Integrity

[Zarathustra]

I assert that everyone has dogmas - a true agnostic holds that it is not possible to know truth, A proper atheist asserts that God does not exist. These are just as dogmatic as the Christian assertion that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God. Once you are clear on what your dogmas are, then we can fight.

I think you just want some company.

Maybe everyone (or the vast majority) hold dogmas. This doesn't mean that the ideas which compete against your dogma are automatically dogmas, too. An agnostic is willing to be convinced otherwise. They don't necessarily think that truth is impossible to know, but instead acknowledge that they don't know it yet. Agnosticism is more an attitude than a belief system. It's an attitude of how to view a theory or idea. A methodological approach, rather than an ontological position.

Atheists may assert that God does not exist, but this isn't necessarily a dogma (as long as they have good reasons to make this assertion). As I've argued elsewhere, Richard Dawkins showed how God's existence is a scientific hypothesis, since theists are making a claim about how the universe came into being, and how the universe is affected throughout history by God's influence. Anything that affects the universe can be framed as a scientific hypothesis, and tested for its validity. If something else can be shown to explain the phenomenon attributed to God, then this chips away at the God hypothesis, relegating God's participation to a smaller and smaller role (the "god of the gaps" argument, where the idea of god retreats into the gaps between our knowledge).

We are clear about our "dogmas." You need to be clear about them, too.

[rusmeister]

I think you are right that a great many (people who consider themselves) agnostics are open to being convinced of something else - but there certainly are formal agnostics - whose most fundamental belief is that the truth is unknowable. It's only a question of which conclusions one has come to, and therefore, who is right.

Human existence can not be limited or defined by science, so even the best science has to stop when it reaches the limits of science. It seems that, in speaking of God as a hypothesis ("little thesis (theory)" you are attempting to limit discussion of God to scientific terms - what humans know and experience via other media are left out of this equation - art, poetry, music, etc.

If a person holds a bottom-line belief that is not open to questioning, then it's a dogma. Let me refer you to that 20th chapter of "Heretics" again www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/heretics/ch20.html

Whether the human mind can advance or not, is a question too little discussed, for nothing can be more dangerous than to found our social philosophy on any theory which is debatable but has not been debated. But if we assume, for the sake of argument, that there has been in the past, or will be in the future, such a thing as a growth or improvement of the human mind itself, there still remains a very sharp objection to be raised against the modern version of that improvement. The vice of the modern notion of mental progress is that it is always something concerned with the breaking of bonds, the effacing of boundaries, the casting away of dogmas. But if there be such a thing as mental growth, it must mean the growth into more and more definite convictions, into more and more dogmas. The human brain is a machine for coming to conclusions; if it cannot come to conclusions it is rusty. When we hear of a man too clever to believe, we are hearing of something having almost the character of a contradiction in terms. It is like hearing of a nail that was too good to hold down a carpet; or a bolt that was too strong to keep a door shut. Man can hardly be defined, after the fashion of Carlyle, as an animal who makes tools; ants and beavers and many other animals make tools, in the sense that they make an apparatus. Man can be defined as an animal that makes dogmas. As he piles doctrine on doctrine and conclusion on conclusion in the formation of some tremendous scheme of philosophy and religion, he is, in the only legitimate sense of which the expression is capable, becoming more and more human. When he drops one doctrine after another in a refined scepticism, when he declines to tie himself to a system, when he says that he has outgrown definitions, when he says that he disbelieves in finality, when, in his own imagination, he sits as God, holding no form of creed but contemplating all, then he is by that very process sinking slowly backwards into the vagueness of the vagrant animals and the unconsciousness of the grass. Trees have no dogmas. Turnips are singularly broad-minded.

Since I believe I have made my dogmas clear, I find it rather odd that you should suggest that they are not clear to me.

On the converse side, most people really do think of dogmas as something that only "religious people" have, and discovering that they themselves do in fact hold base-line beliefs that they do not question can be a shock to their pride that they have no dogmas.

[Prebe]

As I said, I don't feel ashamed of my "dogma": that I am always willing to change my core beliefs in the face of evidence.

That doesn't mean that I don't think it's possible to know the truth. I don't think you (or I) can define truth in a way we can agree on.

I think even Cail would hessitate jumping into the volcano, if someone showed him a surveilance tape of the last supper, where David Copperfield switches the wine for blod.

[rusmeister]

As I said, I don't feel ashamed of my "dogma": that I am always willing to change my core beliefs in the face of evidence.

