good self-image VS no self-image

[J S Az]

I can see benefits to both. Obviously, a good self-image can lead you to do better things more confidently. However, having no self-image means you have nothing to prove and will probably take part in a wider array of things since it can't disprove your self-image. I would say a good self-image is very vague, just knowing that you can do anything, but that's it. Other than that, I think it's good to have no self-image. What do others think?

 

[Island]

Having no self image actually means you ae UNSURE of what you are.

Who can truly know themselves? But unsurety is something that women avoid like the plague.

You must know what you are, and know that you have no limits.

 

[Alpine]

It's the old ego-spirit thing. Like island says your self image is your identity, how you believe you are whether true or false. You can't not have it.

The question is, is that formulated based on your higher self or what you hope others will accept or tainted by fears and selfishness.

True freedom is not giving a sh1t about what other people think of you, not focussing on your needs but upon your purpose.

 

[Virtú]

I know from personal experience (myself) that someone can indeed have no self-image, where you don't know who you are or what you want.

And it does indeed result in uncertainty, hesitancy, and dependency on external forces to determine and direct your behavior, none of which are masculine traits.

Unfortunately, it makes following your instincts, desires, and dreams a lot more complicated, since, from your own perspective, you don't have any.