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

[Daniel Davis]

I don't like it as a motto either. 

It too easily becomes the caricature of egoism that many make - the egoist who refuses to benefit others because he doesn't want to serve them; the egoist who constrains his circle of interest to a tiny bubble around himself. 

Lots of people feel ripped off if they create value for others and are not compensated by that person giving up some value in return. They have the mental diseases of Objective Value and Exploitation. They project these mental diseases onto the egoist.

The perversity of it is that egoism, particularly from Stirner, is the cure for these mental diseases. I am not ripped off by creating value for you that you do not return through some effort of your own - I can act to benefit you because that is the outcome that *I* want. 

Few people understand this, and I know that my own recognition of it conceptually is due mostly to Stirner.

Egoism is the recognition that you are free to act according to what you actually value, while ignoring the conceptual phantasms that would demand your service to what you do not value, but further refusing to be caught in the trap of viewing the value others might find in your efforts as necessarily a loss to yourself.

"I will not serve" doesn't really express what I am about, what egoism is about, or what Stirner is about, and is too easily mistaken for something we are expressly against.

As for static vs. dynamic "parts of me", I don't really see the issue in relation to the motto, and think the "part" metaphor is destructive of the point you I think you're trying to make, particularly where is comes perilously close to "You becoming the UnYou". I think Stirner makes your point pretty well himself using the metaphor of property instead of parts.

Per Stirner, any habits, likes, dislikes, interests, skills, that you have are just your property, they are not you or parts of you. Viewing all your property with a frosty eye, judging them according to how they serve you, you are free to remorselessly abandon old property or add new property as you create yourself anew each day. I think this expresses the kind of mental attitude open and conducive to change that you're advocating.

- Dan Davis



--- On Sat, 8/29/09, Thomas Gramstad <thomas at gramstad.no> wrote:

> From: Thomas Gramstad <thomas at gramstad.no>
> Subject: Ego, self-overcoming & "I will not serve"
> To: nonserviam at mailman.gramstad.no
> Date: Saturday, August 29, 2009, 7:39 PM
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> nonserviam mailing list
> nonserviam at mailman.gramstad.no
> http://mailman.gramstad.no/mailman/listinfo/nonserviam
>