That doesn't mean that I don't think it's possible to know the truth. I don't think you (or I) can define truth in a way we can agree on.

I think even Cail would hessitate jumping into the volcano, if someone showed him a surveilance tape of the last supper, where David Copperfield switches the wine for blod.

I do agree that when it comes to being forced to actually make such a choice (the volcano, or the arena with lions, or the executioner's axe/gun...) it must be much more difficult to go through with a choice for martyrdom than it is to talk about it intellectually (ie, an awful lot of people of our time probably would, so to speak, pee their pants and say anything at all). But there nevertheless have been many thousands of people who have gone through with this choice, anyway. In 20th century Russia alone, more people chose martyrdom over life than in the whole first three centuries of Christianity. I hope that I, too, could go through with such a choice, if I were ever called to face it. It is what I believe and what I prepare myself for - to die as I have lived - which, while not having lived very well, still holding on to that faith.

Having something worth dying for... What set an essentially pagan-cum atheistic Roman Empire afire. The Christians had something that no one else had, something worth that much. (Yes, we might die for loved ones, but who has a faith that is worth dying for...?)
Is agnosticism or atheism worth that?

[Avatar]

Are you asking whether agnosticism or atheism is worth dying for? I recommend to you the most excellent Knowledge of Angels by Jill Paton Walsh.

Anyway...as well ask yourself if christianity is worth dying for.

The real answer is that anything can be worth it. It's your life, you get to decide what it's worth.

--A

[rusmeister]

Are you asking whether agnosticism or atheism is worth dying for? I recommend to you the most excellent Knowledge of Angels by Jill Paton Walsh.

Anyway...as well ask yourself if christianity is worth dying for.

The real answer is that anything can be worth it. It's your life, you get to decide what it's worth.

--A

I'm not sure I follow this, Avatar. If we ask ourselves honestly if our life is really worth a bar of chocolate, or even a night with (name the dream woman of your choice), the answer is obviously and honestly "no". (You did specifically say that the answer is "anything".) If you decide that life is not worth living, then the best cure might be for me to really point a loaded pistol at your head.

I offered concrete examples of people who asked that question about Christianity and answered it in the affirmative. Hope that doesn't need special evidence, although it's easy enough to procure.

As to Walsh, what would interest me most is what is the understanding of Christianity presented in the novel. I'll lay 100 to one odds it's one that I would agree with you on the bogusness of (in other words, that it is not something that I myself would defend).

[Avatar]

I'm not sure I follow this, Avatar. If we ask ourselves honestly if our life is really worth a bar of chocolate, or even a night with (name the dream woman of your choice), the answer is obviously and honestly "no". (You did specifically say that the answer is "anything".) If you decide that life is not worth living, then the best cure might be for me to really point a loaded pistol at your head.

No, but it might be best if I were to point it at my own. Of course it can be anything. Who am I to tell somebody else the value of their life? I don't have to live it. Maybe there have been people who decided their life was worth that bar of chocolate. If it was worth it to them, I can't be sure that it really wasn't.

I offered concrete examples of people who asked that question about Christianity and answered it in the affirmative. Hope that doesn't need special evidence, although it's easy enough to procure.

As to Walsh, what would interest me most is what is the understanding of Christianity presented in the novel. I'll lay 100 to one odds it's one that I would agree with you on the bogusness of (in other words, that it is not something that I myself would defend).

Hmmm, honestly can't remember, although I don't remember it as being particularly negatively portrayed. What brought it to mind was simply the

Spoiler

atheist who died for his principles.

--A

[rusmeister]

I'm not sure I follow this, Avatar. If we ask ourselves honestly if our life is really worth a bar of chocolate, or even a night with (name the dream woman of your choice), the answer is obviously and honestly "no". (You did specifically say that the answer is "anything".) If you decide that life is not worth living, then the best cure might be for me to really point a loaded pistol at your head.

No, but it might be best if I were to point it at my own. Of course it can be anything. Who am I to tell somebody else the value of their life? I don't have to live it. Maybe there have been people who decided their life was worth that bar of chocolate. If it was worth it to them, I can't be sure that it really wasn't.

I offered concrete examples of people who asked that question about Christianity and answered it in the affirmative. Hope that doesn't need special evidence, although it's easy enough to procure.

As to Walsh, what would interest me most is what is the understanding of Christianity presented in the novel. I'll lay 100 to one odds it's one that I would agree with you on the bogusness of (in other words, that it is not something that I myself would defend).

