Doesn't He Admit It Is Impossible To Be Completely Unspooked?

In a funny round about way trying to be the unspooked one becomes a fixed idea. At some point we all have to draw the line in the sand. Unconscious desires and innermost values are never logical, they are introjected.

I meant to call one of the images egoist instead of egotist. I had not idea they were different words. Egotist roughly means larping the ego whereas an egoist is someone who is about their bus-in-ass. Like the difference between the insane and the hypersane. Eventually I will have to remind the apple of my eye that hippity hoppity you are now my property.

He isn't wrong but can be misleading. Serving people is often, secretly, the most profitable way to use them. When all our abilities and our fate are decided by the properties of our mind and every social interaction is a chance to further refine it toward our goals.

Is that a bot, drugs, or severe ESL? In any case, I can’t make sense of it.

>>47876 >When all our abilities and our fate are decided by the properties of our mind and every social interaction is a chance to further refine it toward our goals. That's if the environment has nothing to say. You got something to say, but also the environment does.

exact quotes from the text please, if you want to discuss stirner id rather not discuss the meme of him. i don't think he was against fixed ideas, merely the performance of concepts as if they were reality. also my takeaway from stirner was that you only needed to dismiss the ideas that don't serve you or hold you back. if an idea doesn't hold you back then you might not want to dismiss it. but you need to figure out whether it's really improving your life, or simply aligning your life with its notion of "improvement"... >at some point we all have to draw the line in the sand tentatively agree but i dont know what you mean by this >unconscious is a spook >innermost values are never logical from what i understand the point is that you don't need to rationalize or justify yourself >>47876 no thats retarded cope you are a slave to those who decide how much money you should make. your boss does not serve you, you serve him and you are not secretly holding all the cards in the relationship. unless you'd rather not be promoted of course. >>47878 i think its weed

>>47906 The environment matters, but... You know how during terminal clarity people and animals can choose to blatantly ignore the state of their brain and act as if perfectly healthy? Simply because they have something important left to do... Our body is made of matter, and matter is made of energy... And where does energy come from? Our ability to discuss our consciousness requires for it to have the ability to influence our body, which makes it a source of energy... So, as long as there is a properly shaped desire... The flesh is weak, but if the mind is willing, defunct parts can always be strengthened or replaced. For even if this universe wasn't created by us, we share the same innate nature as its creator. In the end, our limits are self-inflicted. Even a grain of faith...

>>47913 Interesting take, thank you for taking the time to reply. Basically what I understand is that you are also the environment, which, generally speaking, might be true.

Max might have just thought "spooks" (I prefer "phantasms") are just something to be aware of to keep them from getting out of control in how they can influence you

>>47873 Sterner is the only human I relate to

>>47912 >Serve Spook by your own summation, and funnily enough, not when that anon used it, by that same summation

Stirner is an alter ego of Friedrich Engels, don't take him too seriously

>>47873 stirner was ragebait made up by engels anyways, marx fell for it

>>48017 >Le turned tables Not really, if you actually read him stirner is pretty explicit about how labor should be abolished and people only participate in capitalism because of the spooks. I think you're trying to make the argument that acknowledging spooks affect human behavior is the real spook but thats retarded. >That anon lurk more

>>48021 You miss 100% of the points you refuse to engage, and you aren't using that nomenclature correctly. Don't panic. Presumptively hand-waving won't actually 'serve' you, friend. Disagreeability is only an effective substitute for knowlegability against the uninitiated.

>>48019 lol I think I was who made up this conspiracy that Engels made up Stirner to pick up girls.

