Integrity

Originally posted by MamaJ
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.

You still have not said WHICH culture you are speaking of, so how can anyone agree or disagree??
In France, a bit of value for individual thought, and less self sacrificial values would be beneficial, I think.
In the US, I think cultural integrity would be beneficial, as I post often, it is the extreme values on individualism that caused our so called "Culture Wars" and lack of coherence as a nation.
But I think that would entail having to let go of our values on individual integrity a bit. Every coin has two sides.

I am not familiar enough with other coutnries to have an opinion on them.

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.

That is such a huge judgement- that all people around the world need to fix their inner self. But you have the right to your opinion. But I suggest that not everyones "problem" around the world is the same, and one nations solution may be another nations problem to solve. Our imbalances are not the same over the entire globe!

I am, as you said, expanding on the ideas presented in the OP.
I believe my view has merit, so express it openly.

This thesis is dishonest and lacking in integrity.

It is, of course, a meme, and can be considered "viral" in that it seeks to be integrated by readers, and to replace their previous ideologies. It is self negating, though (which makes it a weak meme) because it claims the enemy is viral memes, so is doomed to be destroyed by it's own carriers eventually if they swallow it.

It claims that a global problem sweeping all nations is a "viral memetic culture". Let's be clear on what that is- it means that ideas are battling each other to win the right to peoples minds.
This is partly due to the technological advancement of communication and availability of information.
Peoples mind are stimulated to think more, to search, to judge- they become more vulnerable.

In the past, the limitations of what individuals were exposed to made it easier to not think at all, and remain safetly behind the walls of socially dictated ethics and morals. -Whether your society dictated that slavery was good, and murder good under the appropriate conditions, you didn't question, you were conditioned early on not to "look within" or "listen to your heart".

So memes didn't have much fertile ground to battle for. This changed, especially with internet. Individualism grew widely, people began to think for themselves. This is destroying some cultural bonds and causing uprisings.

People who are motivated less by thought, and more by emotional drives end up being conquered by memes which are not well structured, logically, but that provoke and stimulate appetites and emotional desires. In those, the memes which enhance consumption and possession spread more easily than before too.

On the other hand, the movements for environmental concerns, social concerns, are also growing! People trying to live and work in ways that respect the environment and humans is one of the biggest and growing fads at this time! This is also a result of the "memetic virulism".

The thesis claims-

The psychological health of group members starts to deteriorate as they experience insecurity and inadequacy either because they cannot acquire the coveted possessions or they can never obtain enough money or things to make them feel fulfilled. Individuals whose lives were once motivated by a sense of purpose, fulfillment, and intrinsic rewards now experience emptiness, alienation, and misdirected lives. Finally, the feelings of insecurity, frustration, and unhappiness associated with "not having things" lead to unhealthy and destructive behaviors such as alcohol and drug abuse.

I will acknowledge this is one of the potential effects of an extreme focus upon individualism and consumerism, if it eliminates social conscience.

What they are dishonest about is that the opposite (elminating individualism, in favor of social conscience) can also have the same effectsi

I watch people here become involved with drinking and drugs, being unhappy, because their lack of integrity eats at them. They are behaving as is socially accepted, and oppressing their own inner judgement and feeling. Their culture is pretty solid and integral- but their person often is not.

Humans all have a side that strives to experience individuality, and it is just as strong as our built in drive to experience social bonds! Trying to elminate either results in the other side being frustrated, and eventually unhappy.

If one lives in culture that has gone to the extreme of individualism, so they don't know the downsides to martyism and exaggerrated social conscience, then try reading Nietszche, for example.
It was a real problem in his time, and he described rather well the set backs of what happens to people when they sacrifice their own thoughts, senses, and desires in favor of domination by a collective ethical code- the passive aggressiveness, the subtle manipulation, the resentment- and hypocrisy, that results.

Even unethical treatment of others eventually comes out of such a system! -Because individuals are no longer valued. This is when you get things like the Crusades, or Jhihad, or ethnic cleansing.

