannot turn one hair of it white or black. Plain "Yes" or "No" is all you need to say; anything beyond that comes from the evil one

— Revised English BibleMatthew Ch 5: vv 33-37

Above all things, my friends, do not use oaths, whether "by heaven" or "by earth" or by anything else. When you say "Yes" or "No", let it be plain Yes or No, for fear you draw down judgement on yourselves

— Revised English BibleJames Ch 5: v 12

In a similar manner Friends avoid haggling over prices. They simply set a fixed price that they considered fair, which went against the custom of earlier times, but was felt by them to be simpler and more honest (this practice is generally considered more a part of the Testimony of Integrity than a part of the Testimony of Simplicity).

Simplicity in general life[edit]

The Testimony of Simplicity is an important part of Quaker life, and many examples of its influence can be seen in both day-to-day and ceremonious practices. In keeping with the testimony, for example, many meetings that have care of a graveyard ask that those erecting monuments to deceased Friends keep the testimony in mind and erect only a simple, low-lying stone.

Misconceptions[edit]

  • Many believe Quakers look like the illustration on the Quaker Oats package. Most Quakers dress like the rest of local society.[17]
  • There is often confusion between Quakers and the Amish, the Mennonites and the Shakers. Although one can note similarities among these groups, the Amish, Mennonites and Shakers are separate and different from Friends.[17]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Thomas D. Hamm The Quakers in America 2006 Page 101 "They point to the testimony of simplicity as one of the distinguishing aspects of Quakerism. The journey from plainness to simplicity was complicated, but some understanding of it is necessary to understand what simplicity means for ..."
  2. Jump up to:a b c d e f Thomas D Hamm on Plainness in The Quakers in America on Google Books.
  3. ^ http://www.gospeltruth.net/Penn/nocrossnocrownch11.htm
  4. ^ "Quaker Jane" on Plain dress Archived 2008-04-15 at the Wayback Machine
  5. ^ Farnworth One-Name study – article comparing Quakers and Puritans.Archived 2008-09-21 at the Wayback Machine
  6. ^ Rich, Brooklyn Quaker (2004-12-17). "The New Plain?". Blogger. Retrieved 2008-04-29.
  7. ^ The Conservative Friend website FAQs: "So what about the funny clothes? Do you dress like the Amish?"
  8. ^ Manual of Faith and Practice of Central Yearly Meeting of FriendsCentral Yearly Meeting of Friends. 2018. p. 107–110.
  9. ^ Brooklyn Quaker blog explains "New Plain".
  10. ^ Martin Kelley's Quaker Ranter blog comments "Public Friends Rising Up in the New Plain".
  11. ^ The Conservative Friend | An Outreach of Ohio Yearly Meeting of Friends
  12. ^ Quaker Information Center website: "Quakers are not: Amish, Anabaptists, Shakers or Puritans--we come from a separate tradition than these other groups. We mostly don't dress like the man on the box of oats anymore, and today we hardly ever call people "thee." "
  13. ^ Conservative Friends of America website: Quaker testimonies
  14. ^ Quaker Jane website: "The Plain Dress Witness: Reasons Quaker Women Give for Going Plain".
  15. ^ George Fox, Prescriptivist
  16. ^ FWCC Glossary
  17. Jump up to:a b Quaker information and religious beliefs

Sources[edit]

  • Hamm, Thomas D. Quakers in America, (Contemporary American Religion series), Columbia University Press, 2003. ISBN 0-231-12362-0NOTE: The section on "Simplicity" is at pp. 101–108. Some pages from this section are available on Google Books.
  • Fager, Charles E. "The Quaker Testimony of Simplicity" in Quaker Religious Thought, Vol. 14, #1. Summer, 1972.
  • Foster, Richard J. Freedom of Simplicity. Harper & Row, 1981. ISBN 0-06-104385-0
  • Pym, Jim. Listening To The Light: How To Bring Quaker Simplicity And Integrity Into Our Lives. Rider Books, 1999.
  • Whitmire, Catherine. Plain Living: A Quaker Path to Simplicity, Sorin Books, 2001. ISBN 1-893732-28-2

External links[edit]

Boris Pasternak - Wikipedia Tolstoyan

Boris Pasternak - Wikipedia

Shortly after his birth, Pasternak's parents had joined the Tolstoyan Movement. Novelist Leo Tolstoy was a close family friend, as Pasternak recalled, "my father illustrated his books, went to see him, revered him, and ...the whole house was imbued with his spirit."[8]