Hmmm, honestly can't remember, although I don't remember it as being particularly negatively portrayed. What brought it to mind was simply the

Spoiler

atheist who died for his principles.

--A

Mostly sensible.

Maybe there have been people who decided their life was worth that bar of chocolate. If it was worth it to them, I can't be sure that it really wasn't.

This is the one thing that isn't. Anyone with even a little common sense can see that it is not worth giving up your life for a fleeting pleasure.

On your spoiler, that was what I pointed out to Malik in Chesterton's "The Ball and the Cross" (that I just finished).
www.amazon.com/Ball-Cross-G-K-Chesterton/dp/0486288056
chesterton.org/discover/lectures/15ballandcross.html
(The Amazon link has critical reviews as well as praise)
The atheist is a protagonist along with the Christian. They essentially become friends and allies despite the need to fight over their beliefs (with swords, btw). The trouble is, that in the modern world (as in ancient Rome), most moderns, then and now did not have beliefs worth fighting over and therefore nothing worth dying over. Thus their despair, and thus the mass voluntary conversions to Christianity even at the risk of becoming an instant martyr yourself.

The disadvantage of the atheist is that it is much more difficult to produce any conditions where the atheist would be called to die for his cause (specifically, atheism itself). Would you die to preserve agnosticism (which really means "not knowing")?

[Avatar]

I doubt it. But I might rather than falsely assume the appearance of belief.

This is the one thing that isn't. Anyone with even a little common sense can see that it is not worth giving up your life for a fleeting pleasure.

No, you believe it's not worth giving up your life for a fleeting pleasure. Somebody else might. And if they believe it to be so, then it is, even if just to them.

--A

[rusmeister]

I doubt it. But I might rather than falsely assume the appearance of belief.

This is the one thing that isn't. Anyone with even a little common sense can see that it is not worth giving up your life for a fleeting pleasure.

No, you believe it's not worth giving up your life for a fleeting pleasure. Somebody else might. And if they believe it to be so, then it is, even if just to them.

--A

Agreed that it is not impossible for someone else to believe that. I'm just saying that such a person would lack common sense. There are such things as ninnies and geese among people - or if you prefer, fools and idiots.
Of course, you could imagine an extreme/fantasy situation where it would not be contrary to common sense, but let's stick to the 99.9999% of cases. Generally speaking, it is idiocy to talk of it.

[Avatar]

They'd only lack it as far as you're concerned though. To them, it would make perfect sense. It only has to make sense to the person who does it.

--A

[lurch]

fascinating discussion....If one takes an Oath or swears an Allegiance to a Code of Conduct..how well that person lives up to the oath or code is a measure of the persons Integrity....The saying ..Once a Marine, always a Marine demonstrates the possible longevity of that measure as well as a Roman Catholic Priest or Nun demonstrates the measure.

Yet, what of the person who swears no allegiance and or takes no Oath?..or places its Allegiance in the non-dogmatic, the open ended? Point is..Integrity is a qualifying parameter set on ones life either voluntarily or unknowingly, yet still accepted. Integrity is the Tool of Measurement to a Conformity. It is the Tool used to reward or not..those involved, by those already conformed. It matters not what the Oath is,, or the Code is..As demonstrated above, codes and oaths can be infinities apart. So Integrity is just a enforcement device for those who require it. Integrity is the boogie man under the bed that makes you go to sleep.

[rusmeister]

fascinating discussion....If one takes an Oath or swears an Allegiance to a Code of Conduct..how well that person lives up to the oath or code is a measure of the persons Integrity....The saying ..Once a Marine, always a Marine demonstrates the possible longevity of that measure as well as a Roman Catholic Priest or Nun demonstrates the measure.

Yet, what of the person who swears no allegiance and or takes no Oath?..or places its Allegiance in the non-dogmatic, the open ended? Point is..Integrity is a qualifying parameter set on ones life either voluntarily or unknowingly, yet still accepted. Integrity is the Tool of Measurement to a Conformity. It is the Tool used to reward or not..those involved, by those already conformed. It matters not what the Oath is,, or the Code is..As demonstrated above, codes and oaths can be infinities apart. So Integrity is just a enforcement device for those who require it. Integrity is the boogie man under the bed that makes you go to sleep.

I think there's another way to put it, Lurch.