You still have not said WHICH culture you are speaking of, so how can anyone agree or disagree??

reply to post by Bluesma


The LINKS I gave you on numerous occasions states we are talking on behalf of HUMANISTIC Culture. This is a research paper/book that discusses the importance of GLOBALIZATION preservation of integrity.

The materialistic/consumeristic culture is a memetic viral culture, and like a cancerous growth, overwhelms, dominates, and ultimately destroys the integrity of the world's cultures if unstopped. When cultures are attacked by the memetic viral culture, they are subject to a plethora of social ills which threaten their well-being and stability.

In France do you see ANY need at all for a "fix"? If not.... this thread is not for you.

In France, a bit of value for individual thought, and less self sacrificial values would be beneficial, I think.

Ok... great!

That is such a huge judgement- that all people around the world need to fix their inner self. But you have the right to your opinion. But I suggest that not everyones "problem" around the world is the same, and one nations solution may be another nations problem to solve. Our imbalances are not the same over the entire globe!

The judgement that none of us are perfect or could one use the word...."reality"? You choose judgement, so be it.

I am, as you said, expanding on the ideas presented in the OP.

You have somewhat but more argumentative words and judging the OP, but you have the right to your opinion.

Whether your society dictated that slavery was good, and murder good under the appropriate conditions, you didn't question, you were conditioned early on not to "look within" or "listen to your heart".

I totally disagree.

This changed, especially with internet. Individualism grew widely, people began to think for themselves. This is destroying some cultural bonds and causing uprisings.

You blame the internet while I blame the TV.

On the other hand, the movements for environmental concerns, social concerns, are also growing! People trying to live and work in ways that respect the environment and humans is one of the biggest and growing fads at this time! This is also a result of the "memetic virulism".

Again, I disagree. We were once very in tune with nature and the likes of living off the land was the norm. Now we are eating foods that are so unhealthy, fracking the Earth is ok, and on and on and on. We have went backwards and people are awakening to many things of old, however what can you do to stop something like hydraulic fracturing? Notta. The farmers of yesterday are gone.

From the link.

Societies that fall victim to the viral culture are subject to certain foreseeable and negative changes. The consequences of embracing the viral culture are evidenced in seven critical areas: crisis in values; social polarization; dehumanization; violence and crime; disintegration of the family and community; loss of freedom; and ultimately the decline, destruction, and domination of the host society.

What they are dishonest about is that the opposite (elminating individualism, in favor of social conscience) can also have the same effectsi

The opposite would be security, adequate, fulfilled, motivated with purpose, wholeness, unity, happiness, and not concerned with having "things". You think these qualities above are also detrimental? I don't get it.

Even unethical treatment of others eventually comes out of such a system! -Because individuals are no longer valued. This is when you get things like the Crusades, or Jhihad, or ethnic cleansing.

Agreed.

Bluesma said this:

People trying to live and work in ways that respect the environment and humans

And it is precisely what has been forming in my mind regarding "integrity."

I agree with MamaJ herself, that everyone can benefit from examining their "inner selves" - we each are unique, with different talents, weaknesses, and interests. We also are all products of our environments (in this case our "cultures" in terms of social standards, but also the "culture" of our families).

I can see Bluesma's point that if everyone in a society has the same view of proper and improper behavior, then the individuals that go along with that "collective" part can be seen as having "integrity", whether other cultures find the views pure or depraved.

I have not experienced the same thing as either of them (MamaJ or Bluesma) - so my "story" will be different from theirs, and everyone else's, too.

To my thinking, "integrity" is being constant and faithful to what one believes -- however, if WHAT ONE BELIEVES does not include respect for the planet (on which we are entirely dependent) and the value of human beings as well as other species in their respective environments (for example the oceans, about which we know very little, yet blithely overfish, pollute, drill into, and use at the expense of other creatures) we get words and labels like "ruthless" and "driven" and "self-absorbed".

People in societies are either "pushed" together - as against a common threat or foe - or "pulled" together - as by a common goal that all agree with. There is an excellent book by Robert Wright titled
The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are

THE mind is a product of the brain, and the brain is a product of evolution's organizing force, natural selection. This simple Darwinian truth has illuminated vast stretches of our mental life. Why do we see in depth and enjoy sweets? Not because minds have to be that way. Most mammals lack stereo vision, and dung flies surely find dung delicious. No, our experiences are adaptations of a brain that allowed our ancestors to survive in an environment where a fall from a tree could mean death, and ripe fruit contained precious glucose.

