Integrity
Dictionaries mostly talk about integrity as an adherence to morals, principles, and values. People often focus on the same realms around it in discussion.
(NOTE: When using the term “payload” below, I am referring to the actual message/topic/product/service…the “thing” being spoken about as the center or focus of the communication.)
Nuance builds and builds when looking at it from that perspective. For example, there is the integrity of a transmission of communication, and then there is integrity of the actual payload itself. Have we not all experienced people who have “sold us a bill of goods” that didn’t match the actual thing received?
Someone speaking with complete conviction can persuade you on their transmission about some object of discussion, and you can find that what you’ve bought into was not the message, it was how certain and unwavering THEY were in DELIVERING it. What seemed like integrity in the DELIVERY overlayed the ACTUAL MESSAGE, like a mask, that made the message appear in a way where you accept it as authoritative or truth or as-advertised - if not the least for any reason other than because you felt no lack or tainting in the integrity of how it was delivered…whereas the message itself could be out of integrity from what was communicated, let alone your values and beliefs and principles around it.
If the above paragraph felt complex, allow me to exercise the 23.4 SQ / Design Venus of mine that wants to translate information into something that reaches your mind, body AND soul:
Example #1:
A politician goes on TV, focuses eyes directly at the camera, and speaks with full conviction that a certain bill needs to be passed for the good of the people of the country, as it will save everyone money. People watch it, see the conviction in the delivery, and accept it as truth. Meanwhile, the bill not only contains that particular issue and it doesn’t actually work the way the politician “sold” it, but the bill also contains other provisions (that were jammed in there but not advertised) that hit people in the pocket in different ways, that may not be seen right away.
Example #2:
A doctor you’ve been a long-time patient of sees you for a visit, and listens to the explanation of your symptoms. The doctor does a couple of tests, and comes back and tells you that “you have XYZ”, and prescribes a medication that is deemed to “knock it out”. You trust that doctor, especially since they are board-certified and have helped you and many people before. You take the diagnosis as truth, and begin consumption of the medication. You experience side effects of the medication (maybe even ones that weren’t known), and your initial condition/issue gets no better, maybe even worse. You do your own research and come to find that a description for another condition feels resonant to you internally on what’s going on, you get a second opinion, and you find out you were right - and you get proper treatment going, maybe without a need for medication at all.
Example #3:
An advertisement for a clear phone case on Amazon has professional-looking marketing from a new company. The item is said to be the best on the market, and its materials “do not yellow” (this is a known problem with many clear phone cases, where the material yellows over time and loses the clarity of the clear case). There’s several reviews posted with five stars about how good the case feels and looks. You buy the case based on what you saw. Three months in, the case begins to yellow.
In each of these varying examples, the delivery around the payload helped mask whether or not the payload actually was what it was claimed to be.
Even then…the integrity of the payload itself. Let’s go beyond “what it was claimed to be” from above, and let’s ask ourselves:
What is the payload?
Do we receive the payload in all of its integrity?
Have you ever experienced a great dislike for a person, or felt something off about them, and yet a message was delivered by them that - in itself - resonated deeply, and rang true? The opposite of the above examples, where we cannot discount the payload despite the deliverer. Do we allow our mind to taint the integrity of the message because of our perception of the deliverer? Do we grasp that the integrity of the message is beyond the control of our mind anyways?
We’re getting closer.
Going back to the dictionaries and their explanation of integrity being around one’s adherence to principles, morals and values. There is integrity in that. There is also the understanding that principles, morals and values can vary from person to person, based on their experiences in life. What is “right” for one person may not be “right” for another. What one sees as “good”, another might see as “bad”. For example, someone losing their job for subpar performance and being replaced by another person who performs “better” seems great for a company, and can be bad for the family who was supported with that employee’s salary.
Then there’s the old game of “Telephone”. For those of you who don’t know of this game, how it works is: a group of people gather as players in a line or a circle, and it begins with one person whispering a message into the ear of the second person. That person in turn is to relay the message to the next person, whispering in their ear as well. This repeats until the message has made it to the last person in the line or circle, and that last person is to announce the message out loud to the entire group. What happens often in this game is that people hear things differently than what the original message was, and relay what they think they’ve heard…and by the time the message reaches the last person, it has morphed into something else - a complete loss of integrity.
