Why do people undermine or otherwise never talk about mindfulness in Stirner's philosophy?

Why do people undermine or otherwise never talk about mindfulness in Stirner's philosophy?
People talk about "the creative nothing" like it can be achieved overnight by calling everything a spook or only use Stirner's ideas when it suits them, while ultimately being spooked themselves and turning the concept of "spooks" into a spook.
In my mind egoism explored the self in a very similar way to anatta, but uses that knowledge for the opposite means of indulging in or enhancing the self.

Stirner is Nietzsche for babies.

I believe the efforts required to achieve the philosophical ideals of both Stirner and Nietzsche are equal but people simply dismiss them in Stirners case because memes are funny, creating and perpetuating this opinion.

Stirner has been reduced to a meme.

Although I find a lot of them funny, and they did introduce me to him, he isn't taken seriously despite having a lot of good shit to say.

I find his idea that the self is an end point of language pretty interesting.

I fully agree with you user.

Stirners philosophy overlaps with a lot of eastern philosophy, but in a fully materialistic sense and approach.

>People talk about "the creative nothing" like it can be achieved overnight by calling everything a spook or only use Stirner's ideas when it suits them, while ultimately being spooked themselves and turning the concept of "spooks" into a spook.

Doesn't Buddhism address this exact problem? Well more to do with attachments and renunciation, with the syntheses being balance.
The concept of the spook can indeed become a spook, like any irrational conditioning, but only if you let it happen, or to be more clear, if you have to justify abstract things to yourself and others. And that seems to be one of the main causes of what the Buddhists call Dukkha, if I'm not mistaken.

Also. Most people forget that spooks aren't just ideological, political, etc. Go to /r9k/ for a bit if you want to see some spooky shit.

>Doesn't Buddhism address this exact problem?
Never saw the Middle Path in that light, nice interpretation.

Mostly because there isn't much to discuss with Stirner. He sort of exists in a vacuum. It's pretty much impossible to raise a criticism of philosophy that would be compelling to someone like Stirner.

The creative nothing already is, it's just a matter of learning to accept it rather than creating it.

Also, I always found Stirner to work well with philosophical Taoism. His egoism brings to mind the perfectly selfish man of the Tao Te Ching, who would not pluck a single hair from his head for the kingdom.

>otherwise never talk about mindfulness in Stirner's philosophy?

As other posters talk about he is a meme to most users and secondly and most importantly he doesnt directly discuss this or methods spook busting in his work

>he doesnt directly discuss this
Doesn't mean it can't be discussed, it's nice to have legitimate discourse on Stirner's ideas every once in a while you know.

>mindfulness
wat

>he doesn't into Buddhism?

Buddhism is fucken played out

How come none of you Stirner fags ever mention Feuerbach? Probably because you're all fucking posers who didn't actually learn philosophy.

I do into Buddhism, I don't into shitty memes that tumblrkin force in order to seem spiritual. If you can't explain what you think 'minduflness' means why there is 'mindfulness' baked into Stirner's philosophy then you should fuck off. When I said 'wat' I was hoping for an explanation.
Quite frankly I don't have patience for people with superficial understandings of 2 topics who try to turn those understandings into something interesting by saying "Don't you think both are talking about X across gulfs of space and time?" That kind of retarded post is part of the cancer that Veeky Forums was born with. Kill yourself.

Damn dude did you dog die or something? If you had just asked clearly to begin with instead of just posting "wat" you might have gotten an answer, I assumed you were just ignorant of the concept. You can't talk about the quality of posts then shit out a post full of unnecessary vitriol.
Mindfulness to my understanding is being able to separate your bodily experience from the self, through meditation or more frowned upon false means like drugs, and becoming conscious of your passing thoughts rather than believing you're in control of them.
In Buddhism this then becomes Anatta / no-self, meditating to further your understanding of the ego as a falsified entity that clouds your true consciousness and having knowledge of the human experience as one rather than a collection of individual experiences.
Stirner talks about becoming aware of the "creative nothing", which I take to mean the "self" that's free of human abstractions we use to create purpose, importance, etc where there truly is none to justify our actions and create the facade of individuality (aka spooks).
I can't talk about the creative nothing or Anatta fully because I haven't experienced them, but they're almost the same in the way they treat the ego as something that's just created by the mind for survival purposes while being removed from the true consciousness.
They differ in that Anatta tries to remove this ego while Egoism uses the knowledge of it for materialistic purposes.
That's my interpretation anyway.

>but uses that knowledge for

well thats the whole point. what is important is not the knowledge itself but what you choose to do with it, cause that action shows your understanding of that knowledge.

this fag made the whole trip only to conclude that the only reality is the self, while anyone doing the thing properly wouldnt deny or affirm the self but would see it vanish and the proper questions will be reached. the west failed, china and india got it right in their own way.

>If you had just asked clearly to begin with instead of just posting "wat" you might have gotten an answer, I assumed you were just ignorant of the concept
Yes, it's my fault that you enjoy being vague.
>unnecessary
lmao
>Mindfulness to my understanding is being able to separate your bodily experience from the self
This sounds like a lot of New Age gibberish to me.
>Stirner talks about becoming aware of the "creative nothing", which I take to mean the "self" that's free of human abstractions we use to create purpose, importance, etc where there truly is none to justify our actions and create the facade of individuality (aka spooks).
You're overlooking the most obvious contradiction of your claim, which is that Stirner believes in the absolute reality of the ego while Buddhism doesn't even admit that the ego exists. In Buddhism there's no 'removal' of the ego, there is liberation from the illusion of the ego.
In short, Stirner only believes in the ego, while the Buddha teaches a way to escape the suffering caused by clinging to the egoistic experience of existence.
How do you breach this gap?

>In Buddhism there's no 'removal' of the ego
Misunderstanding on my part
>How do you breach this gap?
I wasn't talking about Stirner's ideas and the Buddha's being the same though, just the means they use to achieve their philosophical ideals and the way they go about examining the ego (or lack thereof) would be similar in practice.
I feel truly becoming aware of the creative nothing requires similar meditative practices to those used in Buddhism to attain no-self, and that this similar approach to prolonged inward examination isn't really recognized when talking about Stirner.
It may simply be an assumption as Stirner never explicitly talks about meditation / mental examination but I find it hard to believe becoming sincerely aware of the creative nothing only takes a bit of doublethink and convincing yourself you aren't spooked.

>I wasn't talking about Stirner's ideas and the Buddha's being the same though, just the means they use to achieve their philosophical ideals and the way they go about examining the ego (or lack thereof) would be similar in practice.
Did you even read my post?
>I feel truly becoming aware of the creative nothing requires similar meditative practices to those used in Buddhism to attain no-self, and that this similar approach to prolonged inward examination isn't really recognized when talking about Stirner.
I see no good reason to really think that this is true, I see you saying that there is one, though.
>It may simply be an assumption as Stirner never explicitly talks about meditation / mental examination
Well, there's your answer.

As I said, Buddhism is meant to be a pathway to transcendence of the ego-illusion and involuntary egoism is meant to be an absolute embrace of the ego as the singular existent reality.

Jesus christ, you are a meme wizard.

>anatta
>the Middle Path
>philosophical Taoism
>Buddhism
uh oh

Because they can't be bothered to read The Ego and Its Own and want to post le ghost man memes instead.

Stirn-who?