But what about our higher thoughts and feelings: our devotion to children, love for spouses, loyalty to friends, obedience to principle, respect for the worthy, outrage at the wicked? These too are products of a brain that could have been wired otherwise.
Did we inherit these noble sentiments because they served the reproductive interests of our ancestors?

How could that have happened, if evolution is a game in which nice guys finish last?

And if our moral psychology is a Darwinian adaptation, what does that say about human nature?

About social policy, which always presupposes something about human nature?

About morality itself?

These are the questions asked and answered in Robert Wright's fiercely intelligent, beautifully written and engrossingly original book "The Moral Animal." It lucidly explains our understanding of the evolution of human moral sentiments and draws out provocative implications for sexual, family, office and societal politics. But Mr. Wright's main lesson comes from the very fact that morality is an adaptation designed to maximize genetic self-interest, a function that is entirely hidden from our conscious experience. Our intuitive moral principles, he says, have no claim to inherent truth and should be distrusted. In Darwin's wake we must reconstruct morality from the ground up.

These excerpts are from a review of the book written by an MIT Prof of Psychology, Steven Pinker

In humans, the talkative species, long-term reciprocity creates an arms race of impression management. Everyone tries to show signs of integrity (exceeding that in actual behavior), while developing hypersensitive radar for such hypocrisy in others. Since an adversary's social radar will pick up any twitch or inconsistency that leaks the awful truth, it can even pay to deceive oneself about one's own intentions, so that there is nothing to leak. As Mr. Wright puts it: "The human brain is, in large part, a machine for winning arguments, a machine for convincing others that its owner is in the right -- and thus a machine for convincing its owner of the same thing. The brain is like a good lawyer: given any set of interests to defend, it sets about convincing the world of their moral and logical worth, regardless of whether they in fact have any of either."

So, how do we decide on what it is we will stand for? I think firstly we must "deconstruct" the "stories" that have resulted in our perspectives...in other words, why we believe what we do, and should we dump those beliefs or nurture them?

My view is that respect for others of any species, and refraining from excess when others are deprived or in need, is the key.
I have left jobs - more than one! - because of things like corporate "integrity" of profit above all else, i.e. "you don't have to agree with HQ, you just have to do what they say." To which I responded, "No, I don't. And I don't know how you can sleep at night with that mentality." (They were disregarding the health and well being of a staff laborer, thus endangering both her and her unborn child). Had I stayed at that job (and I could have, and was being groomed for management), I'd have earned the respect of HQ, but at an expense I could not justify.

To me, "integrity" is about saying what you mean, and living up to it. I would hope that people do learn to inspect their inner selves with a view to common good and dignity, that is, living in a way that respects the dignity of all living things, including the planet herself.

That is the definition of individual integrity. In the OP, and the thesis linked to in it, the subject is "cultural integrity"

reply to post by Bluesma


Do you think you can have one without the other?

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.

That is not true. It becomes a unity within a group. It's no longer about me, me, me. It is now about US. What is best for US.

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.

Your opinion is noted but not agreed with in the sense you are referring to.

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.

Again, your opinion is noted. Again, I disagree. We are at this point needing to agree to disagree. While I am trying hard to see your POV, I don't see it. Collectivism calls for cooperation. There needs to be a balance in everything.

The Collectivist does not have the right to enslave. I can understand the fear, but the individual should lose no identity or choice. It's not about just ME in a world that inhabits more than I.

Back in the day I was consumed by the ancient communities at Qumran. I read at length how the Essene's lived and the readings come to mind. It was an easy way of living and it was a collective way of living, although the system in which they lived was for the betterment of not only the group, but for the individuals as well.

The balance I once spoke of in this thread is meant to be taken in this context. We need balance in this chaotic world for peace to reign within each and abroad.

I think you and I are mainly disagreeing on this point below.

