What does he mean by EGO

Ok lets say you want to think of a blue fox, your creative nothing is the "force" that pushes you to create your brain's conception of a blue fox, so you see it in your mind, ok? You did that, not your brain, you created yourself as that creative nothing, and you dissolve your creative nothing in that thought; you create and you consume, as sure as pushing yourself to create a pic of an anime girl in your head and then consume it by dissolving it it as you take pleasure it your creation for yourself, of yourself. Better? Also here;

The Ego and It's Own: Principle Text, read this first
Stirner's Critics: Refuting critics of Stirner
Art and Religion: A small essay Stirner wrote for an anarchist newspaper
The False Principle of Our Education: Criticizes humanists vs. realists in the education system

That makes a bit more sense (sounds a bit transcendental tho, which is kinda counter to the impression I previously had of Stirner?). Anyways thx for the pdfs friend

This is me being a basic ass bitch but I am having trouble with someone suggesting there is something more to your brain then you brain.

Like why does this internal pushing force not have to also be apart of one's brain?

You're welcome.

Marxfags criticize Stirner for not being material, but that's the thing, it is material, the creative nothing is probably the force pushing forth electrical impulses by owr own admission; electrical impulses don't just happen, we don't just randomly think of blue foxes because our brains made us, we had to move those impulses by ourselves. I honestly think the creative nothing is a material force. After all, you are not just a neuron or a cluster or neurons as sure as you are not an impulse or a collection of impulses, you are a unique specific pattern of impulses acting upon your neurons.

So is it more along the lines of someone's specific brain structure that let's each person intake and out take information and processes it how they do that no one else does?

It's the force that acts upon your brain, your brain is merely the empical tool for sensing it. Hegel spoke of the empirical devices being necessary for sensing the world, he was right, taste, touch, smell, etc. but he forgot one the Stirner pointed out: Consciousness, for their needs to be life itself for the empirical devices to function, but consciousness itself can be the empirical device.

Yes. Like Max said; "Their flesh is not my flesh, their thoughts are not my thoughts" And to paraphrase, "Who else but Michelangelo could've created his masterpieces? Who else could have had the vision that he himself had?"

I think it's just a naturalist reading of stirner. There isn't really much to it fam

Eh,I think you might have it a bit wrong, fam.
The creative nothing/never-being-I, isn't the ego. The creative nothing is the self-concept that continually grows and changes as we grow older. It's a "nothing" in the sense that it isn't fixed. We can't pin it down as one thing since it's always in flux. Who I am one moment may not be who I am a year from now. The ego is the totality of this experience that exists when we assert ourselves as "I".

Mise en abyme is the best way to understand it.

Let's say you create a perfect simulation of yourself. It is perfect, 100% you, down to the fact that it too has a completely accurate simulation which it is observing to be 100% accurate nd this simulation has a simulation, and so on. And you can look back up the chain and see an infinite series of simulations.

Nonetheless, you are You. Not another exactly identical you, but the You who sees the other simulations. And each of the other simulations is a You for themselves of course.
There is no material basis for this You, no way to prove it tothw other simulations, and no way to find out if the other simulations actually also have a You or if they are just pylons.

Basicallt, this

Is just wrong. The Creative Nothing is that which can't be reduced to neurons. This is not to imply there is anything spiritual about it, on the contrary it is literally nothing.

Me and renzo rollin in a benzo

The creative nothing is undefinable; remember that Stirner was a hardcore nominalist, any attempt to describe the creative nothing by outside terms is limiting to it, the creative nothing is outside of the bounds of the outside world, because it's a unique creative nothing.

"I am not nothing in the sense of emptiness, but I am the creative nothing, the nothing out of which I myself as creator create everything."

I said electrical impulses

Its when you can go on the internet and basically advocate a right wing christian sex cult but still be leftist and not called an evil bastard because you misinterpreted Stirner purposefully or not

...

I think associating the right with their cult forming history is useful in showing them what they can be, especially on the internet.

Wow, it's literally Nothing: the philosophy

Stirner was describing an experience that was outside the realm of definition for him, but I don't think is completely for us. Modern psychology has come a long way since then.
The process of self-actualization is the creative process of the creative nothing. I believe this is what Stirner was getting at.

Heideggerian pleb detected

He was describing ecstasy, self-help is just what anarkiddies append to it because they are derivatives of the liberal therapeutic state.

the drug or the state of mind?
What do you mean?

Out of all the things of your creative nothing to create yourself, why make yourself an asshole? :^)

Autocorrected. I meant enstasy. He was describing a pretheoretical mode of self-reflective consciousness where one perceives the self as self within the temporal flux. Ecstasy is the opposite, standing outside of.

Suppose that's possible.
I don't know enough about entasy to really know.