Integrity

Originally posted by MamaJ
Um...

I think we need a recap. So early in the game? Really?

Ok... here we go... once again the OP states what Integrity means. In case the reader failed to read the OP and just jumped in explaining what it means to them... here below is the definition and one which the research also in the OP is based on.

What is integrity? The dictionary says it is : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : incorruptibility : an unimpaired condition : soundness: the quality or state of being complete or undivided : completeness www.merriam-webster.com...

What is so confusing about the definition of Integrity?

Being "mean" cannot be in/with the same action as Integrity!!

A firm adherence to a code of especially MORAL or artistic values where one is not susceptible to corruption by others, they are sound in their judgments of self, complete, and seek unity rather than division.

The world is lacking by definition and if each one of us here in this thread tried hard daily to display and teach integrity, we could change the world.

So.... your stance is that MORAL values (in this definition) refers to your morals?
I'm sorry, but really??

There are things some people call "mean" that other people consider kind.

(Especailly in terms of short vs. long term effects)

There is a lot of gray area there. There are different "morals", "ethical behavior" has different faces,
and integrity refers to acting true to YOUR own morals and ethics- not anyone elses.

Do you mean that a common shared moral and ethical system, that all believe in, is needed?
A sort of intregrity of a nation, rather than a person?
In what country? (some countries already have a very socialized, conformist, and individualist- oppressing culture already)

I have to face this problem everyday, because I am living in a culture that is the opposite in almost every way from that which I grew up with- my own beloved husband has a morally opposing view on almost everything.
His people seem terribly immoral to me, and mine to him.
That his people only respect rules when there is an authority present to force them, is immoral and unethical to me
(one should listen to their conscience, even if no one else is there to enforce it)

That my people say nice sounding excuses instead of frankly saying "I don't want you visit" or "I'd rather not do that with you" is cruel and immoral to him.
(one should never lead a person on, as it increases the level of pain they will experience when they find out the truth).

For his people, it is egotistical and self sufficient to "follow your own conscience"- that destroys the bonds of interdependance that are necessary for the cohesion of a community.

For me, it is showing concern for the others feelings to soften your message.

I don't know....... this is just what came to mind right now, but so ofen, while trying to be completely morally upright and integral, we end up hurting each other anyway.

reply to post by MamaJ

but it is hard to fall into the trap of feeling like you are not going to be the "nice one" you are going to treat someone the way they are treating you. Forget it type of attitude.

Not at all. I am totally willing to help the truly needy. I used to live under a bridge near a train yard. There were lots of people there. I was a little different that I had a truck and a shed I stored all my scrap metal and flea market stuff that I found in dumpsters. There were times I would provide others with ponchos, flashlights, wool caps, batteries, matches, candles, sleeping bags, all type of stuff I found that didn't cost me money but they could really use. Thats what I mean.

All around our little oasis of hidden wretchitude the "real world" ground on, who cares? I helped the people that didn't ask, are really needing the stuff and were really appreciative.

I miss those days so much. You can't imagine how whole your soul feels at times like that. All the greedy, rat race people living comfortably behind locked doors with their electric lights, hot and cold running water, frozen food, cars and bank accounts? Those people are always complaining about this or that... and they have everything. They give up so little and hoard everything to themselves.

Just wanted to make that distinction from my perspective. Not bitter, just looking at the world from the outside--- in.

reply to post by Bluesma


Seriously? Are you just wanting to argue? What are you not understanding that has been so easily explained?

your morals

My morals? When did I say that? I will quote it again... but this is going to be the last time.

From the OP below!!

The dictionary says it is : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : incorruptibility : an unimpaired condition : soundness: the quality or state of being complete or undivided : completeness www.merriam-webster.com...

Keyword: "dictionary".

By definition it is not MY definition but the one linked to in the OP. The Bold text is the link that clearly says merriam-webster which is a dictionary. I never said it was MY definition based on my morals. Its based on the morals that would uphold the meaning per the dictionary.


