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

[David McDivitt]

I was expecting the nonserv list to start. By chance I checked an old email
address and found I was subscribed to that. It would be nice if the reply-to
could be changed to list rather than sender. I myself will always post back
to the list and it's a pain having to remember to change the address.

**********

The initial question is an interesting one. I don't think I agree with the
proposed dichotomy for this reason: I don't have to do anything. I may want
to or choose to, but I don't have to. There is no moral compulsion, and if I
start thinking there might be, I've allowed myself to start becoming
codependent. I can still do nice things for people. People can still depend
on me. I can still have a relationship. The point is, I take precedence over
moralism or anything else.

On an airplane for instance they say for the mommie or caretaker to put the
mask on first, then do the other person. Why is that? Without self we don't
have anything. Self is either honored completely in my own mind, or not
honored at all.

I don't know how many of you have been emotionally manipulated. The
manipulation is merely your weakness and has nothing to do with the other
person. Being ready to walk away is often what saves a relationship because
it causes respect and negotiation. And if you do walk away, walk away and
don't look back. Paradoxically, that sense of self is what gives strength to
a relationship. Accusations of non commitment, detachment, selfishness, not
caring, etc., etc. are emotional bait. If you take that bait without paying
attention, you set yourself up.

It's good to work on self confidence in social matters whether personal
relationships, the job, or political ideology. There's no need whatsoever to
have anxiety. There's no need to wonder what one should be doing or how one
should respond in a given circumstance.

I like the nonserviam label because it's bold, distinct, and a bit put
offish.




>From: Thomas Gramstad <thomas at gramstad.no>
>Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:39:04 +0200 (CEST)
>
>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"?

--
dgm