"collectivist ethical principle: man is not an end to himself, but is only a tool to serve the ends of others. Whether those 'others' are a dictator's gang, the nation, society, the race, (the) god(s), the majority, the community, the tribe, etc., is irrelevant -- the point is that man in principle must be sacrificed to others." -- Mark Da Cunha

You may not feel as though the above is for you or for the collective, however I do.... to a point.

"The antipode of individualism is collectivism, which subordinates the individual to the group -- be it the 'community,' the tribe, the race, the proletariat, etc. A person's moral worth is judged by how much he sacrifices himself to the group. [Under collectivism] the more emergencies (and victims) the better, because they provide more opportunity for 'virtue'." -- Glenn Woiceshyn

"A social system is a code of laws which men observe in order to live together. Such a code must have a basic principle, a starting point, or it cannot be devised. The starting point is the question: Is the power of society limited or unlimited?
"Individualism answers: The power of society is limited by the inalienable, individual rights of man. Society may make only such laws as do not violate these rights.
"Collectivism answers: The power of society is unlimited. Society may make any laws it wishes, and force them upon anyone in any manner it wishes." -- Ayn Rand, Textbook of Americanism

If we were not living in a world with seven plus billion people then collectivism would not come into play, however we do have that many humans, and we do need to entertain their individualism as a collective.

The Balance:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." -- Jefferson et al, The Declaration of Independence

Hey Wildtimes!!! Thanks for joining in and reasoning with us by offering your pov as you see it. Your opinion is always valued as "sound". lol

I have left jobs - more than one! - because of things like corporate "integrity" of profit above all else, i.e. "you don't have to agree with HQ, you just have to do what they say." To which I responded, "No, I don't. And I don't know how you can sleep at night with that mentality." (They were disregarding the health and well being of a staff laborer, thus endangering both her and her unborn child). Had I stayed at that job (and I could have, and was being groomed for management), I'd have earned the respect of HQ, but at an expense I could not justify. To me, "integrity" is about saying what you mean, and living up to it. I would hope that people do learn to inspect their inner selves with a view to common good and dignity, that is, living in a way that respects the dignity of all living things, including the planet herself.

reply to post by wildtimes


This above is why I refuse to work for someone else. I have worked for myself the last 20 years. Don't get me wrong, I have clients that I work for but the difference is I get to choose who.

Who decides which morals and values to live by, is the key question here. What if they go against the individual's own guidelines?

Integrity is a broad attribute and is not really defined to one moral set of codes. This is why I think as a collective it works better. WE can decide which codes to live by. It starts in the home and carries out into the world.

Respect should begin at home, no doubt. If one out of a collective does not agree to such a standard then in my opinion their mind set needs to change and can do so with the collective help of others.

Honesty goes along with respect, however in this instance it should stand alone in regards to its own merit. Honesty should start at home. If one out of the collective does not see a need for such an attribute, then as a collective the mind set of the individual should change.

Should we have the freedom to be disrespectful and dishonest? No. Not the way I see it. Is it disrespectful to not honor the individual's freedom of such? Possibly, depending on how you look at it. When it hurts the collective is when the line must be drawn.

Again, this above is a system of morals and ethics that starts at home. Are there homes where the kids are not raised by parents but by the TV? YES! When a family turns the TV off and talks to one another, they begin to KNOW one another and the parents can then mold their children to be of a great attribute to society by instilling honesty and respect. Also, cooperation comes into play in the home. Thus, the child can carry with them into society cooperation, honesty and respect.

I have three kids. All three of them eat dinner with us every night. One of my daughters friends said to us... "this is cool, we never eat together". A girlfriend last night was telling me the same thing her daughters friend said. It was the same as I heard. We talked about how sad it is families do not eat together anymore. They are all busy doing their own thing. No unity there.

Instead of entertaining each other with stories and the like, people seek their own entertainment that creates separation, not unity. Should I interfere with my sons right to play his game on his IPad during supper or should I draw the line and say now is not the time? I choose the latter because its not the time. The time for his right to play his game on his Ipad is set by my standard.

At home I tell them all the time we are a team and not one of us is another's slave. We work together to get stuff done and we play together to enjoy life as a team as well. This way they are not solely focused on their self, but the family as a team.

reply to post by MamaJ


I applaud your integrity in managing your home and family. I was brought up that way also, and when I had kids at home, I tried to do the same.