Doing the right thing by my definition may not be yours. Doing what you say you are going to do and keeping your word is not something you have to adhere to. Forget it.... or not. I'm really at a loss with your points and confusion.

There is a lot of gray area there

Where?

integrity refers to acting true to YOUR own morals and ethics- not anyone elses.

Ok... so this above is YOUR definition? Got it. Its noted.

I have to face this problem everyday, because I am living in a culture that is the opposite in almost every way from that which I grew up with- my own beloved husband has a morally opposing view on almost everything.

Now, the above, sounds as though you're connecting with the OP's definition and research link..... ??
I think I am in the twilight zone!

That his people only respect rules when there is an authority present to force them

Here again, same thing I have been saying is doing the right thing, because it is the right thing to do and NOT because someone is watching you. Maybe you just like it better when its your idea??

Whatever... I will go with it.

one should listen to their conscience, even if no one else is there to enforce it

What if their conscience is not sound??

I don't know....... this is just what came to mind right now, but so ofen, while trying to be completely morally upright and integral, we end up hurting each other anyway.

Sounds like a problem.... sorry.

reply to post by intrptr


Ok... gotcha! Sure hope I didn't offend you as it was not my intent.

I totally understand. I was debating this last night with a friend.


It's not a priority for me to obtain "things" . My friend though believes its the most important thing... to have things and the nicest of things. Its very important to him. He is not a giver and would not give away anything for free to anyone, not even his family or friends. We all know this about him and he thinks its great.

His mind set believes people who are greedy go farther and the people who hate on him are just jealous.

When he is gone, he believes everyone will brag about all the "things" he has obtained over the years.

When you said they are still not happy, even though they have everything.... is so true.

They want more... no "thing" is ever enough.

Originally posted by MamaJ

The dictionary says it is : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : incorruptibility : an unimpaired condition : soundness: the quality or state of being complete or undivided : completeness www.merriam-webster.com...


Keyword: "dictionary".

By definition it is not MY definition but the one linked to in the OP. The Bold text is the link that clearly says merriam-webster which is a dictionary. I never said it was MY definition based on my morals. Its based on the morals that would uphold the meaning per the dictionary.

That dictionary (what the heck is the "keyword" comment about???) refers to "a code of especially moral or artistic values". It does not go into the specification of which particular set of morals and values.

So- it refers to adhering to a set of morals and values, no matter what they are.
-Materialism is a kind of value and has a corresponding set of morals.
-So if one values materialism, and adheres to that value and it's morals in act,
than they have integrity. (even according to that dictionary definition)

I am sorry if you are having trouble explaining this, I am truly trying to understand how materialism = lack of integrity ..?
Lots of people do not value materialism, and yet still have a huge lack of integrity!

That his people only respect rules when there is an authority present to force them


Here again, same thing I have been saying is doing the right thing, because it is the right thing to do and NOT because someone is watching you.

So, you share MY values on that. My point is that to a different culture, it is BAD to listen to your own conscience and do what is "right" when alone. Get it? That is unethical, immoral, egostistical behavior! Our idea of good and bad is not universal- it is subjective and relative.

Their reasoning is that as long as you remain needy of another to discipline you, you always need others. Each person has to be his brothers keeper, because his brother falls into sin and destruction on his own.
This encourages a community or society to remain social, and avoid individualism and egoism. The people become afraid of being alone at any time. They have no self discipline.

The irony of this is that that is the fruit of such a radically social-minded value system! It is not "better" than one which prones self discipline and independance- it just has different set backs.

That is my objection to the OP. Valuing social adhesion over self awareness is not an ideal or perfect system either. To suggest such a thing makes me wonder if the writer has actually lived within the kind of system that rejects materialism, consumerism, and individualism!

What if their conscience is not sound??

... and here we come back to the original question I posed and that you acted slightly offensed and frustrated by-

"not sound" is a subjective judgement. If you judge someone elses values and morals are "not sound", that means they are not the same as your own, does it not??????