The man who makes a vow makes an appointment with himself at some distant time or place. The danger of it is that himself should not keep the appointment. And in modern times this terror of one's self, of the weakness and mutability of one's self, has perilously increased, and is the real basis of the objection to vows of any kind.

The revolt against vows has been carried in our day even to the extent of a revolt against the typical vow of marriage. It is most amusing to listen to the opponents of marriage on this subject. They appear to imagine that the ideal of constancy was a yoke mysteriously imposed on mankind by the devil, instead of being, as it is, a yoke consistently imposed by all lovers on themselves. They have invented a phrase, a phrase that is a black and white contradiction in two words -- `free-love' -- as if a lover ever had been, or ever could be, free. It is the nature of love to bind itself, and the institution of marriage merely paid the average man the compliment of taking him at his word. Modern sages offer to the lover, with an ill-favoured grin, the largest liberties and the fullest irresponsibility; but they do not respect him as the old Church respected him; they do not write his oath upon the heavens, as the record of his highest moment. They give him every liberty except the liberty to sell his liberty, which is the only one that he wants.

It is exactly this backdoor, this sense of having a retreat behind us, that is, to our minds, the sterlizing spirit in modern pleasure. Everywhere there is the persistent and insane attempt to obtain pleasure without paying for it. Thus, in politics the modern Jingoes practically say, `Let us have the pleasure of conquerors without the pains of soldiers: let us sit on sofas and be a hardy race.' Thus, in religion and morals, the decadent mystics say: `Let us have the fragrance of sacred purity without the sorrows of self-restraint; let us sing hymns alternately to the Virgin and Priapus.' Thus in love the free-lovers say: `Let us have the splendour of offering ourselves without the peril of committing ourselves; let us see whether one cannot commit suicide an unlimited number of times.'

Emphatically it will not work. There are thrilling moments, doubtless, for the spectator, the amateur, and the aesthete; but there is one thrill that is known only to the soldier who fights for his own flag, to the aesthetic who starves himself for his own illumination, to the lover who makes finally his own choice. And it is this transfiguring self-discipline that makes the vow a truly sane thing. It must have satisfied even the giant hunger of the soul of a lover or a poet to know that in consequence of some one instant of decision that strange chain would hang for centuries in the Alps among the silences of stars and snows. All around us is the city of small sins, abounding in backways and retreats, but surely, sooner or later, the towering flame will rise from the harbour announcing that the reign of the cowards is over and a man is burning his ships.

www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/rash_vows.html

(It's painful cutting up the essay - even that online version is mysteriously abridged. I guess they figure the modern reader can't handle references to Shakespeare or Shaw.)

It's a sidetrack, but the in movie "Shrek" the entire final scene of the wedding of Lord Farquaad (most particularly Shrek arriving in time to say "I object") hanging on the weight of the meaning of an irrevocable vow. Without that the whole idea falls apart. marriage falls apart. Everyone gets divorced. Broken families everywhere. Oh, wait - that's what we have, isn't it?

Anyway, if I had a point I suppose it would be that the man of integrity has that pleasure, that pride in something not fleeting that the modern coward, proud only of the fact the he will change into he-knows-not-what, does not and cannot have.

There comes a time when doubt must end and to grasp the courage of your convictions. Or as Mel Gibson put it in "Braveheart": "All men die. Not all men really live."

[lurch]

Thats hilarious..Seems to me a person into vows and oaths and living up to those standards,,is in fear of Freedom.. is in fear of being his or her True Self.. would take an Oath or swear an allegiance of somebody else's making rather than be free and liberated enough to make his or her Own,,self created , by the Self, for the Self, Oath or Swearing. Point is,,Integrity is only a measure of adherence to somebody else's conformity. Integrity is the second cousin to Fear,,enforced by a subtle exercise of Fear on the unknowing and or thoroughly brain washed.

" Makes an appointment with himself"..so much for growth, learning,, exploring Who You Are,,expanding the sphere of knowledge of All That You Can Be..you know..LIFE...Living..all that..The author of that piece just makes excuses and justifications for the shackles of conformity and its enforcer, Integrity. Integrity Should be the Will not to live a Life under a fabricated God Father.

LOL!!..somebody brought up McCain as an example of Integrity...ppffft!. McCain was broke by the North Vietnamese..Yea!..he told them more than the Code of Honor,, (that ALL Servicemen take)..more than The Code of Honor allows Any American Serviceman to say as a prisoner of war. Now,,the question becomes..wheres YOUR Integrity when it comes time to vote?..yea,, a rock and hard place..seems like I 've heard that very phrase recently,,somewhere here.

