I agree with Ludwig to reasonable extent that . Yes, when the idea is to declutter. Of course, doing a single most important thing is usually more effective than doing a lot of less important things. Yes, finds application in communication. If I wanted to get my point across effectively, then saying it succinctly would be more effective than blathering on and on. My listener would be lost in the verbiage.
But is a flawed concept when it is viewed from other perspectives. For instance, if means a little amount of something is better than a lot of it, then that concept wouldn’t obviously fit a situation where one needs to use thin tissue paper as swipes. Less would never be more in repetitive processes that build capacity and competence. And less happiness would apparently not be more. Or would it?
I read in the world’s best-selling book ever a cardinal truth that more is the antidote to waste; much more to much waste. That timeless theory was propounded by a Master Strategist long before any economic theorist ever did:
One of the founders of modern architecture and proponent of simplicity of style – Ludwig Mies Van Der Rohe – is often associated with the a 19th century proverbial phrase,. The kernel of this phrase is that simplicity and clarity lead to good design. This is particularly true because what is less complicated is often better understood than what is more complicated. Several people prefer simplicity to complexity. And for a large lot, brevity is more effective than verbosity.
|Made in Europe|
|Minimum of 2 cartons per order|