So then, if they follow YOUR idea of "correct" or "sound" morals, then you would call it having integrity- even if their behavior goes against what they value and feel is morally right?
Does that not indicate that THEY will be no longer whole? They will then be divided against themself?

Originally posted by MamaJ


So, what do you think in regards to our society and integrity? Is it lost?

[color=cyan] 1 does not feel that society lost the integrity that keeps a species moving forward MamaJ. It seems there ARE many obstacles/ distractions as well a parasitic activities that tend to pull society away from their CORE potentials. And due to this the integrity of some or many is diluted or bypassed for more, less CHARACTER building processes/interactions and ways of living. It seems there needs to be a better recognition of these obstacles/distractions/parasitic activities in order to better interact so that they are not so degrading to society but still allowing society to have fun. EX. in the past families may have had time to have family time but now days most family time is redistributed to lifestyle upkeep which in turn leaves the next gen. out of the FAMILY TIME loop somewhat as they attach to technological devices and activities amongst their peers. And so this is where they learn Most of the values even if parents breaking their backs @ 9-5 s to keep them in nice houses and give them all they want to give. This is 1 of many examples 1 could think of to try to explain how the integrity that is passed down from generation to the next can and is being affected.



Also, who can you think of that displays or displayed integrity?

[color=cyan]
To 1 it depends MamaJ on the individual and who installed it in that individual and it as well can be various components- parents-peers-various education/entertainment/sports individuals. Those individuals who recognize they are observed and idolized for their accomplishments and so then dedicate part of their time to encouraging positive energy in those around them following them as opposed to those individuals in the same entertainment/sports circles gaining an ego and feeling like they SHOULD look up to them since in a higher living bracket of EA*RTH standard.. These components are some of the main drivers of the integrity now days if its not Parent -Peer based. Which allows for a somewhat Social Programming to occur on a mass level, which if the wrong individuals are PROGRAMMING will cause a less Integrity based MASS who associates their character integrity with that of a Outside source other then where it should come from Parents and then peers..


Thanks for reading! xoxox

[color=cyan]
Anytime MamaJ and thanks for the well presented Conscious OP.

LOVE LIGHT ETERNIA
NAMASTE*******

I am sorry if you are having trouble explaining this, I am truly trying to understand how materialism = lack of integrity ..? Lots of people do not value materialism, and yet still have a huge lack of integrity!

reply to post by Bluesma


Have you read the OP in its entirety?

If so, do you remember reading the link www.aoishima-research.com... ?????

The OP is talking about society as a whole along with the research that was done which indicates a lack of integrity within society.

The OP clearly states what society is like without integrity as well, per the research. The research is the basis of the moral values.

If you are not seeing the connection then maybe someone else can explain it better than the research link does and my OP.

"not sound" is a subjective judgement." If you judge someone elses values and morals are "not sound", that means they are not the same as your own, does it not??????

Can you not see beyond this and not be stuck any longer? Look at the whole picture, if you will.

If you are speaking to someone with a mental illness then obviously they are not of "sound" mind. They are lacking in more than just integrity. Again, if one is not of sound mind then they cannot be complete no matter how hard they try. Only moments of completeness would be had in this instance.

The research in the OP should be read and understood first before you can understand the OP as a whole.

Standards that denote integrity comes from an inner quality that upholds honesty and consistency of character. Sure, I can judge another's character but its not for me to do so. It is up to the individual as to whether they have it or not. If they think they do... they must pass it on. This is my stance.

I may judge you to have integrity, to a point that you act according to the values and principles I hold or perhaps the moral and value code which we could establish. Honesty and consistency though are two that one should have while displaying integrity. It only makes sense they would, otherwise we are not talking about integrity.

If someone is not honest and they hold no consistency.. they are obviously not displaying integrity. They can be said then to be going against the definition of the word. Its not my view.... its the view of the word by definition/definitions which include honesty and consistency. Its a moral thing, no doubt.

Maybe this below will help us out.