>>48022 >you miss 100% of the points you refuse to engage oftentimes the structure of an argument makes engaging with every point unnecessary. since im not interested in winning a debate, merely having a civil discussion in what i hope is good faith then i would appreciate if you tried as hard to see what i mean as i do for you. you're responding to a singular word, "serve" as if your personal definition of it makes you an expert on a philosopher you probably have not read and invalidates my multiple points about it. you're presumably trying to defend the OP but responded to zero of my points yourself. perhaps you should follow your own advice? >what stirner failed to consider is that the concept of spooks is itself a spook, and that you can frame an authoritarian relationship as the reverse of what it is to reiterate, this is untrue because spooks have a specific definition from the text and is not a general stand-in for "ideology" or "one's subjective worldview". stirner, or any egoist for that matter, would certainly agree that there are correct and incorrect worldviews. this is why the spook exists in the first place, if he did not think this way then there would be no point to them at all. >the self is a spook this is not a position any of you have seemed to arrive at but it is nevertheless in line with some of the things that were stated and were important to me for a while, which i feel captures the misinterpretation of stirner in this thread. the answer is very simple. there are different operative definitions of the word "self". i will provide the longer explanation, because this topic was once and important to me, and because it might be interesting. if you bother to read it. Lao Tse, whos i consider to generally be in line with egoism, states that the self which can be named is not the true self. in the Dao De Ching, he generally emphasizes the inadequacy of language and theory to express that which is felt, and that there is always insight to be gained from direct experiences. it is furthermore true that there is a connection to be made between the "self" of western psychology and is mentioned throughout daoism and zen. Stirner argues, perhaps in response to the general philosophical origin of psycho­a​nalysis that was apparent throughout Vienna at the time, that we mature in 3 phases: one of direct experiences, one of ideas, and one in which we synthesize them and become complete. you can call this manner of experience, thesis, and synthesis as dialectical, but watch out! because stirner had specific arguments against the other dialecticians of the time - especially Marx, Fichte, and Hegel, all of whom had unique and crucial notions of dialectics themselves. Stirner in my opinion was critical of these ideas precisely because they elevate certain aspects, the spooks in question, above reality and experience itself. Unlike Lao Tse, however, Stirner did not argue fundamental aspects of reality could never be precisely articulated, he simply did not believe there was a point in doing so. For this reason there have been egoist movements that tended more empirico-rationalist, like the russian nihilists, and ones that tended more mystical, like the pagan anarchism of Wolfi Landstreicher, who among other things translated Stirner. Something that underlies all of these groups, however, is their opposition to authority and the state, as well as to capitalism. this is not because i have simply cherry picked egoists who are anarchist, but rather because stirner himself was an anarchist who was opposed to capitalism. pic related, a direct quote from the text itself, which you seem allergic to, in which Stirner outlines the basic wage relation of capitalism and why it should be opposed. my thesis drags on, and threatens to overcomplicate as well as meet the character limit. I can elaborate on any of these things but TL;DR, the ego and its own is extremely short, and you could read all of it in the time it takes to argue untrue things about a philosopher you have not read on messageboards. Landstreicher's translation is below. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-unique-and-its-property

>>48022 made a mistake, in >>48024 rather than "OP" I meant to say >>47876 . my point remains.

>>48024 Gish gallop. If you want it to be good faith, then don't continue to presumptively hand wave. You're outlining a point that wasn't made, and then waxing. Semantic wriggling about "debate" and "civil discussion", "good faith", and "personal definition" is all beside the point. You're being a glitterboy. The point is, as stated, that your summation, not the concept, was a self-refutation, and a misunderstanding of an argument made about utility. It's primarily a criticism of your reading comprehension, both of the post and of Stirner.

>>48026 the fact that you can't seem to clearly elaborate what the argument in question is and how it was wrong, instead accusing me of all these logical fallacies in lieu of an actual argument. ironically as you accuse me of the very handwaving you seem to be doing yourself. >gish gallop is an elaboration not what you wanted? i did so because the subject is interesting to me, not to refute what was stated, we have already been over how the stated point is thoroughly meaningless unless you would like to explain otherwise. >misunderstanding of an argument made about utility then pray tell, what is the actual argument? what is the misunderstanding? all you can do is make vague allusions, accuse me of being wrong, and mis-cite logical phallacies. there is, as i have stated, no meat to your bones. >its a criticism of your reading comprehension if it is as you say entirely a personal attack then it certainly is not one based in the reading comprehension you so cherish. for i directly recognize i am not referring to any actual arguments made ITT for most of the post. it is not a strawman if i recognize that. >this is not a position any of you have seemed to arrive at but it is nevertheless in line with some of the things that were stated and were important to me for a while, which i feel captures the misinterpretation for clarity on what this refers to, all discussion of how the environment seems to contribute to the ego is relevant. if you've been following.