I think one of the problems with the new "global" society is that cultures clash with one another. We need to begin with active listening, respectfully, to the perspectives and stories of others which may be very similar or very different from our own, and then to reflect - making sure we understand as accurately as possible the hows and whys of their pov - on our own beliefs.

Common ground is the answer, I think. To reach the common ground and agree to what thing(s) we ALL will adhere.

The world of humanity today is being torn apart at the same time it is shrinking - it's frightening, but also a time of hope; that we can seek out one another to improve our understanding of one another and to find a mutually beneficial "middle way." A tall task indeed. But worth every effort. You're right, it starts at home.

Sometimes I wonder whether any "large" society, such as the USA, is TOO large for it to work. Group dynamics writ too large breed dis-ease. We can never erase "individuality" - as each of us in indisputably different from everyone else. If we decide we must live together anyway, then communication and education are necessary. Finding the talents that can then help with forming a trajectory as a society is important as well.

Have you read Plato's "Republic" - an excellent treatise on building a "state" from the ground up. Each person being productive in accordance with his own talents; Plato uses for example, artisans and soldiers. The artisans are not expected to be soldiers, and vice versa. And the education of the very young first should encompass "music" and then "gymnastic". He goes on to discuss other things such as marriage and child-rearing. Interesting stuff.

reply to post by wildtimes


reply to post by wildtimes


Thank you... its hard but at least we try.

I think one of the problems with the new "global" society is that cultures clash with one another. We need to begin with active listening, respectfully, to the perspectives and stories of others which may be very similar or very different from our own, and then to reflect - making sure we understand as accurately as possible the hows and whys of their pov - on our own beliefs.

They do clash, however with cooperation you noted above, we can manage it.

The world of humanity today is being torn apart at the same time it is shrinking - it's frightening, but also a time of hope; that we can seek out one another to improve our understanding of one another and to find a mutually beneficial "middle way." A tall task indeed. But worth every effort. You're right, it starts at home.

Listening to your families concerns and taking into consideration the individual is cooperating with one another to a point that the individual doesn't feel lost to his self over the collective. Securing the individual in the home and at the same time offering other options which seek the collective need can be observed and identified within reason.

For example... sharing.

Do kids have a hard time sharing? A toddler will yell, "MINE"! We as parents seek to teach the "immature mind set" how to share. It overrides the individual's right to self only and shows them how it is the "nice" thing to do when sharing. As a collective need sharing is important.

If I have lots of food and a friend is hungry do I share my food or harbor it for myself just in case times become hard-shipped?

Sometimes I wonder whether any "large" society, such as the USA, is TOO large for it to work. Group dynamics writ too large breed dis-ease. We can never erase "individuality" - as each of us in indisputably different from everyone else. If we decide we must live together anyway, then communication and education are necessary. Finding the talents that can then help with forming a trajectory as a society is important as well.

USA has become very greedy with material and wealth. We see this, it is evident in every way shape or form. The people do not appreciate the change as more and more awaken to the facts of our governments "wants" over the peoples best interest as a species for survival.

We have to live together and cooperate with one another. How do we do it in such a way that is in the collectives best interest? Guidelines that go with the good will of nature and not against is a great place to start and starting at home can be the most beneficial.

Have you read Plato's "Republic" - an excellent treatise on building a "state" from the ground up. Each person being productive in accordance with his own talents; Plato uses for example, artisans and soldiers. The artisans are not expected to be soldiers, and vice versa. And the education of the very young first should encompass "music" and then "gymnastic". He goes on to discuss other things such as marriage and child-rearing. Interesting stuff.

I have indeed. If I remember correctly its based on, "The idea of the Good". Being based on faith and not reason of the common good of man and the immortality of the soul. Love Plato!

My hope is one day there will be communities that have arts and professions within and the people cooperate with one another in a way whereas the need for material or money is not needed. We will seek to help our neighbor with our talents.

