How are some ways you've overcome spooks in your daily life?

But a lower credit score and relationship is an objective problem retard

Noooo "autistic", "spook" and "meme" in a single post.

>shallow

Credit scores are a spook, and borrowing from my friend hardly affects my credit score anyhow.

The main spooks ive overcome is destroying the "need" to be a ruggard individual / lone wolf type because that does not align with my will and desires. The second spook im dealing with is that of truth and the idea that I need to always be correct

I think you need to have a reread of Stirner or at least his secondary work. Your understanding of spooks is a bit rusty

His understanding is correct.

I said rusty not false. Whilst the idea regarding obligation to pay debts is a correct identification of a spook thinking money is spook in this instance is not.

I need to get over the idea that other people matter. I am scared of them, and in doing so am willfully making myself their property. I am subordinating myself to them. Pretty dumb.

The brain is still a physical organ, it consists of habits, these habits must be broken. Won't be easy, but I don't think I'm gonna be able to truly internalize Stirner until my mind is free of some of my biggest fears.

So, in a way, my job is a spook, right? Like, the stuff I do are really, but the fact that I get worried about it is not, isn't it?

When it comes to identifying spooks avoid the reasoning in which acts as if any abstract principle or concept is spooky.

Something abstract becomes a spook when you subordinate your own interests to it. Hence for instance Stirner can use and comprehend the idea of justice whithout it becoming a spook.

In the case of your work the worry you experiance is probably a good indicator of a spook being present but identifying it is a bit harder.

For isntance it could range from anything from the idea that you feel you need to be productive in order to be a man all the way to the idea that one has to be self employed or "their own master".

Money is a spook, unless by "money" you just mean pretty paper

who posts this shit

my entire knowledge comes from memes and even I understand that isn't the idea

>Hence for instance Stirner can use and comprehend the idea of justice whithout it becoming a spook.
Not if you obey it. If you just use it like a quaint and not too serious concept like calling someone "good sir", then it's not a spook, though.

Memes are spooks, actually read the source

>Money is a spook, unless by "money" you just mean pretty paper

Reread my post particularity the " in this instance is not"

From the meme man himself - "If you consume what is sacred, you have made it property"

Thats kind of the point of my post.

But OP is talking about money as something used to haunt him, a debt of money. Money in that sense is just spooky. Money in the sense of it being his friend's *property*, even after his friend gave it to him. Money in that sense, is a spook. He consumed it, but by his digestion is changed into something else, a date.

>But OP is talking about money as something used to haunt him, a debt of money. Money in that sense is just spooky. Money in the sense of it being his friend's *property*, even after his friend gave it to him. Money in that sense, is a spook. He consumed it, but by his digestion is changed into something else, a date.

Thats where you are mistaken, as I said in my earlier post he correctly identified the concept of there being an obligation to pay back the friend as a spook.

However read the last part where he states

>realize that money itself is a spook and so in fact he didn't even give me anything

In this instance he is acting as though because moneys value is abstract it must therefore be a spook and hence falls into error.

The money's value is a spook, since the holder has barely any control over the value, he must accept what the capitalists that be say it is worth. If you use the money in a way that subverts that, then it's not a spook.

>The money's value is a spook, since the holder has barely any control over the value, he must accept what the capitalists that be say it is worth. If you use the money in a way that subverts that, then it's not a spook.

SeeThat kind of ignores the requirement of sacredness/ holding it above your own interests. You can happily pay your taxes without being spooked
Also take a look at the OPs post again, he did not subvert or abolish the sacred he literally stated that his friend "gave him nothing".

> You can happily pay your taxes without being spooked
Only in the sense you are happy to be saved from imprisonment.

>he did not subvert or abolish the sacred he literally stated that his friend "gave him nothing".
And here he abolished the sacred, he saw his friend as giving him nothing but paper with pictures on it. Saying he must see it as something of value is a spook

>Only in the sense you are happy to be saved from imprisonment

Thats one possibility, another is that state aligns with your will and interests at this point in time.

>And here he abolished the sacred, he saw his friend as giving him nothing but paper with pictures on it.

Sacred =/= abstract

>Saying he must see it as something of value is a spook

No, saying that he must subordinate himself to the value of money is where the spook is. Hence why he talks of abolishing the sacred rather than abstract.

Why would that make you happy to pay it?

>Why would that make you happy to pay it?
Because it "aligns with your will and interests at this point in time."

That's what makes Stirner such a confronting figure an egoist could be anything from a monarchist to an anarchist in their actions.

>Sacred =/= abstract

It does when the abstract is completely dictated by the state. What is a dollar? It doesn't exist, it's an abstract, but when you say one bull is worthy fifty of these abstracts and another is worth one, and that is to be respected, that is spooky. He says it's nothing, that's abolishing this. Dollars are an arbitrary quantification of value imposed, they are completely spooky. You can value something without it being spooky, but recognizing these imposed abstracts when it is not in your self interest is spooky.