>>48028 >The fact You cannot help yourself. >Accusing me of logical fallacies You cannot help yourself. >Actual argument You responded to this contention: "Serving people is often, secretly, the most profitable way to use them". With this "no that's retarded cope you are a slave to those who decide how much money you should make. your boss does not serve you, you serve him and you are not secretly holding all the cards in the relationship". Do you see what is wrong there? You responded to a conditional with a definitive, as though it was a definitive, and as though the sentiment can only refer to an employer/employee interaction. The irony therein is that you're pontificating on your expertise of Stirner from a purely Materialist presumption. The criticism is not of Stirner. It is that your application has holes. Specifically, that the terms "serve" or "profitability" can only be understood Materialistically. In short, it's Marx-brained. So to reiterate, your summation of >That anon Is Hauntological specifically because of the way you interpreted their use of "serve" to fill in an argument that was not made via a Materialist framework, and theirs is not because, by your own summation, it didn't. >Elaboration You cannot help yourself. >Not to refute what was stated You cannot help yourself. >We have already been over You cannot help yourself. >Pray tell Bro, c'mon now... >Mis-cite logical phallacies Holy soykaf, you cannot help yourself. >You so cherish What the fuarrrk is wrong with you? >This is not a position any of you.... Introspect, just a little >If you've been following Are you picking up on it yet? You have so many tells

>>48029 >You responded to a conditional with an absolute Funny that you should accuse me of semantic wriggling, yet consistently attempt to snare me in formalities like this. I don't know how to further emphasize that we aren't in debate club, the elements of style do not matter (and you are no doubt incorrect about them anyway) and things like mode of speech do not matter in terms of the underlying point. you weren't even conditionalizing anyway. >As though the sentiment could only apply to an employer/employee interaction >You can only understand that "serve" and "profitability" materialistically It is true that there are other meanings of the word serve. But stirner is in opposition of them all. Unless you are engaging in the empty threat of rhetoric, and choosing a loose definition of the term "serve" - as if it is not very clear what I meant, and it is not furthermore clear what Stirner meant by it. That is as you say, "semantic wriggling". There is little case to be made from the text that one is a servant in some ways and a master in others. And if it were even the case, it would not be something stirner would want because he sought to abolish all forms of servant and all forms of master: the egoist is above such things, for the master is but the shoddy product of the slave - if servility ceased, it would be all over for lordship. Furthermore, one cannot be subjectively a slave and a master, only as a place in a hierarchy, for the same reason one cannot serve two masters. >Your post is marx brained That is because stirner too would be "marx brained" according to your judgment. Finally read him for yourself and you will understand that I was merely summarizing stirner's argument about the wage relation. If I were to present the text itself without qualification as such you might not even realize it was stirner because of how you have been spooked of materialism and the possibility of Marxism, as some desecrating evil, corrupting your pure and delicate mind. To elaborate: Stirner believed, like Marx, in the class of workers, who are unprotected in their essence (having no state recognition, beyond subjects "protected" by the police). Unlike Marx he believed they should remain a hostile power against the state, due to its bourgeois character. He furthermore believed that work has, in principle, a real value which is not recognized, that it is rather exploited as a spoil of class warfare between labor and the bourgeoisie, who use the state to enforce ownership of all The workers have the most enormous power in their hands, and if one day they became truly aware of it and used it, then nothing could resist them. they would only have to stop work and look upon the products of work as their own and enjoy them. >Hauntological Not what that word means. You are presumptive in many respects. >You cannot be helped Presumptive in many respects >Bro c'mon now Presumptive in many respects >I have not been following we can tell.