Originally posted by MamaJ

The LINKS I gave you on numerous occasions states we are talking on behalf of HUMANISTIC Culture. This is a research paper/book that discusses the importance of GLOBALIZATION preservation of integrity.

Then that is a openly exaggerrated lie, in order to stir a sense of emotional urgency. There is no one global culture as of yet. Only many different ones, with completely different value and moral systems. The difference between China and the US, for example, make it clear that that claim is invalid. It is false.

In France do you see ANY need at all for a "fix"? If not.... this thread is not for you.

So... you mean that false claims should not be challenged here? If I see a untruth being posted, I should stay away and not mention it? What about the "Deny ignorance" and all that?

The judgement that none of us are perfect or could one use the word...."reality"?

The claim was not that "none of us are perfect" (I would have agreed on that) , it claimed all of us, all nations and people of earth have the same problem and are in need of the same solution. That is what I disagree with.

Whether your society dictated that slavery was good, and murder good under the appropriate conditions, you didn't question, you were conditioned early on not to "look within" or "listen to your heart".

I totally disagree.

Then you need to look at history again. It is full of cultures all over the world taking part in all kind of ethical and moral systems that we today would have great difficulty adhering to. Like burning accused witches, or heretics, or slavery, and on and on..... many people went along with those things because it was what they grew up with, it was all they knew and they believed it was right to do. Most often religious edicts discouraged people from listenign to their inner feelings and thoughts by describing what is within as being "evil".

You blame the internet while I blame the TV.

Okay. That doesn't work for me because it is not interactive, and is highly biased and limited in available information.
Some information was not shown on tv, and people did not actually have conversations with other normal citizens on the other side of the world. But it is a minor point here.

Again, I disagree. We were once very in tune with nature and the likes of living off the land was the norm. Now we are eating foods that are so unhealthy, fracking the Earth is ok, and on and on and on. We have went backwards and people are awakening to many things of old, however what can you do to stop something like hydraulic fracturing? Notta. The farmers of yesterday are gone.

The biggest movement is organic foods, growing your own food at home, using all natural materials, not buying anything from countries which use child labor, environmentally respectful energy sources, and fracking was ruled illegal here. (an American corporation wanted to do it in our region and the people put a stop to it through protests, that were largely organized via internet)

I know it is not just here because last February I was back in the US and the fast food places in my hometown were gone, they were all replaced by organic food stores, and the changes in my family and friends and their habits were striking! The big fancy gas guzzlers are gone and replaced by small humble hybrids instead, the manicured lawn is now a cute little veggie garden... these changes since the 80's are huge!

What they are dishonest about is that the opposite (elminating individualism, in favor of social conscience) can also have the same effectsi

The opposite would be security, adequate, fulfilled, motivated with purpose, wholeness, unity, happiness, and not concerned with having "things". You think these qualities above are also detrimental? I don't get it.

Those things are what this thesis CLAIMS will be the fruit of their proposed opposing system! And you just take their word for it, without looking further? Without trying to discern whether they are correct or not?

You are not going to examine the countries that already have such a system of cultural integrity, conformism and rejection of individuality and see if they ended up with all that utopian perfection?

Discernment in a "memetic viral environment" is useful.....

reply to post by MamaJ

My hope is one day there will be communities that have arts and professions within and the people cooperate with one another in a way whereas the need for material or money is not needed. We will seek to help our neighbor with our talents.

Yep. I think a barter system, of goods and services, is the ultimate goal. Cooperation, and pulling together for common goals of everyone having enough of what they need.

I think you'd like Robert Wright's book; here's a linkydink:
The Moral Animal: Why We Are, the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology

reply to post by Bluesma


Thank you for your contribution.

Your opinions are noted. Even if I do not agree, your opinion is still appreciated.

reply to post by wildtimes


Thanks! Will look through the link and see what others have to say in regards to the book.

Here is another video, although shorter than ones I linked to prior in this thread.

A wise Philosopher and teacher is who I consider Manly to be, otherwise would not continue to push his philosophy in this thread. He is someone who in my opinion, "gets it".

Take a listen.... while doing whatever, but please take a listen to what he has to say.