Pasternak c. 1908

In a 1956 essay, Pasternak recalled his father's feverish work creating illustrations for Tolstoy's novel Resurrection.[9] The novel was serialized in the journal Niva by the publisher Fyodor Marx, based in St Petersburg. The sketches were drawn from observations in such places as courtrooms, prisons and on trains, in a spirit of realism. To ensure that the sketches met the journal deadline, train conductors were enlisted to personally collect the illustrations. Pasternak wrote,

My childish imagination was struck by the sight of a train conductor in his formal railway uniform, standing waiting at the door of the kitchen as if he were standing on a railway platform at the door of a compartment that was just about to leave the station. Joiner's glue was boiling on the stove. The illustrations were hurriedly wiped dry, fixed, glued on pieces of cardboard, rolled up, tied up. The parcels, once ready, were sealed with sealing wax and handed to the conductor.[9]

According to Max Hayward, "In November 1910, when Tolstoy fled from his home and died in the stationmaster's house at Astapovo, Leonid Pasternak was informed by telegram and he went there immediately, taking his son Boris with him, and made a drawing of Tolstoy on his deathbed."[10]

Regular visitors to the Pasternaks' home also included Sergei RachmaninoffAlexander ScriabinLev Shestov, Rainer Maria Rilke. Pasternak aspired first to be a musician.[11] Inspired by Scriabin, Pasternak briefly was a student at the Moscow Conservatory. In 1910 he abruptly left for the German University of Marburg, where he studied under Neo-Kantian philosophers Hermann CohenNicolai Hartmann and Paul Natorp.

단샤리 - 제타위키 断捨離 Wikipedia

단샤리 - 제타위키

단샤리

1 개요

(だんしゃり)
단샤리, 단사리
  • 불필요한 물건을 줄이고 생활의 조화를 추구하는 사상
  • ‘과잉’을 배제하려는 생활태도
  • 야마시타 히데코가 저서를 통해 제안
  • 미니멀리스트, 미니멀 라이프와 유사함
단, 저자는 단샤리가 최소화가 아닌 '최적화'를 추구하므로 다르다고 설명했음
단(断)불필요한 물건을 들이지 않음
샤(捨)집에 있는 불필요한 물건을 버림
리(離)물건에 대한 집착을 버림

2 #Jmnote

단(断)불필요한 소프트웨어를 설치하지 않음
샤(捨)설치된 소프트웨어 중 불필요한 것을 삭제
리(離)소프트웨어에 대한 집착을 버림
단(断)불필요한 동영상을 다운로드하지 않음
샤(捨)저장된 동영상 중 불필요한 것을 삭제
리(離)동영상에 대한 집착을 버림
→ 위키를 하자... (기승전위)

3 같이 보기

4 참고



--
断捨離
出典: フリー百科事典『ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)』
ナビゲーションに移動検索に移動
断捨離(だんしゃり)とは、

沖正弘が提唱したヨーガの思想[1]。1976年の著書『ヨガの考え方と修業法 上巻』[2]において「断捨離」という語が使用されている。
作家のやましたひでこが提唱する、不要な物を減らし、生活に調和をもたらそうとする思想。本項では主にこちらについて解説する。

目次
1 断捨離の思想
1.1 思想の背景
2 断捨離の商標権
3 問題点
4 脚注
5 参考文献
6 関連項目
断捨離の思想
「断捨離」のそれぞれの文字には、ヨーガの行法(ぎょうほう)である断行(だんぎょう)・捨行(しゃぎょう)・離行(りぎょう)に対応し、

断:入ってくる不要な物を断つ。
捨:家にずっとある不要な物を捨てる。
離:物への執着から離れる。
という意味がある。

すなわち「断捨離」とは、不要な物を「断ち」「捨て」、物への執着から「離れる」ことにより、「もったいない」という固定観念に凝り固まってしまった心を開放し、身軽で快適な生活と人生を手に入れようとする思想である。ヨーガの行法が元になっているため、単なる片付けとは異なるものとされている。

やましたが2009年に出版した『新・片付け術 断捨離』(マガジンハウス)のヒットにより一般に知られるようになった。やましたは同著書や自身の公式ウェブサイトにおいて、自身を「断捨離の提唱者[3]」とし、自身のブログのプロフィールでは「断捨離の言い出しっぺ[4]」、著書の内容紹介では「断捨離の考案者[5]」であると記している。