[Prebe]

Point is,,Integrity is only a measure of adherence to somebody else's conformity.

Well put. It seems, from this discussion, that integrity can never be acheived by living up to your own standards but only by living up to someone elses. Which brings me back to 'integrity' loosing its ethymological meaning, or its integrity if you will

Disclaimer: I don't think there is anything wrong with applauding people who adher strictly to moral norms, hell, anyone who doesn't adhere to moral norms at all is a psycopath.

Integrity Should be the Will not to live a Life under a fabricated God Father.

Amen!

[rusmeister]

Thats hilarious..Seems to me a person into vows and oaths and living up to those standards,,is in fear of Freedom.. is in fear of being his or her True Self.. would take an Oath or swear an allegiance of somebody else's making rather than be free and liberated enough to make his or her Own,,self created , by the Self, for the Self, Oath or Swearing. Point is,,Integrity is only a measure of adherence to somebody else's conformity. Integrity is the second cousin to Fear,,enforced by a subtle exercise of Fear on the unknowing and or thoroughly brain washed.

" Makes an appointment with himself"..so much for growth, learning,, exploring Who You Are,,expanding the sphere of knowledge of All That You Can Be..you know..LIFE...Living..all that..The author of that piece just makes excuses and justifications for the shackles of conformity and its enforcer, Integrity. Integrity Should be the Will not to live a Life under a fabricated God Father.

LOL!!..somebody brought up McCain as an example of Integrity...ppffft!. McCain was broke by the North Vietnamese..Yea!..he told them more than the Code of Honor,, (that ALL Servicemen take)..more than The Code of Honor allows Any American Serviceman to say as a prisoner of war. Now,,the question becomes..wheres YOUR Integrity when it comes time to vote?..yea,, a rock and hard place..seems like I 've heard that very phrase recently,,somewhere here.

Where you're wrong, Lurch, is in seeing integrity as "fear". It is exactly the reverse. The fear to live up, even to your OWN standards - if you make a vow, then obviously it must be a standard that you hold. This is what gets me about your (and Prebe's) current argument - that a standard held must necessarily be "somebody else's". You're shifting ground - at one minute demanding that moral stands MUST be personal, and then when it leads to a logical basis for vows you deny the personality of the moral stand - that it really can be something that I have made my own.
No one, certainly not Chesterton, ever denied growth, learning and exploring. But if you do become truly convinced of something, then fear is not in making the vow but in not making the vow, because if you do hold a conviction, then you will not be afraid to stand by it.

Old married couples celebrating silver or gold (25 or 50 year) wedding anniversaries are ones who have stuck to their vows. They may be having "old people sex", but at least they're not like all of the lonely old people who abandoned their vows and aren't having sex with anyone. The vow is a basis for social stability, and Prebe, as you are interested in evolution and society, you ought to at least admit that the institution of traditional marriage, for all its perceived faults, is a base unit used by essentially all civilizations and a powerful vehicle for social stability that automatically provides, besides sexual outlet, protection for children that are the result of specifically male-female unions and companionship when there are no (more) children, and its basis is in a vow.

I'd suggest reading the whole (abridged at least) article before suggesting that fear drives vows and commitments. When you look at the early Christian martyrs, the idea is revealed to be simply absurd. They chose DEATH and face grisly execution and torture rather than turn from their commitment. How on earth can you even think of it as "fear and a desire to conform"? Looks like supreme courage to me. It was a REFUSAL to conform to pagan/atheist Rome that was the essence of their integrity.

[Loredoctor]

I doubt it. But I might rather than falsely assume the appearance of belief.

This is the one thing that isn't. Anyone with even a little common sense can see that it is not worth giving up your life for a fleeting pleasure.

No, you believe it's not worth giving up your life for a fleeting pleasure. Somebody else might. And if they believe it to be so, then it is, even if just to them.

--A

Agreed that it is not impossible for someone else to believe that. I'm just saying that such a person would lack common sense. There are such things as ninnies and geese among people - or if you prefer, fools and idiots.
Of course, you could imagine an extreme/fantasy situation where it would not be contrary to common sense, but let's stick to the 99.9999% of cases. Generally speaking, it is idiocy to talk of it.

Some would argue that it defies common sense to die for a god that you can't prove exists.

[wayfriend]

Ah, it has run. Nice!

