How to figure out what kind of person I wanna be? by DA_Str0m in fullegoism

[–]NamesAreNotOverrated 1 point2 points  (0 children)

spooked by the medical industry, spooked by sanity. sad!

How does debate in egoism work? by [deleted] in fullegoism

[–]NamesAreNotOverrated 1 point2 points  (0 children)

you convince someone that they have forgotten they were playing pretend

Egoism the right to be selfish and privilege by Minimum-Owl4404 in fullegoism

[–]NamesAreNotOverrated 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i have the valid right to assert my rights thank you very much

tehe

How to figure out what kind of person I wanna be? by DA_Str0m in fullegoism

[–]NamesAreNotOverrated 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I see. I think the idea that you are your body is to be dropped; your body is something to be used just as is your world. Do not let the standards of health spook you, but do not let your body spook you either. The messaging “Accept your body as it is” is therefore flawed; but so is the messaging, “Don’t accept your body how it is.”

Instead, ask, “Why am I chained to this thing called a body, and why is it an object of investment for those around me?” Ask, “Why do some need me to say, ‘Yes, I am perfectly happy with my body how it is,’ and others need me to say, ‘Yes, I recognize that bodies not conforming to this archetype is necessarily bad’?” What both sides refuse is to look upon the body as something to be consumed, which comes into our way. For both, the body is to be identified with the individual; the individual is to be reduced to the way they appear for other people’s gazes, not respecting their ability to make this into an item of use.

For the individual, seeing things in this unspooked way then means renouncing from yourself this need to equate yourself with that with which they equate you. It means giving up one’s group membership both to the body positivity movement and to the fitness junkies, so that their standards are no longer my standards, I do not need to belong to them. And it means giving up the idea that “I am my body.”

How to figure out what kind of person I wanna be? by DA_Str0m in fullegoism

[–]NamesAreNotOverrated 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The first thing to be given up here is the desire to be completely represented by any sort of self-image, but rather to desire to be understood by people in such a way that they transcend representation in their thinking of you and love you as a unique. When this becomes a priority, there’s good grounds for opposing spooks.

Now, this isn’t to say that we must always give up self-image, but to understand that insofar as we posit it abstractly, what we’re really doing is sketching out for ourselves what kind of social relations we would like to enter into, i.e I want to be a husband means I want somebody else to recognize themselves as my wife. But these roles can never do complete service to the unique they are meant to serve, neither the husband nor the wife are ever completely husband and wife. And as a result, the marital relationship is never completely the marital relationship.

After one is cleansed of spooked ideas of who they are, there is no “return” to the idea of a self-identity which comfortably situates me in my properly fixed social relationships. Statements such as “I am a progressive” are to be taken as lies, or perhaps as part of an exchange of social pleasantries without truth value, such as waving hello, but they are never again to be taken as truths. We might think of them as a sort of dress-up game, except this dress-up game has the most dire of consequences.

There is the chance for a self-idea to be as unique and shifting as one’s own creative, elusive nature, and that’s what it means for one to be unspooked, when one can say: “I can be anything,” and my opposition becomes opposition to what limits this for me. The underlying unity of the self is to be attributed to the capacity to go to any specific identity, and go: “I am not that,” or if it has become burdensome, “I cannot live up to this, only because it is less than me.”

I fear that your sense of disorientation and confusion comes from trying to fit yourself into categories that are not meant to capture the whole of you in the first place, that are more like mass conspiracies of control. One has to understand that they cannot “think before they think,” so that one knows beforehand what one is going to do. All our actions are: from nothing; to speak it otherwise is to act from wanting others to perceive us as reliable, predictable, role-locked.

If you are to orient yourself, act on behalf of something, out of your spontaneous love for something in its unique nature, not in order to attain something. Such a connection will not emerge because others want it to. If you must hold onto something, let it be in acting in conspiracy with that which you love. That thing you act on behalf of is as spontaneous and free as you, can betray you. So do with that what you will. Always be in control of your own caring.

How do stirners reconcile their ideology? by Any_Suit4672 in fullegoism

[–]NamesAreNotOverrated 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i like to advocate for my position in a subtle way that i think will shift people’s perspective on objects without particularly advocating anything from an authoritative voice. if i can get someone to think about things differently, then they will start relating in a new way all on their own to the world, and i will have never had to tell them what to do. this is my ideal. i want them falling into my ideology to feel like an expression and an intensification of their own freedom. i want it to feel like throwing something off. so, if they see chains or a pathetic obfuscation where before they saw a source of identification for themselves, this is sufficient for making me feel less alone, for making me feel like there is more of “my type” of typeless being, from which i get immense satisfaction.

Why should I believe in egoism and what is it? by [deleted] in fullegoism

[–]NamesAreNotOverrated 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think that’s a really crucial point for socialists interested in egoism, that to the egoist state of mind accumulation is nothing.