"When the individual works for himself his empires fall and when he works for the common good he builds that in which is the spirit of everlasting-ness. " ....Man must solve the riddle of nature, himself and universal law.

reply to post by Bluesma

Then you need to look at history again. It is full of cultures all over the world taking part in all kind of ethical and moral systems that we today would have great difficulty adhering to. Like burning accused witches, or heretics, or slavery, and on and on..... many people went along with those things because it was what they grew up with, it was all they knew and they believed it was right to do. Most often religious edicts discouraged people from listenign to their inner feelings and thoughts by describing what is within as being "evil".

Now, is this above "good" for the common good of man? No.... no.... its not. Cultures all over the world is right. Cultures around the world need a "fix". This is what this thread is about.

The common good is a collective good for the ALL, not just for the US, but for ALL of humans.

Does a common good belong to a group of selfish, egotistic, killing, hating, fracking, drilling, injustice, warmongering, and so on?

No... it doesn't.

As an individual the above does not work toward peace within nor does it with a collective abroad.

As an entire world filled with different ideas regarding the common good one could say they are lost when it comes to integrity.

We are now back to the first page of the OP.

I grew up with a lot of happenings that were not right and never did I feel something was right when it wasn't. Just because I grow up with injustice does not mean I accept it, quite the contrary for me personally. I am sure I'm not alone and many others feel as though what is right is right and wrong is wrong no matter what we grew up with.

I grew up in a Christian atmosphere. I am not a Christian. It felt wrong then, and feels wrong now.

Originally posted by Bluesma

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.

edit on 10-3-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)

I am very interested in your way of looking at and expressing this: individual integrity vs. cultural integrity, and the use of it as a meme, designed to manipulate cultures and get individuals to behave in certain ways and respond in certain ways. And pretty much, I agree.

However, it seems that a cultural integrity should be informed and shaped by the individuals in the culture. But this also may be used to disenfranchise and single out those who do not agree, as frequently, culturally and politically a certain "integrity" is said to be how and why we react as countries to "save" or "interfere" with the problems of other countries, when actually, what is behind the action, has nothing at all to do with the "integrity," say of a nation--here I am alluding to, say, the American political statement that we went to Iraq to free Iraqis from a cruel, inhuman dictator, when in actual fact, there was an entirely different "bottom line," going on there, that probably had nothing to do with "freeing" anyone. I always had to laugh at, I think, Bush's statement that we were "spreading freedom." Hmmmmm. I don't think I need to explain the paradox of that statement. But it illustrates that he was tapping into the "meme" of the supposed "integrity" of the American culture to wish to free all peoples--as if, we are, in fact, free.

Anyway, your points are very interesting and caused me to ponder these issues in a totally different way, wherever the original OP began. Personal integrity to me means that the important values I espouse are concurrent with my actions,, not just an espousing of something that sounds good and makes me seem to be a virtuous person, when my actions are not necessarily concurrent. This, I think, is the struggle of all individuals to be integrated with what they say they stand for, and the moment when it is time to act on that.
Enjoyed your contributions to this thread.

Bush's statement that we were "spreading freedom." Hmmmmm. I don't think I need to explain the paradox of that statement. But it illustrates that he was tapping into the "meme" of the supposed "integrity" of the American culture to wish to free all peoples--as if, we are, in fact, free. Anyway, your points are very interesting and caused me to ponder these issues in a totally different way, wherever the original OP began. Personal integrity to me means that the important values I espouse are concurrent with my actions,, not just an espousing of something that sounds good and makes me seem to be a virtuous person, when my actions are not necessarily concurrent. This, I think, is the struggle of all individuals to be integrated with what they say they stand for, and the moment when it is time to act on that. Enjoyed your contributions to this thread.

reply to post by tetra50


Bush was only spreading lies, not integrity. Americans as a whole, as a collective I do not believe were with him but against him. We are sick and tired of our leaders policing the world for resources. For greed! His actions proved who he was and what he lacks personally.

How does anyone justify words that say, "Im spreading freedom" while actions are warring. Is their freedom with war? The TV is dumbing people down to where they are in living in a reality that is not "real".

When he announced and the media went with the advertising and excitement of the "shock and awe" I thought I may perhaps be able to spit nails I was so outraged.