>No, saying that he must subordinate himself to the value of money is where the spook is.
When he's not. You're saying, "You MUST accept the value," he's saying he doesn't accept the value. Saying you have to accept something as valuable or accepting an abstract as existing, is subordinating yourself to it. You're only not when you're free to dismiss it whenever it pleases you.

You can choose to not pay your friend, but your friend will remember such a thing in the future. He will likely not lend you anything else. It is in your interest to honor debts in such a context, though you can choose to override that with your will as long as you accept the consequences.

>Because it "aligns with your will and interests at this point in time."
So? Paying your taxes is not going to significantly impact that.

>It does when the abstract is completely dictated by the state. What is a dollar? It doesn't exist, it's an abstract, but when you say one bull is worthy fifty of these abstracts and another is worth one, and that is to be respected, that is spooky.

Show an example where Stirner states that agents of the state dictating something abstract makes it spooky whilst when an individual does it is not.

>He says it's nothing, that's abolishing this. Dollars are an arbitrary quantification of value imposed, they are completely spooky. You can value something without it being spooky, but recognizing these imposed abstracts when it is not in your self interest is spooky.

Using your reasoning you could argue that using the meteric system of measurement is spooky.

>When he's not. You're saying, "You MUST accept the value," he's saying he doesn't accept the value. Saying you have to accept something as valuable or accepting an abstract as existing, is subordinating yourself to it. You're only not when you're free to dismiss it whenever it pleases you.

Regonising the value of something does not mean subordinating yourself to it. In the same way that one can see the quality of whiteness in car or see 9+2= 11 so too can one see the value money has as a tool in exchange.

To subordinate yourself to value is a very different thing to seeing abstract values in it. Hence I challenge you to find a quote were merely recongonising something abstract like value is a spook.

P.II

Take a look at the following discussion on spooks and notice the difference.

>But it is not only man that “haunts”; so does everything. The higher essence, the spirit, that walks in everything, is at the same time bound to nothing, and only — “appears” in it. Ghosts in every corner!

>Here would be the place to pass the haunting spirits in review, if they were not to come before us again further on in order to vanish before egoism. Hence let only a few of them be particularized by way of example, in order to bring us at once to our attitude toward them.

>Sacred above all, e.g., is the “holy Spirit,” sacred the truth, sacred are right, law, a good cause, majesty, marriage, the common good, order, the fatherland, etc.

---------------------------------------------
>You're only not when you're free to dismiss it whenever it pleases you.

As I wrote earlier the moment something is no longer sacred it is your property.

>So?
It answers your question completely and is the only answer an egoist can ever give regarding their actions.

"Money" and "wealth" are spooks, but being a spook doesn't mean they are meaningless or useless. The actual goods or services you exchange using "money" align to your will or please you, thus as long as you take possession of the spook and are aware of it there is no issue.

It's useful as a way to spook others into complying with your pleasure, yeah

There he is. There he goes again. Look, everyone! He posted it once again! Isn't he just the funniest guy around?! Oh my God!

I can almost see your pathetic overweight frame glowing in the dark, lit by your computer screen which is the only source of light in your room, giggling like a like girl as you once again type your little anarchist thread up and fill in the captcha. Or maybe you don't even fill in the captcha. Maybe you're such a disgusting NEET that you actually paid for a Veeky Forums pass, so you just choose the picture. Oh, and we all know the picture. The "epic" Stirner guy, isn't it? I imagine you little shit laughing so hard as you click it that you drop your Doritos on the floor, but it's ok, your mother will clean it up in the morning. Oh, that's right. Did I fail to mention? You live with your mother. You are a fat fucking fuckup, she's probably so sick of you already. So sick of having to do everything for you all goddamn day, every day, for a grown man who spends all his time on Veeky Forums posting about a shit philosophy. Just imagine this. She had you, and then she thought you were gonna be a scientist or an astronaut or something grand, and then you became a NEET. A pathetic anarchist NEET. She probably cries herself to sleep everyday thinking about how bad it is and how she wishes she could just disappear. She can't even try to talk with you because all you say is "SPOOK SPOOK SPOOK SPOOK." You've become a parody of your own self. And that's all you are. A sad little man laughing in the dark by himself as he prepares to indulge in the same old dance that he's done a million times now. And that's all you'll ever be.

Forever.

>"Money" and "wealth" ***can be*** spooks,

"Women are a meme" is a meme, and also a spook, but that does not mean women are memes OR spooks. "Woman" is a very real, concrete concept - women exist, and would continue to do so in the absence of the social processes that would provide meaning. The idea that women are supposed to act a certain way, or that you're supposed to treat women a certain way, IS a meme and a spook - it's something created by society.

If you accept the spook of exchanging money for services AND the services the government provides align with the services you want AND you think the amount you pay in taxes is a fair exchange for those services...then you'd be happy to pay the taxes since it's what you would have done anyway even if it was not compulsory.