The Ego and Its Own

[JustinZijlstra]

http://www.lsr-projekt.de/poly/en.html

Contained in site:


Max Stirner, a durable dissident
-- in a nutshell --
How Marx and Nietzsche suppressed their colleague Max Stirner and why he has intellectually survived them
by Bernd A. Laska


Nietzsche's initial crisis
New light on the Stirner/Nietzsche question
by Bernd A. Laska

Friedrich Nietzsche 1864 »When I was young, I encountered a dangerous divinity, and I would not like to give an account to anybody of what at that time ran across my soul -- of good things as well as of bad things. Thus, I learned betimes to keep silent, and also that one has to learn talking, in order to be silent the right way: that a man with backgrounds has to have foregrounds, be it for others, be it for himself: for the foregrounds are necessary, in order to recover from oneself, and to make it possible to others to live with us.«
Friedrich Nietzsche 1885




Max Stirner
The Ego and Its Own


----------

I guess this misses from the 'thinkers minefield'.

Which if true is a shame.

[bert]

no matter God made us or is within us, we are not yet a reflecting telescope - in whole or in part - of God. No syllogisms or revelations prove anything except our own signature and that we are like a work evolving and completing, of one great artistry - now plus our own bloody vandalism.to speak of one God is equivalent of speaking to one man, one universe, etc. constant multiplicity is the law; amalgamation and emergence to produce the greater individual.our going forth to find the greater Self is by the path we know least ; by losing ourselves until we find ourselves.a systematicational work; to know, though vaguely, what you have made of self into yourself.Ego, with its varying degrees of consciousness, is our light in the darkness of the unseen and unknown , for it has infinite relatability that will replenish our light.

[JustinZijlstra]

no matter God made us or is within us, we are not yet a reflecting telescope - in whole or in part - of God. No syllogisms or revelations prove anything except our own signature and that we are like a work evolving and completing, of one great artistry - now plus our own bloody vandalism.to speak of one God is equivalent of speaking to one man, one universe, etc. constant multiplicity is the law; amalgamation and emergence to produce the greater individual.our going forth to find the greater Self is by the path we know least ; by losing ourselves until we find ourselves.a systematicational work; to know, though vaguely, what you have made of self into yourself.Ego, with its varying degrees of consciousness, is our light in the darkness of the unseen and unknown , for it has infinite relatability that will replenish our light.

Why are you uttering that if you belief that?
'Fuk god', what does that theologically mean for you?

[Carl G]

Good. I'm glad the obtuse Lowlanders are now conversing.

[bert]

no matter God made us or is within us, we are not yet a reflecting telescope - in whole or in part - of God. No syllogisms or revelations prove anything except our own signature and that we are like a work evolving and completing, of one great artistry - now plus our own bloody vandalism.to speak of one God is equivalent of speaking to one man, one universe, etc. constant multiplicity is the law; amalgamation and emergence to produce the greater individual.our going forth to find the greater Self is by the path we know least ; by losing ourselves until we find ourselves.a systematicational work; to know, though vaguely, what you have made of self into yourself.Ego, with its varying degrees of consciousness, is our light in the darkness of the unseen and unknown , for it has infinite relatability that will replenish our light.

Why are you uttering that if you belief that?
'Fuk god', what does that theologically mean for you?

I have learned,
that when learned only of our solitude is a sound personal theology.

[brokenhead]

Good. I'm glad the obtuse Lowlanders are now conversing.

Rofl

[Steven]

that when learned only of our solitude is a sound personal theology.

Poetry, mocked by the egotistical.

One word of advice, remove the spiritual phraseology from your posts.

[bert]

that when learned only of our solitude is a sound personal theology.

Poetry, mocked by the egotistical.

One word of advice, remove the spiritual phraseology from your posts.

when our spiritual and material views of life are one, each tactual to the other, then half our absurdities, fallacies, wrong beliefs and judgements will cease.

[Steven]

that when learned only of our solitude is a sound personal theology.

Poetry, mocked by the egotistical.

One word of advice, remove the spiritual phraseology from your posts.

when our spiritual and material views of life are one, each tactual to the other, then half our absurdities, fallacies, wrong beliefs and judgements will cease.

See this is when you switch from writing sense to writing nonsense.

[bert]

when our spiritual and material views of life are one, each tactual to the other, then half our absurdities, fallacies, wrong beliefs and judgements will cease.

See this is when you switch from writing sense to writing nonsense.

all symbols, as words are configurated meanings. any series of such meanings should be short. simplicity is the diction of clarity. therefore a phrase such as 'I prefer fat woman', as an opinion is passable - the least uridite would understand. being partitive it suggests 'Why?' to the recipient, who, if knowing me would add; beautiful, amiable, sensual; others without knowing memight mentally add some such as a generality applicable to most. nothing of which is in the sentence. so,howver simple a statement, more will be read into it than is expressed, the by-product being - in writting - the possible assumption in others as though implicit, when not so, and our assumption that they will understand our meaning however clumsily or inexplicably stated.

[JustinZijlstra]

when our spiritual and material views of life are one, each tactual to the other, then half our absurdities, fallacies, wrong beliefs and judgements will cease.

See this is when you switch from writing sense to writing nonsense.

all symbols, as words are configurated meanings. any series of such meanings should be short. simplicity is the diction of clarity. therefore a phrase such as 'I prefer fat woman', as an opinion is passable - the least uridite would understand. being partitive it suggests 'Why?' to the recipient, who, if knowing me would add; beautiful, amiable, sensual; others without knowing memight mentally add some such as a generality applicable to most. nothing of which is in the sentence. so,howver simple a statement, more will be read into it than is expressed, the by-product being - in writting - the possible assumption in others as though implicit, when not so, and our assumption that they will understand our meaning however clumsily or inexplicably stated.