>>48030 >It is true that there are other meanings of the word serve Yeah you get it now. Everything else is gish gallop. Not elaboration, gish gallop. But, not knowing about Derida's Hauntology and dismissing it's use as though it's a heady concept was pretty funny. >Stirner is in opposition to them all Haha, yeah : ^ )

>>48029 It's pretty ignorant to talk about materialism as if it was solely understood in terms of economic accounting. Marx is pretty explicit in the theses on feuerbach that materialism is much more personal and visceral to him: >The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism – that of Feuerbach included – is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively.

>>48036 Criticizing the contention that utility of service is only understood through a employer/employee dynamic, by calling it materialistic, is not the same as equating materialism to economic accounting

>>48040 Then what did you mean when you referred to the employ/employee relationship as merely materialistic? I agree with that lain by the way, even tho were rude. Your post didn't have much substance at all.. it didn't really deserve the essay they provided.

>>48041 >What did you mean merely materialistic They wanted a deeper explanation of what I was criticising while pompously implying that I hadn't even read Stirner. All the while misinterpreting a point made about a potential for a greater utility in serving people. The misinterpretation there is that they criticized that notion as retarded cope on the grounds that >You are a slave to those who decide how much money you should make See it now? They have misinterpreted the concept of service, to only pertain to a far too narrow, institutional lense, it is too narrow precisely because it does not supercede a Materialist conceptualisation. That is not the same as saying materialism can only be solely understood in terms of economic accounting. >Substance Which one? The one where I pointed out that their summation functionally rendered their own use of the word "serve" as a spook, and simultaneously refuted the application of the concept onto that which they criticized? It was a quip highlighting that the fumble was funny. What more substance did you require?

>>48044 I will say I haven't read Stirner, only Marx, and most of your post doesn't pertain to my point.. I'm sorry about that. What they say makes sense to me, but I can't say whether it is in Stirner or not, as I have not read the text. Let's focus on your statement about superceding a Materialist conceptualization. You stated the same thing earlier, that they were being too Materialist, by focusing only on the Employment relation. I described this as a matter of finance and accounting because it is Economics, and you seem to be staying that Stirner was concerned with more than that. Is this not correct?

>>48046 >Haven't read Stirner yet Oh, you should. It's not a heavy or overwhelming body of work. I think Marx's critique of Stirner is actually bigger than his whole body of work. 'The Ego and it's Own', that's your starting point. Even without it. I assume you are familiar with 'spooks' if you are here. >Superceding a Materialist conceptualisation Alright I'm going to try use brevity to avoid writing an essay. So, if you've got Marx down, then you know 'Historical Materialism', yeah? And how Marx sort of wants to sort of 'correct'(invert) Hegel's Dialectic (and so Dietzgen goes "ooh ooh I got an idea!!"). So Stirner did something very similar, but in a way that can be better understood as post-Hegelian, rather than anti-Hegelian. Where Marx's basis is the external world, material conditions shaping human reality, Stirner's basis is the individual, wherein the material, or the ideal are illusory mental phantoms ("spooks") when you don't take control, but utilities (or to be discarded) when you do take control.

>>48058 Thanks for explaining. Is the translation linked ITT decent?

>>48059 gutenberg org/ebooks/34580 I think Byington's translation is the only one, but that might have changed, I'm not sure

>>48060 there is another translation, which has been linked earlier. "ITT" means "in this thread", as you seem to be new. its the wolfi landstreicher translation at end of this post. which you would know if you were not commited to being ignorant: >>48024

>>48060 Okay thank you! I'll make sure to download it. >>48073 I'll make sure to get that translation too. Why are you being so rude?

>>47873 its not about 'becoming completely unspooked' its about recognizing where they originate and if they serve Me rather than I them /thread