やましたの著書のヒットにより「断捨離」は流行語となり、翌2010年には新語・流行語大賞にノミネートされた[6]。「断捨離ブーム」によって、やました以外にも多数の著者により断捨離を扱った本が出版されるようになり、仕事[7]や人間関係[8][9]などについて断捨離の実践を勧める書物も出版された。

断捨離を実践する人を、やましたは「ダンシャリアン」と呼ぶ[10](著者によっては漢字で「断捨離アン」と表記される場合もある)。また「ミニマリスト」と呼ばれることもあるが、所有物を「最小」化しようとするミニマリストと、「最適」化しようとするダンシャリアンを、やましたは明確に区別している[10]。

思想の背景
やましたの母親は物を捨てずに溜め込む性格で、片付けるためと称して収納家具を買い足してはさらに部屋を狭くし、「片付かない、家が狭い」と愚痴をこぼすことを繰り返していた[11]。彼女はそうした母親の姿を見て「物を減らせば解決するのになぜ気づかないのか?」と感じていた[11]。そして従来の書籍などが提唱する片付け術が収納術に偏っていることに気づき、ヨーガを通じて「断捨離の思想」に行き着いたという[11]。物を溜め込むのは心に不安があるからで、溜め込んだ物を捨てることで、行動療法のように不安を解消できるとする[11]。

야마시타의 어머니는 물건을 버리지 않고 모으는 성격으로, 치우기 위한 것이라고 칭하며 수납 가구를 사고 더해, 더 방을 좁히고 "정돈되지 않은 집이 좁은"고 푸념을 반복했다 [11 ]. 그녀는 그런 어머니의 모습을보고 "물건을 줄이면 해결하는데 왜 눈치 채지?"라고 느끼고 있었다 [11]. 그리고 기존의 책 등이 제창하는 정리 술, 이화물 술에 치우쳐있는 것을 알고, 요가를 통해 "단 捨離의 사상 '에 도착한하는 [11]. 물건을 모으는 것은 마음에 불안이있는 때문, 모아서 저축 한 것을 버리는 것으로, 행동 요법처럼 불안을 해소 할 수 있다고한다 [11].

「強迫的ホーディング」も参照
こうして母親を反面教師としてきた経験から「親にわだかまりのない人はいない」と述べるとともに[11]、親への執着を「断つ」ことの重要性についても言及している[11]。女性向け雑誌『婦人公論』増刊号(2013年4月10日号)の特集「断捨離で『母の呪縛』を解く」では、信田さよ子と「断捨離は生存をかけた娘の闘いです」と題して対談した[9]。

「アダルトチルドレン」も参照
また、東洋経済オンラインでの岩崎夏海との対談では、多忙から2015年に体調を崩した経験から「心身の健康を守るためには、責任感や『忙しさへの執着』を断捨離することも必要だと悟った」と語っている[11]。

断捨離の商標権
やましたは「断捨離」を商標登録している。

特許庁は、書籍や電子出版物などの商品において「商標が…著作物の…一定の内容を明らかに認識させるものと認められる場合には、商品の『品質』を表示するものと判断する」[12]としている。

やました以外の誰であっても「断捨離」の思想及びやましたの所有するブランドを説明する趣旨で「断捨離」の語を使用することに対し、いかなる場合でも商標権の効力は及ばない[13]。

例として、電子出版のプラットフォームや書籍リーダーの「ブランド名」として「断捨離」の語を使用することはできないが、書籍などのタイトルとして「断捨離」の語を使用することは可能である[要検証 – ノート]。

やましたは自身のウェブサイトで「断捨離」の語を商用利用することを禁じているが、個人的に断捨離体験を語ることは認めている。しかし商標法においてはそうした行為を禁止することは不可能であるし、やましたの許可を得る以前に認められているということになる。

問題点
Text document with red question mark.svg
この節の出典は、Wikipedia:信頼できる情報源に合致していないおそれがあります。そのガイドラインに合致しているか確認し、必要であれば改善して下さい。(2020年12月)
---
断捨離を意識するあまり、同居する家族の所有物を勝手に捨てたり売却してしまうことでトラブルになる例もあり、妻が夫の貴重なコレクションを同意なく捨てる、子供が大切にしていた思い出の品を親が勝手に捨てるなどで、離婚問題に発展することもある[14][信頼性要検証]。