Integrity derives from the latin word for whole or complete integer. So ethymologically speaking I'd say that having integrity means not breaking the whole that is you, no matter what defines that whole, be that yourself or a set of religious or worldly dogma. Your whole should be redefined rather than broken.

Interesting, I never thought of the integer angle ... good point.

Integrity is maintaining your beliefs, no matter how convenient it would be to bend them.

That seems to be another way of saying what Prebe said.

And it begs the question ... if your beliefs are what others consider foul, if they permit murder, rape, or theft, ... can you still have integrity?

In fact, I think the willingness to admit a mistake is inherent in the definition of integrity.

Yes! Especially when you could avoid doing so. This comes back to my idea of playing by the rules, even when you don't have to. It is right to admit a mistake, and you should do so -- even if you could get away with not doing so. That's integrity to me.

------

When I think of "integrity", I cannot help but think of people to whom this quality has been attributed.

Everyone: who are your good examples?

It seems to be an "across the aisle" kind of compliment. One may be opposed to someone's position or world view, but granting them the compliment of integrity seems to be an acceptible way of honoring your foe.

So I cannot believe that "sticking to your beliefs" is what integrity is all about. It doesn't fit. (It may be a virtue, but it's a different virtue.) When McCain calls Ted Kennedy a man of integrity, he's not talking about respecting Kennedy's belief, or how much Kennedy sticks to his beliefs.

Integrity is based on honesty. No one who cheats, lies, or steals has integrity, of that I feel certain. Integrity is always dealing honorably.

But the word "honesty" covers honesty. Integrity is something "on top of" honesty. I believe it has to do with sticking to that honesty, even when it is hard to do, or when it is easy to not do. Noble honesty. Hard-pressed honesty. Brave honesty.

It's not so much as sticking to your beliefs, any beliefs, as sticking to your belief in honesty.

Oh, and I have never seen one example anywhere of someone using personal advantage for personal gain and it was called integrity. To help others is one thing, to serve yourself is another. In fact, I would say that using personal advantages in a way that harms others is a demonstration of non-integrity. Maybe getting a table only disadvantages others a bit, but when a movie star uses their advantages to avoid jailtime, its a bit different. If they use their advantages to jump ahead of more critically ill patients in an emergency room, or to move up an organ doner list, it's downright vile. That's a complete lack of integrity.

I also feel that integrity is also "on top of" some degree of self-abnegation, or a lack of self-service. No one who puts himself above others has integrity, of that I feel certain.

[aliantha]

So...you're saying that altruism and humility are components of integrity? (Welcome back, btw. )

I'm not sure the "lack of self-service" thing holds, if politicians can have integrity. Politicians have to be at least a *little* self-serving to get elected/re-elected, yes? Or do they hire minions for that?

Hmm, an example of someone with integrity. I could start with SRD, and his refusal to write crap in order to make buckets o' cash. In the realm of politics, I'd nominate Gerald Baliles, a governor of Virginia in the '80s who didn't try to use the governorship as a vault box into the national spotlight. He did a damn fine job in Richmond for four years, then went back to private life. (Governors cannot succeed themselves in Virginia.)

[lurch]

Integrity infers a constant. At what level that " constant" and the adherence to that " constant" is held or perceived are the variables that blur the distinction.

IMHO..Integrity can only be Held by the individual for the individual, within the individual. As soon as a second party is involved, subjectivity enters the realm and there goes the " constant" out the window. Even within the individual, Integrity can become a ..well,,the wrong concept. Being True to oneself is highly contingent on what is Self,,who Am I?..and if the answer to that question is perceived as a life long pursuit,,,then the Integrity of that continued pursuit becomes the measure..The Faustian bargain is..Fausts Soul goes to the Devil when Faust finds anything he can't improve upon..when he finds something,, that in his mind, is perfect,, therefore, end of pursuit. So,, a Constant,,any Constant that is in the implied parameters of the definition of Integrity, is non changing,,inferring,,end of pursuit..End of Pursuit is selling your soul to the devil. Integrity is the Taco Bell Chihuahua dog.

If today is the future You Created yesterday, from Your Imagination ,accessed freely without the encumbering influences of " Others", ,,then Integrity can be perceived applicable to Self,,to the answer to the question, Who Am I? Any body telling the world, that I have Integrity,,really wouldn't know...So..outside the personal,, Integrity is the Hot Smoke meant to pollute the air of clear seeing. Fear is the mirror,,and together,,yea,, smoke and mirrors.