Subjective interpretations In common public usage, people sometimes use the word "integrity" in reference to a single "absolute" morality rather than in reference to the assumptions of the value system in question. In an absolute context, the word "integrity" conveys no meaning between people with differing definitions of absolute morality, and becomes nothing more than a vague assertion of perceived political correctness or popularity, similar to using terms such as "good" or "ethical" in a moralistic context. One can also speak of "integrity" outside of its prescriptive meaning, in reference to a person or group of people of which the speaker subjectively approves or disapproves. Thus a favored person can be described as "having integrity", while an enemy can be regarded as "completely lacking in integrity". Such labeling, in the absence of measures of independent testing, renders the accusation itself baseless and (ironically) others may call the integrity of the assertion into question.

en.wikipedia.org...

Again, from the Op.... which has it basis off of the research paper.

Also from the research they conclude that our society shared... Collectivism ~ a concern for the welfare of fellow humans. Harmony~ with nature and man Cooperation~ interdependence Connectedness~ to a higher power and or all people We now have a society who look for personal fulfillment beyond measures. A concern for: ~ The self only ~ Domination ~ Competition, ~ Separation with a superiority complex. ~ Oriented by wealth, possessions, fear, and the status quo.

reply to post by Ophiuchus 13


I totally agree with your point of view and do indeed see where the "programming" comes into play.

Hollywood is a land where you can obtain all kinds of possessions and the kids of today dream of looking like them and having everything they have.

Which reminds me... Manly says to turn off the TV due to television "programming". He says, Man is a thinking creature and does not need to be brought up like a dog with the television as the trainer.



Fixing what is broken in our own house hold would be a great way to start, this is for sure.

Thank you for the contribution as it is always appreciated!

reply to post by MamaJ

Ok... gotcha! Sure hope I didn't offend you as it was not my intent.

Not at all. I know your true heart from other discussions we have had. I apologize too. I have this different viewpoint and sometimes I don' make it clear enough.

Integrity

What is integrity?

The dictionary says it is : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : incorruptibility : an unimpaired condition : soundness: the quality or state of being complete or undivided : completeness www.merriam-webster.com...

I find your OP necessary to the times we confront. And the definition above quite illustrative of that. What follows, in this discussion, yours and others, illustrative and illuminating as to how we all view this all important facet.

Honesty is hard to come by these days. Is this a fair statement? Do people care if their word means anything? Are people accountable for their actions and or lies? Do they care?

I wish I were not so disillusioned, but no, I don't think they do, and there are many examples in postings after this to illustrate that.

We now have a society who look for personal fulfillment beyond measures.
A concern for:
~ The self only
~ Domination
~ Competition,
~ Separation with a superiority complex.
~ Oriented by wealth, possessions, fear, and the status quo.

This is what we are facing. I do not know how to counter that. And further, I think there is something at work to denigrate what is human, so that we are judged so....in other words, to be human, is to be defideint, in this regard, so that the human species is lacking in just this way, penultimately, rendering us lesser, so that somethingn or someone else can take over...

It is my belief that once we were one thing, and have now been manipulated to be viewed as something else entirely, so as to show us to be lacking, so that we can be kept and manipulated as slaves...

Thanks, MamaJa, for addressing a salient and so important point in these times we face, and why we may be kept as slaves, and facing times where the same would apply.....
We often speak of change, while no such thing is happening.

reply to post by tetra50


Im with ya!

This is what we are facing. I do not know how to counter that. And further, I think there is something at work to denigrate what is human, so that we are judged so....in other words, to be human, is to be defideint, in this regard, so that the human species is lacking in just this way, penultimately, rendering us lesser, so that somethingn or someone else can take over...

It sure seems that way doesn't it?

When the leaders of the pack/world has his/her values as greed in every sense of the word, how does one, if not many combat that?

All I know to do is start at home and "pass on the lamp".

reply to post by Bluesma

For his people, it is egotistical and self sufficient to "follow your own conscience"- that destroys the bonds of interdependance that are necessary for the cohesion of a community.

regardless of culture, and I fully understand and comprehend what you mean, integrity goes beyond this, IMHO.
Standing your ground, being true to your beliefs and what you know is right, trumps this, cultural or otherwise.