---
こうしたトラブルによる「断捨離」への批判もあるが、やましたはこれに対し「家族を含めて他人のものを勝手に捨てるのは断捨離ではない」「同居人に対し協力を期待したり説得しないこと」[15]とした上で、「同じ居住空間を共有する夫婦は価値観の折り合いをつけていくことが大事」[11]と発言し、断捨離とは自分と自分の所有物に行うものであると主張している[15]。

また、新型コロナウイルス感染症の流行により食料品や日用品などの入手性が悪化したことにより、備蓄を持たない生活のデメリットが浮き彫りになった。ミニマリストの中には考えを改める例が見られ、今後は備蓄に取り組む「プレッパー」が増加すると予想する者もある[16][信頼性要検証]。

脚注
[脚注の使い方]
  1. ^ Oki yoga no kangaekata to shugyōhō. 1. Oki, Masahiro, 1921-1985., 沖 正弘, 1921-1985.. 竹井出版. (1987). ISBN 4884740394. OCLC 674045906
  2. ^ Oki yoga no kangaekata to shugyōhō. 1. Oki, Masahiro, 1921-1985., 沖, 正弘, 1921-1985.. 竹井出版. (1987). ISBN 4884740394. OCLC 674045906
  3. ^ “断捨離® やましたひでこ公式サイト”. 断捨離® やましたひでこ公式サイト. 2019年6月16日閲覧。
  4. ^ “断捨離@やましたひでこさんのプロフィールページ” (日本語). profile.ameba.jp. 2019年6月16日閲覧。
  5. ^ Tatsumura, Osamu.; 竜村修. (2013). Densetsu no yoga masutā ga oshiete kureta kyūkyoku no ikiru chie. Yamashita, Hideko., やましたひでこ.. Tōkyō: Pīeichipīeditāzugurūpu. ISBN 9784569812588. OCLC 848599376
  6. ^ “「現代用語の基礎知識・選 ユーキャン 新語・流行語大賞 第27回 2010年」”. 2019年8月2日閲覧。
  7. ^ 田崎 (2010)
  8. ^ 向谷 (2011)
  9. ^ a b 婦人公論編 (2013)
  10. ^ a b やましたひでこ. “最小でも最大でもなく「最適」な量と関係で ~ダンシャリアンがミニマリストと違う理由”. Yahoo!ニュース 個人. 2016年7月7日閲覧。
  11. ^ a b c d e f g h やましたひでこ・岩崎夏海 (2015年5月28日). “"断捨離"と"ヘヤカツ"で人生が劇的に変わる | 家庭” (日本語). 東洋経済オンライン. 2020年12月21日閲覧。
  12. ^ “特許庁「商標審査基準第14版 第3条第1項第3号」” (日本語). 2019年8月12日閲覧。
  13. ^ 商標法第26条第1項第2号、第3号、第4号、第6号
  14. ^ “断捨離を理由に離婚? 夫の物を勝手に捨てた妻の法的責任について” (日本語). ベリーベスト法律事務所. 2020年12月20日閲覧。
  15. ^ a b 断捨離【公認officialページ】同居人に「期待」しない、「説得」しない やましたひでこ Facebook
  16. ^ “新型コロナでミニマリストが続々「やめます」宣言 “他人に迷惑をかけた”後悔のワケは”. リアルライブ (リアルライブ). (2020年7月24日) 2020年7月25日閲覧。
参考文献
やましたひでこ『新・片づけ術「断捨離」』マガジンハウス、2009年、ISBN 4838720521
やましたひでこ・中村究『断捨離 なぜ“捨てられない人”は「うつ」になりやすいのか?―モノ 人 執着 思い込み クセ』主婦の友社、2012年、ISBN 4072844284
鈴木淳子・川畑のぶこ『断捨離アンになろう! モノを捨てれば福がくる』ディスカヴァー・トゥエンティワン、2010年、ISBN 4887598874
田崎正巳『ビジネスパーソンのための断捨離思考のすすめ』同文館出版、2010年、ISBN 4495591517
向谷匡史『50歳からの人断捨離』辰巳出版、2011年、ISBN 4777809722
婦人公論編『断捨離で「母の呪縛」を解く』婦人公論増刊、2013年4月10日号


関連項目
強迫的ホーディング / ごみ屋敷
強迫性障害
アダルトチルドレン
カテゴリ: シンプルライフ廃棄物削減造語思想ヨーガ