Well spooks are higher concept than activities. Playing poker, even if that makes you a Poker Player, isn't a spook. Spooks are abstractions that people cede power to by believing in them.
Ironically, if someone body lived their life while being constantly preoccupied with avoiding possible 'spooks', to the detriment of their own happiness, that person would be under the influence of a spook.
Spooks are problematic when our believing them causes us to do irrational things that harm or limit us.
Private property is a spook because because there's no magic force or derive-able proof showing that someone has an immutable claim of owning something because they found it first or bought it. Stirner would say that in reality property is enforced afterwards with force, either personally or on your behalf by the state (ie police come if someone's vandalizing your cornfield or snatch your purse). But that doesn't mean it's a good idea to start stealing corn from people when you're hungry, because the state's violence is real whether or not it's spooky.
Identifying spooks is meant to be liberating rather than limiting, Stirner is just encouraging you to see the world through material consequences and not abstracted ideas.
Ok, so activities are separate from spooks.
Stirner obviously believes reason is an element of the Self since he is already thinking at a social level, and implying that we can do things like behave irrationally. Any philosophy that says we can do things rationally or irrationally is already predicating reason of humanity, so how is that not a spook? But I guess that only matters if it's a bad spook, whatever.
---
"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH [Is this live?][Joyless planet...]