Lol, I concur.

However, your first post still was crap :-D

[Diebert van Rhijn]

To make the gathering of low lives complete:

http://www.lsr-projekt.de/poly/en.html

I guess this misses from the 'thinkers minefield'.

Which if true is a shame.

Max Stirner is quite an interesting phenomenon and certainly could be regarded as an important source and inspiration to Nietzsche's work. However personally I regard Stirner as more 'raw' and less structured and methodical, sort of lose canon [or natural geyser?] compared to Nietzsche. Stirner, free of any writing constraint might appear deeper and more original but it seems to me Nietzsche brought it all forward in a whole wider framework, more applied to the world around and specified: he gave the line of thought hands and feet, no matter how well manicured they were.

Here's a typical Stirner fragment from "The Ego and his own (46-47)" that gives some indication:

Since the spirit appeared in the world, since the Word became flesh, since then the world has been spiritualized, enchanted, a ghost. You have spirit, in as much you have thoughts.

What are your thoughts?

Spiritual beings.

Not things, then ?

No, but the spirit of things, the main point in all things, the inmost in them, their — idea.

Isn't what you think just your thought by definition?

On the contrary, it is that in the world which is most real, that which is properly to be called true; it is the truth itself; if I only think truly, I think the truth. I may, to be sure, err with regard to the truth, and fail to recognize it; but, if I recognize truly, the object of my cognition is the truth.

So, I suppose, you strive at all times to recognize the truth ?

To me the truth is sacred. It may well happen that I find a truth incomplete and replace it with a better, but the truth I cannot abrogate. I believe in the truth, therefore I search in it; nothing transcends it, it is eternal.

Sacred, eternal is the truth; it is the Sacred, the Eternal. But you, who let yourself be filled and led by this sacred thing, are yourself hallowed. Further, the sacred is not for your senses,—and you never as a sensual man discover its trace,—but for your faith, or, more definitely still for your spirit; then it's surely even itself something spiritual, a spirit, — spirit for the spirit.

[JustinZijlstra]

I concur partially.

--
Since your Dutch:
http://home.tiscali.nl/centenaar/stirner/

Verboden, vergeten, verketterde, verminkte en doodgezwegen Boeken en Geschriften
http://www.xs4all.nl/~tkeukens/download ... index.html
--

The opus that Nietzsche left is fantastic. I sometimes wonder what nietzsche would have been if he had met Wittgenstein at occasion. Only the ladder would be ok. But then, perhaps he would have quit philosophy altogether. No certain things can really be said about that.

--

Also you quote a part of its work. Nietzsche had a lot of ups and downs as well, in his Nachlass (if cut in 8 parts, from the 8th part a little is underlined in comparison to the amount of words). Why? Well, because he also repeats a lot what other thinkers had said in his own ways. Nietzsche applied a lot. Which is great, but not perse fruitful.

To me TEaIO has its ideosyncratic merits, and it stands out for me as one of the greatest and most authentic statements throughout history that is worth understanding.

A "laconic phrase" is a very concise or terse statement, named after Laconia (a.k.a. Lacedaemon [Greek Λακεδαίμων]), a polis of ancient Greece (and region of modern Greece) surrounding the city of Sparta proper. In common usage, Sparta referred both to Lacedaemon and Sparta. Similarly, a laconism is a figure of speech in which someone uses very few words to express an idea, keeping with the Spartan reputation for austerity.

From Spartan mentality all disaster came. Only Diogenes knew how rotten Plato, Aristoteles and eager and often not named Alexander where. Later Hegel, Marx and eager practitioners of communism.

Stirner was able to pierce through all that rubbish with his own eyes. Nietzsche did not, Nietzsche was a tremendous thinker, but certainly not the man that would get all his ideas from his environment. Gramsci was an later example who also was deeply aware of his environment and therefor created new ideas.

From Boris Sidis (historically at the moment he had the most prodigous son in history of mankind):
http://www.sidis.net/source_and_aim_of_ ... gress1.htm

Keep in mind that willconscious and subconscious can communicate together but willconscious that researches inner subconscious needs to be led (by way of dreams or imagery for example). To me it seems that Nietzsche was blind for himself while Stirner, Diogenes and Gramsci (naturally amongst others) where able to look in themselves.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

To me it seems that Nietzsche was blind for himself while Stirner, Diogenes and Gramsci (naturally amongst others) where able to look in themselves.

Although I can see why you'd say that I think Nietzsche was very well aware of where he was. The outcry of "only fool, only poet" in the Dionysus Dithyrambs seems to summarize his viewpoint. A view which is illustrated by his tendency to engage into the aesthetic, in language, art and analysis of culture. This was also related to the age: the 19th century after all.

Nietzsche might have suspected that everyone or at least his audience was living a life at the surface, stirring up the mud to imply depth where there's only shallowness. So this wouldn't seem blindness as he doesn't exclude himself from the fate of superficiality.

Asserting that a Stirner or Diogenes had a depth that Nietzsche wasn't able or willing to explore or report of is therefore not necessarily a case of blindness on Nietzsche's side. There are also interesting remarks about the Jesus underneath the religion that seem to indicate a certain admiration and fascination for someone who in his own words was a "great symbolist", "free spirit" and "eternal factuality, a psychological symbol redeemed from the concept of time".

It appears to me Nietzsche was quite aware of the depths you claim Stirner, Diogenes and Gramsci might have explored. He just was not able to go there himself without letting his mind fall apart and even found promoting of such ways unwise as it would lead to terrible misunderstandings as history readily illustrates.

I'll have to read some more Stirner first to give a more in-depth response.