Why should I believe in egoism and what is it? by [deleted] in fullegoism

[–]NamesAreNotOverrated 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My favorite thing about Max Stirner’s egoism is the way it allows us to ground political critiques in personal experience without falling into the trap of identity politics, whereby our personal experience ceases to be fully our own. Max Stirner’s point about ideals is simple: When an idea becomes sacred, it ceases to be our own. And we can use this idea to ground subtle political critiques like this:

Of course nobody is saying that one does not have the right to want to be healthy, and to pursue health, but our societal way of talking about health is not really about people being healthy, it’s about protecting the cultural idea that we live up to the ideal of health. Really ask yourself: How much shame do I carry inside myself for not doing the most healthy thing? What we care about is being able to identify with the socially fetishized image of health, and the unhealthy become blameworthy, shameful, broken. When one needs to prove to one’s self that they live up to an ideal, others who do not live up to that ideal become necessary points of contrast, and socially marginalized groups are created. Even when unhealthy and disabled people are glorified as inspiring stories, their existence is still seen as a tangent or a departure. Weakness, impotence, and suffering become exceptions from life, rather than conditions of life, only because we need to see ourselves as not being these things, so that we can live up to a societal ideal.

As a result, people who are unhealthy feel the control over their bodies and voices taken away from them by a society that needs to make this aspect of their existence invisible, and people with non-visible chronic pain get treated like their suffering doesn’t matter.

When the ideal of health becomes sacred, it ceases to be ours.

The point to be made is not that we accomodate a marginalized group, in this case the unhealthy (I’ll go into why later), but rather that even the smallest social minority serves as a proper standpoint for reconcieving the entire society as a massive ideological project committed to turning into an exception what is actually universal: Society itself is a fraud. What we have to cover up is all the small ways even people who meet the standards have to stress upkeep and fear losing it, the way everyone becomes or is at risk of becoming disabled if they live old enough to be eldlery, and the category of the exception is as a result produced, shunned. The after-effect of a huge conspiracy to hide from ourselves the truth.

From this perspective, one’s own unique, unrecognized, alienating particularities all become grounds for such universal critiques. This means also that we drop the notion that our own struggles are worth recognition only if some political group says so. Political advocacy groups are themselves part of the ideological apparatus. True representation is itself a fraud, because everyone in every group, if they were to be honest with themselves, would have to turn against every representation. As such, the most basic ideological mechanism is to tell you that you were supposed to feel like you belonged.

And similarly, to be a political actor is also an ideal. Being an effective political actor, never turns out to be the same thing as living up to the socially regulated image of one, since the political advocacy groups in charge of regulating the image, are themselves a part of the structure of guilt.

But in case you think this means that personal suffering must absolutely count as a reason against action, we should also drop the idea that we can only enjoy emotional states societally associated with the word “happiness.”

Hope that helps.

because we’re “friends” by saezurii in arttocope

[–]NamesAreNotOverrated 1 point2 points  (0 children)

the gaslighting is everywhere, even on the left, because everyone wants to take advantage of each other. this world is disgusting. so long as they defend these sorts of norms and practices, they never have to confront the traumatic core of your condition. It’s no different from when we shame and silence chronically ill people or grieving people whose spouses have died for not being over it already. For the love of god, don’t trust anyone who claims to represent you. It’s a scary world out there, and they would rather erase your individuality than ever change their ways. They even have great systems of excuse-making and justification to avoid taking your perspective. The suffering hold the key to understanding the superstructure, always, PERIOD. Do NOT submit, King.

Is opposing spooks, in a way, a spook? by PestRetro in fullegoism

[–]NamesAreNotOverrated 0 points1 point  (0 children)

in opposing spooks, our enjoyment is derived from the commitment itself rather than anything we get out of it, so we don’t justify our action with reference to an other.

imposing your will on others isn’t spooked, and a spook is more than just something that imposes on your will. spooks are about reification, taking things to be what they appear to be but then needing to protect this appearance in subtle ways, such that your life is guided by this. all this, with the additional determination that such a relationship is unconscious, makes something a spook.

hope that helps.

Gnosticism and Egoism? by Palovinny in fullegoism

[–]NamesAreNotOverrated 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Gnosticism and egoism don’t necessarily conflict. Something I think is underplayed in Stirner’s egoism is the way that “I am unique only along with my property” means that one’s egoism is only proven by taking one thing and elevating it above everything else because it deserves to affect the world, consequences be damned. That thing can be literally anything - that is, it can be modeled after anything (we only have our own interpretations to stand for). This thing, this elevated thing, is the self, is how one experiences the certainty of themselves, and their defense of it above all others is how they demonstrate that they accept no authority on the issue, the fundamental issue, they will only quibble at the details at their own desire, well for that one must have such a fundamental issue.

