Integrity


hope Integrity as a term and word suggests unity, or wholeness, or soundness. In the context of human consciousness,  integrity is slippery.

What can integrity mean? Should we assume that integrity means that anything which supports life is worthwhile and valid? What if actions taken that appear to have integrity do not embody the notions of unity, wholeness or soundness, and instead only masquerade as the will of people so long as they get their own way - even if that is at the expense of others?

What if integrity could be seen to suffer misconceptions - that would mean that our conception of integrity itself is without integrity. Or is there a more true meaning and understanding of integrity that has eluded humanity since time immemorial and which craves to be realized?

In the great stories of humanity there are often allusions to people with integrity - those who stand
out above the ordinary and are true to principles of honesty, fairness, justice and bear the mark of some type of deeper humanity that serves all people. Stories very often refer to the "Good Prince",
a "Great King", a "Madonna", or other figures who are irreproachable and in some way above what
is normally seen or experienced in humanity.

Do such people truly exist? Or are they mythic figures - the representations of some higher urge or aspiration for humanity? Or are they stories that try to tell us what humanity craves and hopes for -
or hopes to find in humanity? How strange is it that these examples exist in all cultures, all nationalities, all races of people? Unless we understand that all people are fundamentally the same - that is to say all humanity have cultures, that nationalities are only ways of organizing into groups,
and the notion of race is not as sturdy as once thought given that all people share the same human urges when it comes to the craving for integrity and trust and something higher than is normally
seen or experienced.

Either way, the fact remains, and remains on a very broad scope that humans want something
other than what they normally see and experience - they want something better - with more
integrity - more substance so to speak. And so we struggle to identify what it is precisely that
integrity and substance refer to - and perhaps that is exactly the problem. When we meet someone with integrity or substance - we recognize that in them in ways that do not require explanation. And, perhaps these qualities in people are something that lie completely outside the scope and ability of language to convey at all?

And what is in people that compels them toward this desire for integrity? If we could define it - what would it be precisely and how would we know that to be true - in other words - how could we trust
it? How  do we know it to be true? What is our test for integrity that we could convey by language?
If this is a difficult project - why is that?  In the face of living in societies, cultures, nations and any other group there ought to be one way to convey the essence of integrity in a way that is universal
to all people. In suggesting that there is something about integrity that is universal to all people, it necessarily implies that all the constructs of what is social, cultural, political, and so on are
secondary expressions of our humanity.

If it is true that integrity is more fundamental to our humanity than that which is the social and
cultural etc.,  then somehow the way the human brain forms up on concepts and percepts has over-ridden an aspect of consciousness and life with what are only sets of beliefs. That is to say, believing in your society or culture to the subjugation of your more fundamental humanity (integrity) - because societies and cultures war with each other throughout history and frequently on the basis
of difference - there seems to be some sort of "short circuit" in the way the brain and consciousness are functioning. And by definition, having integrity means that there is no short circuit in consciousness at all - people would be unable to see other people as being fundamentally different.

And more tragically, even in societies and cultures and so on, is the breakdown of integrity
between the sexes. Human history is one of much conflict between the sexes, most often with females physically and psychologically subjugated to an inferior status. Yet as with all things, the general trend that sees women subjugated is not universal, which compels us to question the (illusory) integrity of the belief that women are by design somehow inferior.

And here again, we find the connection between beliefs that render people in conflicting roles - and conflict in itself has no integrity. It seems more sensible, and in that sense has more integrity to see males and females as nature intended - to be complementary - meaning that in its most reductive form that nature and life want and need males and females to exist in unity for the sake of the preservation of the species, and therefore the preservation of life itself.

In the cases where we see males and females living with integrity (against the historical trend) we see people who are outward looking at life, as opposed to inward looking at difference and conflict. It seems to make intuitive sense that to be united in a positive outlook on life is  a much healthier condition than existing in conflict on any level. In other words, to live in unity has integrity.

So what is it that occurs in the brain/mind/consciousness that creates the conditions that break
down or destroy human integrity and results in an imaginary difference between humans? And
how did language contribute to the way humans think and express these imaginary differences
that lead to conflict and suffering?

More to come.
subscribe

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
Design downloaded from free website templates.