When I say that there is no selfless act, it can mean many things. In a religious context, the word selfless means doing for others without thinking about the benefit for oneself. But we are told that we are rewarded when we do good to others. The condition is that we cannot expect a reward for doing good. Two original meanings of the phrase are usually cited. The first, preferred by Fowler, is that the existence of an exception applicable to a particular case establishes (“proves”) the existence of a general rule. A more explicit formulation could be “the exception proving the existence of the rule”.  Most contemporary uses of the term derive from this origin, although often in a way closer to the idea that all rules have their exceptions.  Alternatively, it is indicated that the word “prove” is used in the archaic sense of “test”.  In this sense, the term does not mean that an exception demonstrates that a rule is true or exists, but that it tests the rule and thus proves its value. There is little evidence that the term is used in this second way.
   However, in many uses of the term, the existence of an exception is considered clear “evidence” of a rule to which the exception does not correspond. In this sense, it is “the unusual nature of the exception” that proves how widespread the trend or rule of thumb is that it contradicts. For example: A rural village is “always” quiet. A local farmer rents his fields to a rock festival, which disturbs the peace. In this example, the statement “the exception proves the rule” is literally false, since the exception (first) shows that faith is not a rule and (second) that there is no “proof”. However, the sentence draws attention to the rarity of the exception and thus justifies the general correctness of the rule. In what Fowler describes as the most “offensive” variant of the sentence, this type of use comes closest to the meaning “there is an exception for every rule”, or even that the presence of an exception makes a rule more true; This uses Fowler attributes for misunderstandings.  So when I say that there is no selfless action, I am saying that all actions come from the default Self and have reasons to do so. In addition, these reasons represent goals and objectives that represent needs and desires.
Trying to solve these needs and desires and achieve these goals is by default a selfish act. An act entirely in itself. The second interpretation is almost as good as saying that $R notin S$. Therefore, removing $$R from $$S seems to be the only way to properly enforce this rule! You could then argue, as I did myself in the context of free will, evolution, and origins (to name a few), that there are no accidents in a world of cause and effect. And it`s true. But I use the word accident to refer to an unintentional action or a consequence of an unintentional action. We do not live in a vacuum. We interact with our environment and it interacts with us. As a result, we often suffer unintended and undesirable consequences from our actions. These accidents can be called as long as they do not consider accidents as random or gratuitous events, and as long as we use the word in reference to subjective beings experiencing things they did not want to cause or in which they were not involved, and not in relation to natural processes. “The exception that proves the rule” is often used to describe a case (the exception) that serves to highlight or confirm (prove) a rule that the exception itself manifestly violates.
Fowler describes two versions of this usage, one is “vague rhetoric” and the other “grave absurdity”;  Other authors associate these uses in that they represent what Holton calls a “deviation” from the legal meaning.  In its more rhetorical sense, this variant of the phrase describes an exception that reveals a trend that might otherwise have gone unnoticed.  In other words, the presence of the exception serves to remind us of the otherwise valid rule and perhaps to reveal it to us; The word “evidence” should therefore not be taken literally here. So what about an act committed under duress? Or what about an act committed under the influence of drugs? Are they selfish actions that benefit us, or are they selfless because we are not in our “good” mind? First, we are no longer talking about an act of kindness that defines altruism. The person who questions my observation that there are no selfless actions from this point of view changed the conditions from which I started. There is a big problem with some sayings that seem perfectly logical. Let`s look at this common example: there is an exception to every rule. Most people would simply start thinking about all the rules they can remember to see if it`s true, and then finally decide it`s likely since there`s no way for them to know all the rules out there. But really, they have no way of knowing if it`s true or not.
That sounds good, but it doesn`t. What would be even more important would be to say that we can find exceptions to almost any rule or something like that. It has a much higher probability of being true. Surely we know that many rules have exceptions, do we not? Well, maybe not. But we`ll come back to that. If all rules have exceptions, even the rule that says all rules have exceptions must have an exception, otherwise the rule has proven wrong. But if there is an exception, the rule is also proven false, because then there is a rule without exception, what the rule says cannot exist. In fact, it is a self-destroying rule. There is an exception for each rule. So you always follow the rule, with some exceptions, in which case you follow a new rule based on that exception. Following this pattern always ensures that you make the right decision. You present an interesting case, but your argument is fundamentally flawed.
They explain that the sentence itself must have an exception so as not to be proven false. In fact, this rule is an exception in itself and proves that it is true. Question: There is an exception to the rule that waves do not move matter. What is it? How many of these rules are exempt? What are these exceptions? By the self-referential nature of the examples given in that answer, it reminded me again of the rule. In logic, you cannot say that all crows are black, because we cannot know that this is true for the whole crowd called raven. If you find only one white crow in the wild, the rule would turn out to be wrong. We can only say that all black crows are black. But that would be a tautology and hardly worth mentioning. Nevertheless, this is an absolute fact. There is no exception to the rule that all black crows are black. A white crow, if there is one, is not black, therefore is not part of the crowd of black crows and is no exception to the rule.
No? Because apparently, there are no exceptions to $$R. Because $R in S$ is true for $R$ to be true, all rules of $S$, including $$R, must have one or more exceptions. So, is it true that no wave moves matter? No. So if this is true, the rule should be changed to explain the context/conditions under which it is true. Once the context is specified, there are no exceptions. Wait a minute. All $$S rules have exceptions and the $$R rule is the only one without exception! The $$R rule is the only exception rule without exception! What is a rule? There are many definitions, including laws, length of a king`s reign, rules of physics, etc. A rule is either something explained by authority or a factual statement about how something works. You can`t make an omelette without eggs.
If I said you can`t make an omelette without breaking eggs, you could say: unless I use a carton with already cracked and premixed eggs. You could say that this is an exception. But if you just say eggs, there is no exception. And indeed, the fact that you found an exception means that the rule was wrong. A real rule about how something works is no exception. If so, it is not the way it works, or the conditions considered have been changed. In the absence of a god and a soul, the spirit is part of the whole system or organism. It does not survive death and can be modified by drinking a cup of coffee or smoking a cigarette. Everything we eat has an effect on our mind.
But not only that, every event we experience can change who we are. If you want to improve your ability to sell well, then you need to study the big principles, the big rules.