After all, is that not the meaning of integrity....to go against what you face, to be true to self and what you know and acknowledge is right and true?

It is my belief that once we were one thing, and have now been manipulated to be viewed as something else entirely, so as to show us to be lacking, so that we can be kept and manipulated as slaves...

reply to post by tetra50


This is why I love discussions on ATS.

The expansion of the Op is in my opinion something that should interest us all because so many of us seem to be wanting change and we do not care if its catastrophic or not... just change and change for the better and quick!

My belief is as yours meaning coming from one and being equal, yet made to believe we are deficient and less than. Is it because of material things we feel this way?

Originally posted by MamaJ

If so, do you remember reading the link www.aoishima-research.com... ?????

The OP is talking about society as a whole along with the research that was done which indicates a lack of integrity within society.

I can only see that sample page. The rest has to be opened as a pdf. file- we have some sort of problem on our computer that blocks them (and yes we have the latest version of Adobe Reader and all that).

BUT, in that sample outline alone, is a such a mix of contradiction, it just confuses the issue further!
For Example, it says-

The thesis of this book is the following: Embracing individualistic ideologies will destroy your society - the educational process we recommend and implement will prevent this occurrence.

Underneath, it says their recommendations will have as goals, various things including-

3). Define and advance an educational model that champions self-determination and independence

5). Maintain "sovereign self-reliance"

The others are typical conformist social types of values.... but these are in sharp contrast! You cannot teach a peoples to "Espouse a collective ideology " (one of those goals in the list) at the same time. These are principles that negate each other. A society that is truly integral must, by definition, eliminate individual freedom of thought, belief, value and ideas.

Also, the statement-

6). Recognize that the common enemy is the memetic viral culture

This article, this thesis, IS A MEME! It is like every other meme, that uses all the usual tactics to try to seduce carriers to integrate it. (including the use of pointing out a common enemy)

Any kind of ideology that exists is a meme!
The only kinds of ideas that are NOT "viral" memes are the ones you keep to yourself and do not spread to others (or ones that are so lame they die out as soon as they leave your mouth, infecting no one).

The OP clearly states what society is like without integrity as well, per the research.

LIke I said, I cannot read it, but thank you for explaining that you are refering to "cultural integrity" as a collective, not integrity as we use it for a person.

I still hold the stance that if an entire society all hold the values and morals of materialism and consumerism,
and they are all openly honest about that,
and their actions and behaviors manifest that,
then it is a society with integrity.

Subjective interpretations In common public usage, people sometimes use the word "integrity" in reference to a single "absolute" morality rather than in reference to the assumptions of the value system in question. In an absolute context, the word "integrity" conveys no meaning between people with differing definitions of absolute morality, and becomes nothing more than a vague assertion of perceived political correctness or popularity, similar to using terms such as "good" or "ethical" in a moralistic context. One can also speak of "integrity" outside of its prescriptive meaning, in reference to a person or group of people of which the speaker subjectively approves or disapproves. Thus a favored person can be described as "having integrity", while an enemy can be regarded as "completely lacking in integrity". Such labeling, in the absence of measures of independent testing, renders the accusation itself baseless and (ironically) others may call the integrity of the assertion into question.

Thank you very much for putting up such a well written definition of my point. I am doing exactly that-calling the integrity of this assertion into question. There seems to be a heavy bias, and a fair amount of dishonesty.

I libve in a culture that is pretty integral- the reason many call it socialist, the reason the socialist party is ruling it, the reason consumerism is culturally and widely rejected, as is materialism. The cost of all this solidarity is sacrifice of person, individual integrity. It almost seems like the interjections here and there of respecting individual freedom and thought are just stuck in as further selling points to attract the part of the mind that seeks that.... but a critical examination shows that in this extreme idea of conformist social conscience, that promise cannot be fulfilled.

reply to post by Bluesma


If the OP is not something you want to expand on or see the need as a culture in every sense of the word to be in need of a collective fix then I really have no words. Arguing about the definitions or the research that is within the op, is not really my intent with this thread. I would like for us to get past this, but not sure how. Maybe another poster can help... I don't know.