This above is still going on today with our current leadership and this is exactly why it will fall. The common good of man has got to be a priority.

Without integrity, we fall. Integrity is not some feel good words, but actions that allow a follow through.

reply to post by MamaJ


I hope you didn't misunderstand my giving that example of "cultural integrity," as BluesMa was expressing it. What you write is exactly what I meant, though I stated it in a more subtle, fascetious manner. Anyone who uses the expression "spreading," something which should be our God given, natural right and state, to begin with, is obviously appealing to a "meme," (as Bluesma called it) of cultural integrity, while the motivation behind the expression can only mean the diametric opposite of what is being said verbally.

And, more obviously, how is it we can "spread" something which should already be apparent, and which we, ourselves, do not have, nor do we have any right to claim to be the arbiters of it. This I feel perfectly represents the cultural meme of integrity, which is only a catch phrase to appeal to us and manipulate us, because it is what we all crave, and also wish to stand for, whether we have it or not--or perhaps, even, because we do not have it. But we hold it up as the highest state as humans we could attain, arrive at, and so it appeals to us not only to possess it (think about the paradox of possessing freedom, just as spreading it is pardoxical, as well, both antithetical ways of expressing something which is oppositional: freedom), but to stand for it, and give it as a gift to others. In a way, it is the ultimate in hypocrasy here in this country.

I used to live under a bridge near a train yard.

reply to post by intrptr


Just a bit of humor, Intprtr: I would be extremely wary these days on ATS of ever admitting having lived under a bridge. People here lately are consumed, apparently, with identifying the trolls among us. And you know where those trolls live......

Having said that, just for a little humor, mind you, I particularly enjoyed this post of yours and the sentiments you expressed so well here.

reply to post by tetra50

I would be extremely wary these days on ATS of ever admitting having lived under a bridge. People here lately are consumed, apparently, with identifying the trolls among us.

Witch hinters, huh? Send them to me. I'll be waiting under my bridge. But you? You can pass...

reply to post by tetra50


I think I understand now what Bluesma is/was saying. Thanks for helping me understand. I sometimes have blonde moments or my belief in something is so strong, it overshadows the obvious. Make any sense?

I understand and do agree.

reply to post by MamaJ


The common good is my concern as well. It is my highest priority. It is the reason I am carefully scrutinizing articles and speaches and claims of having found "THE" ultimate answer to all mans woes that will bring heaven to earth.

This is the promise that all the most damaging ideologies in our past used as a vehicle into peoples hearts and minds.

My main thought about the thesis you brought to the table here, and all the arguments I pointed out as to it's dishonesty, lack of integrity, manipulative tactics, are that-
Scrapping all value of the individual is no better for the whole than is scrapping all value for the whole is for the individual.

We've tried this. The USSR, is one example. It is no better than exaggerrated individualism. I understand that we may be vulnerable right now, because the bad side of extreme individualism is currently hitting us in the face like a brick wall.

So we've tried one extreme, we've tried the other, we see they both get destructive and fail to work properly because the whole is made of individuals, individuals are part of a whole, get rid of either side they both suffer!

What about trying not to fall back into swinging the pendalum back to the other extreme, (which we already know about) and try to keep our balance, and not be swayed with emotional push buttons?

I just assumed you are a woman, because your avatar is a female.. are you perhaps a mother?
If so, did it not become unavoidably clear to you when you became one that your individual presence, existence and input is essential to your family? That if you die, or even if you become passive and repressed and self destructive, the whole family would suffer?

So it is with groups, with nations, and with the global collections of humans!

editted to add:
My picking out the detailed contradictions in that thesis was motivated by my immediate intuition that is was untrustworthy. I needed to sort of see if my intuition was correct. I am convinced that it was.

That said, my trying to work it out for myself here may have seemed as if I am trying to convince YOU to change your mind- that is an understandable misconception.
If you feel this is correct and valid, (and it might be, despite my stance, I am aware that I can never be totally sure I am right) than I respect that. The desire to install global peace and integrity is a common and widespread desire- a NWO, a global religion. It might come to pass someday- Islam might take over the world. (personally I suspect it will).