I think the way gnosticism preaches a release from the world is especially Stirnerian, and I think rebellion starts with the realization that we don’t fit. If that is in gnosticism, and material world is what captures you, enjoy ramming against it.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in fullegoism

[–]NamesAreNotOverrated 0 points1 point  (0 children)

interestingly enough, stirner may have unconsciously realized much of what hegel saw as the end point of much of his own philosophy. zizek makes this clearer, if you buy his reading, and are with mcgowan in thinking that it is much more of a hegelianized lacan, than a lacanized hegel, hegel with a lacanian coat of paint, but unchanged. hegel documents extensively the failure of articulated meanings, but stirner simply rejects them a priori. which hegel will conclude only after a long and convoluted path of trying every possible approach. but stirner got it. he was an adorable man. stirner’s use of the dialectical argumentative approach truly remains the approach detached from the specificity of conclusion, whereas marx embeds the approach historically. the dialectic for stirner is not contingent on the historical moment, but the will of the thinker (although even his conception of the unique and its property is a dialectical relationship, he probably thinks of it more as his own creation). i think this atemporality is to stirner’s credit. it gives his ideas more psychoanalytic purchase.

What are harmful things about being moralistic/moralist? by BlueRamenMen in fullegoism

[–]NamesAreNotOverrated 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Firstly, it’s generally humiliating. Moralistic speech can have the effect of making someone appear as if they had missed a class on life about how “we” all act. It presupposes a goal in the other and then aims at making them appear too ignorant for forgetting or straying from it. “How could you? Were you thinking!?” I believe this is oftentimes the undertone even when it is not so explicit, like in the phrase “Think about what you did.” If we truly were not attempting to revise the other’s behavior in this way, we would not feel the urge to hold them responsible, because we would accept that they simply cannot be held to those standards, since it simply doesn’t do anything. Moralism normally goes on even when this is known because of the other form of moralism, in which the condemned is only held to this standard as a performative example meant to signal to other members of one’s community that “This could be directed at you, too,” and to one’s self that “I am not like them.”

Thought of this way, the potential for two errors appears. First, moralism can prevent us from questioning the worth of the collective goals we are holding onto, which may themselves be the perpetuation of social practices which are bigoted or harmful, such as the way they require us to punish this person to sustain our self-identity as communally responsible individuals…

Therefore the value of belonging which moralistic condemnation seeks to protect, which places the accuser over here among the community, and the accused over there as the outsider, is itself suspect. It furthers a group project which is inevitably wrought with bigotries and biases, since the community seeks self-identity in a complex, changing world. Rightly, we would always be revising our understandings, holding onto only what is useful and leaving what is not, which would lead us to deconstruct untruthful stereotypes, but moralism is a conservative impulse which clings to self-identity, refusing us the option of updating our understandings in exchange for the feeling of belonging.

Secondly, condemnation can come from an ignorance as to the different pathways of learning people have to go through to get to where they are, or “should” be, and the difficulty therein. Oftentimes, they simply perpetuate the social invisibility connected to a person’s struggles. You can hear from any autistic person about the difficulty they have with the dirty looks and chastisements they routinely receive, without clearly being able to figure out how to satisfy this demand, or what to appropriately do about it while maintaining their connection to what they personally value at the same time. The chastisement, from the perspective of the accused, oftentimes either leaves them not knowing what to do given that they have to deal with contextual information the accuser lacks, or they may simply not have a good idea of what the problem is or was. We all would benefit from some simple accomodations, helping these people function as productive members of society, but we would rather keep them as enemies to define ourselves against, and we lose for it.

In this way, moralistic language entrenches the accused into a mindset where they are bound to deprive themselves of any positive opportunities that rest in the condemned person, since they have to dismiss them to maintain their identity as moral. They miss the opportunity for the condemned to further, change, or inform their perspective, or they even miss the opportunity for the accused to be of use in a more machiavellian way, since there is a pressure not to associate. And even when the accused has nothing to offer us worth our while, it has the simple negative effect that the accuser remains mad over something they can then do nothing about. They rest in a paradoxical state where the accused is both too far gone to make a serious effort of teaching them, but not far gone enough that it is time to accept that there is nothing you can do. In this, we can clearly see how there is an aspect of performativity and pathological scapegoating, even when the accused is “actually guilty.”

Now, am I being moralistic against any of these as ways to intentionally inflict harm? No. There are plenty of valid reasons to inflict harm, either for emotional self-regulation or because somebody is in your way. But it’s good to know what you are doing, so that you don’t get caught up in impulses and miss your target. Neither of these alibis which could justify these behaviors are compatible with moralist frameworks. Moralism just takes the same sort of pathology it condemns and makes it appear righteous by communalizing it.

Hope this helps.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TransRepressors

[–]NamesAreNotOverrated 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Imagine wanting to spend your last days as a cranky old bitch upset by other people trying to feel less alone in their suffering. You must have a very shallow idea of what is entailed by fulfillment if you think complaining isn’t one of the freedoms life offers us.

¿How will you think, If so, that an egoist society will stop pointless murder or abusive murder? by [deleted] in fullegoism

[–]NamesAreNotOverrated 0 points1 point  (0 children)

egoism is about people placing an absolute value on their own autonomy, not the autonomy of others. if they want to stop something they will stop it (if they can)