Expanding on the need for people around the world to "fix" their inner self and pass on the lamp is my intent with this thread.

You may try to open this link.. maybe it will work

img-srv.dtcbuilder.com...

reply to post by MamaJ

If I could change the world, I would... and I try. I love your posts as well.

Giving, loving, treating others how you would like to be treated could bring this world one day to peace.

I long for it and I know you do as well.

Yes. I totally agree with you, MamaJ!
I'm only on the first page, but.....wanted to insert myself here....

I'll keep reading.

Originally posted by MamaJ

It is my belief that once we were one thing, and have now been manipulated to be viewed as something else entirely, so as to show us to be lacking, so that we can be kept and manipulated as slaves...

reply to post by tetra50

 

This is why I love discussions on ATS.

The expansion of the Op is in my opinion something that should interest us all because so many of us seem to be wanting change and we do not care if its catastrophic or not... just change and change for the better and quick!

My belief is as yours meaning coming from one and being equal, yet made to believe we are deficient and less than. Is it because of material things we feel this way?

To be honest, i don't know why, really. I only know that we are no less than or more than one another... we start the same, make the same mistakes, though many would argue that, obviously. "I did that, and you didn't, and so on..." but it's all really the same, for this denies our separate circumstances,w hich certainly apply, and are so often disregarded....

material things? I don't know how much a part they play in this. I have the sense it is more of what I stated above. We have a need to separate, to rise above one another, regardless of our separate and disparate circumstances, and to ignore those....because, inherently we cannot walk in another's shoes and use
this both to our advantage, to separate and rise above, and otherwise. In other words, the state of humanity today seems to be, sadly, to say I am better than you, have walked your road and progressed, regardless.....

material things are what they are. They are a symptom we use to say we have risen above that road.....and we use it, all to often, to say that if you could only do as I have done, you would be where I am today.

In my opinion, humble as it is, the rub is in our definition of success, in itself. For what is it? Material things and the acquisition of them? This, to me, is not success at all. And no mark of integrity.

Integrity, to me, is walking the path less travelled. And frequently, if not always, it does not lead to the definition of success that society defines.
Thanks for your thoughts and making me think of these things.

Originally posted by tetra50

regardless of culture, and I fully understand and comprehend what you mean, integrity goes beyond this, IMHO.
Standing your ground, being true to your beliefs and what you know is right, trumps this, cultural or otherwise.

After all, is that not the meaning of integrity....to go against what you face, to be true to self and what you know and acknowledge is right and true?

-That is the definition of individual integrity.

In the OP, and the thesis linked to in it, the subject is "cultural integrity"
- that is, having an entire society or nation holding a shared set of morals and values, upon which the choices and actions carried out by them are based. The individuals adhere to public policy, not personal judgement.

For a group to have integrity, the individual must refrain from using their own sense of analyzation, thought, judgement or moral sense- they must adhere to and base their acts and choices on the collective set of ethics instead.

The writers of this thesis are correct in that
-individualism destroys collective integrity,

What they are not being honest about is the other side of that too-
-Collectivism destroys individual integrity.

The suggestion that one of these extremes is "good" and the other is "bad" is a tactic used in memes to push the listener to make a choice quickly, and not use further critical thought.

That tactic is reinforced then with claims of immediate danger and threat to the listener by the claimed "bad" side, which the "good" side can save you from. (funny the shared enemy they point at is viral memes- which it is... but you are supposed to get filled with emotion and self rightious defense , not notice that lack of honesty and integrity)

I personally think that any of those value systems alone become destructive, they just have different ways that they are, and balance between the two might be the most effective. The demonization of either is just another way of knocking out balance.