56
edits
Self-image: Difference between revisions
m
no edit summary
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
A '''self-image''' is the view an entity takes of itself. Depending on the nature of the entity, this may be of many different characters. For instance, an entity defined wholly in or by text transactions, e.g. a wiki, or a | A '''self-image''' is the view an entity takes of itself. Depending on the nature of the entity, this may be of many different characters. For instance, an entity defined wholly in or by text transactions, e.g. a wiki, or a body of jurisprudence, will have a self-image composed wholly of written [[self-claim]]s. | ||
Nations, organizations, families, and persons can have self-images in this very general sense. For persons self-image is often tied to | Nations, organizations, families, and persons can have self-images in this very general sense. For persons self-image is often tied to body image. For families, to family values or other shared moral core beliefs. In organizations of cells or beings related by some means other than biological relatedness, the idea of a self-image is controversial, as it has no self-perception and no real biological reason to evolve one. Such an entity should be called a [[group entity]] denoting its lack of biological shared interest. | ||
One way for a group entity to evolve a self-image is to start with [[self-claim]]s that are undisputed within that group. For instance a religious group may make a statement that "we are all Muslims" or that "we all wish to help the poor living nearby". Statements that define a certain scope of "we" are very important. If there is a disciplined way to ensure that the word "we" is not used when there is a chance to imply wider agreement or commitment than really exists, then "we" itself can reflect the self-image. | One way for a group entity to evolve a self-image is to start with [[self-claim]]s that are undisputed within that group. For instance a religious group may make a statement that "we are all Muslims" or that "we all wish to help the poor living nearby". Statements that define a certain scope of "we" are very important. If there is a disciplined way to ensure that the word "we" is not used when there is a chance to imply wider agreement or commitment than really exists, then "we" itself can reflect the self-image. | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
But, any [[group entity]] that has a self-image but no genetic or bodily identity, can cease to exist without an obvious or measurable way in which to determine it has ceased to exist. Use of "we" can be one way to determine if a [[group entity]] still exists - if people act as if they agree, it's fair to say they do agree. | But, any [[group entity]] that has a self-image but no genetic or bodily identity, can cease to exist without an obvious or measurable way in which to determine it has ceased to exist. Use of "we" can be one way to determine if a [[group entity]] still exists - if people act as if they agree, it's fair to say they do agree. | ||
Dissolution of a group entity can be messy, and can lead to such events as civil war or class war. The USSR devolved in the 1990s with some degree of both. It had lost much of its self-image as a Vanguard | Dissolution of a group entity can be messy, and can lead to such events as civil war or class war. The USSR devolved in the 1990s with some degree of both. It had lost much of its self-image as a Vanguard of Revolution or Peoples Democratic Republic in previous decades. The USA may be going through a similar devolution now as self-image ideas like rule of constitutional law, Fortress America, Champion of Freedom and Protector of Democracy are challenged, and as new anti-privacy are passed. | ||