Ego, self-overcoming & "I will not serve"

[Thomas Gramstad]

Hi,

I'd like to kick-off the new list with a question and topic that
goes right to it's core: Is the "nonserviam"/"I will not
serve"-adage a too narrow, maybe even dogmatic, tenet?

I've been thinking about the relationship between static and
dynamic (growing) parts of the self or ego. The static parts are
the status quo, such as all the things I know I like, skills I
have developed, preferences and habits that I have learned. For
example, I may habitually prefer a certain diurnal rhythm, I may
organize my life with as few disruptions as possible to get my
creative work done, and so on.

The dynamic parts of the self includes awareness of the
possibilities of the present moment, experiential and emotional
presence in the moment, and all the growing parts of the self,
such as new interests and discoveries, further honing of old
skills, evolving relationships, etc. -- the spear point of the
actual self pervading the unknown, into the potential self.

There can easily be conflicts between the static self and the
dynamic self, i.e., between the actual self and the potential
self. For example, a dominating static expert-self may prevent a
dynamic and mostly potential/unrealized explorer-self from
learning new insights or skills. This is why Buddhists advocate
and support the mental state of "Beginner's Mind" against the
expert mind. Another example, going back to what I wrote about the
static self above, is for a single person to enter into a
committed love relationship. This must necessarily have
consequences for one's habits, preferences, and also changes in
diurnal rhythms and accepting more disruptions (especially if one
also chooses to become a parent).

The crucial point is this: in both examples above, the dynamic and
potential ego is given priority over the static and actual ego.
The beginner's mind is a dynamic potential, and outside the
currently defined ego, while the expert mind is fixed and known,
the established ego feeling secure in its deliberately
thought-through, conscious, and static identity. The single person
with his habits is the actual ego with its established identity,
while the relationship seeker is the one stepping outside the ego
into the unknown hitherto potential self -- the currently
non-self.

So this non-self or non-ego is given priority over the (current)
self or ego. While the end-result of this is a growing and thus
expanded ego or self, the fact remains that the process requires a
commitment to something outside the self, something alien to the
current ego. Such a commitment is in fact a form of service or
serving -- how could it be otherwise, when it is not only directed
towards something outside the self or ego, but also even aims at
overcoming and transcending the (current, static) ego?

And this is why the maxim "I will not serve" seems limited and
one-dimensional to me: It seems to speak to and prioritize the
static self at the expense of the growing and dynamic (and
currently non-)self, which requires self-overcoming, which is a
species of serving -- a species of commitment to serving something
outside the ego.

And it might be argued that self-overcoming must be perpetual --
Nietzsche for one argues that at great length and eloquence.
Ayn Rand's fictional heroes as well as her concepts and
philosophical legacy is open-ended, displaying a dynamic,
boundless, evolving character and sense of life. It seems that
all the central egoist philosophers are self-overcomers and
ego-transcenders.

One might object that "I will not serve" refers to other people,
and especially to forced or involuntary servitude to them. But
that would make it into a narrow platitude, and far from Stirner's
intent. A primary focus of Stirner's was not the power of other
people, but the power that ideas, values etc. can hold over us,
over me, over the ego.

Dynamic self-overcoming into the unknown, into the potential self,
into the non-self means exploring, accepting, and acting on --
i.e., serving -- concepts and ideas, maybe even values and
principles, that are outside and quite possibly opposed to the
current, static ego. In fact, the very idea of any self-overcoming
(never mind a perpetual one) is opposed to the very existence of
the current, well-defined, established, static ego and its sense
of identity and permanence.

To overcome the ego is to commit to and serve something outside
its boundaries. How then can one say "I will not serve"?

Thomas Gramstad
thomas at gramstad.no