X-Message-Number: 11040 Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 00:12:34 -0700 From: Mike Perry <> Subject: Self-Esteem vs. "Selves-Esteem" There has been much discussion about "self-esteem" recently, with opinions ranging from "not good" to "not half-bad" etc. Examples of self-esteem as a bad thing seem to involve a narrow self-centeredness that treats number-1 as something particularly special and exalted. An example I am familiar with is that prominent scientist who enjoyed his superior status. He, it would seem, had self-esteem but not what I will call selves-esteem--valuing others too, on a more-or-less equal footing. True, he might have argued that his self-valuing was justified on objective grounds, given his preeminence, yet in the end he paid a heavy price (dying without being frozen). Selves-esteem, on the other hand, does logically result in a kind of self-esteem, because you are among the "selves" of the world too. To be objective you must attach a reasonable, healthy value to yourself as to others. I submit that this sort of self-esteem *is* a good thing, whatever may be the problems with other forms. As for anyone who feels they simply cannot value others as they do themselves because of their own superior status, after objectively analyzing the situation (with perhaps others grudgingly agreeing, given we are talking about a truly accomplished someone here), I would offer a resolution based on immortalism. That is, in the future we *do* expect that great enhancements in abilities will be open to people in general, not just those lucky enough to already have the right, undeveloped abilities or predispositions. Potentially, then, other selves can be treated as "equal" even if right now they aren't. Not many, however, are really in the category of such "superiority" over others--maybe none, really, if you take all factors into account. But for those who are convinced they are, the "self-esteem" that requires others to be inferior is pathological. It is interesting, in the case of the scientist, that the possible leveling effect of future enhancements, not reducing his own capabilities but erasing his relative superiority, was seen as a grave threat (literally, a threat worse than the grave) rather than welcomed as it should have been. Mike Perry Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=11040