This happens in re-told stories and legends, school textbooks, and even interpretations or translations of sacred texts. “Facts” and original data get skewed, and yet adopted as the truth, and because it’s printed in a book that’s taught in a curriculum or sold in a store, “it must be legit”.
In the IT world, data integrity is important. Businesses rely on data to be unchanged from its original creation and transmission as official record. Auditing is performed to ensure that changes aren’t made unless authorized. Financial records count on data maintaining integrity for accuracy, and the data is retained for a period of time in case of need for retrieval. Legal holds can prevent data from being changed while under legal review. Checksums and hashes verify file integrity. All of this is to ensure that people can trust that the information observed at any given time reflects the truth of what was recorded.
When you think about it that way, there’s honesty, consistency, and clarity involved. You can see the alignment at play on each level…and at the very core of all things, there is energy.
We get back to the original source.
I was reminded of energetic integrity in a picture I took just a couple days ago of a sunrise, a golden hour display. The picture is what I’ve applied here to this blog, to encapsulate the epitome of this topic. The Sun, on a daily basis, expresses its rays of light, in beautiful colors, creating warmth where there sometimes is none…and even when clouds block it, it continues to express itself as it is. The integrity of the rays is temporarily compromised by clouds at times, but the integrity of the energy of the Sun remains intact.
It is this returning to the source that I tend to gravitate to when contemplating integrity. When the foundation is there, and there is alignment throughout all other levels, there is integrity holistically. As a soul in a human body, to have the energy of your essence being compelled from the divine consciousness in a certain direction, and then your actions in alignment with that…this is the process that puts into perspective the loss of integrity in the examples above, despite the perception of integrity in pieces and parts.
The question then becomes: can we be tapped in and aligned to where we carry the integrity of the soul’s plan (even further, the divine plan) forward into human living, or will we get in the way?
Can we be in that space long enough? Consistently enough? Does the divinity of the larger consciousness simply use other ways to maintain integrity of its flow (like water that moves around an obstacle) when we as humans decide to wreck it…yet include us in that process anyways?
In the studying of Human Design, as a Sacral Generator and viewing through that lens, I looked into the Sacral Response and the various ways it presents itself. I observed that within myself in correlation with energy work I learned through Reiki, to feel into the energy body and have awareness for what comes through without attempting to taint it in any way. There were times where it was murky on a response to something, and I could observe how there wasn’t energy available for the inquiring entity. I also experienced times where I could be near-drained, and a question would be asked to me, in which energy got up off the bench and said “I would like to do that”. This is a sensation in the body itself, starting in the sacral (and, for me, heart space) that then flows out to the head and extremities.
I understood myself to be able to connect and go deep with others, and understood with awareness where and when that happened without effort…and yet an experience of the “Hell Yes” response can blow holes into any thought process around whether we are actually open or closed at any given time. Not only does the “Hell Yes” response experience provide an unmistakable, remarkable, unwavering direction, but it also shows us that it does not originate in the mind. It comes from a deeper place. For me personally, while I feel the activation and oscillation of the energy in the sacral and heart spaces, I’m also aware of the alignment happening and the the nudge from the soul that “this is the way” in that response.
It seems that life would be much more clear, more effortless, if we only followed that response and graciously turned away from any other response. We do, as humans, get in the way of that…but it is ALSO my understanding that this is by design as well, for getting in the way (with the mind) helps us to appreciate the experience on either end of a decision. Value increases or decreases, and we observe more and more of ourselves.
The mind learns it doesn’t have control, and only plays a perceptive part, in whether we are open or closed at any given time. For example, I felt open and connective, while my heart felt possibly closed off from previous experiences, and my mind wanted to then analyze that - why, how, what to do, etc. I crossed paths with a person, in which I experienced this “Hell Yes” response, and it was all observation of self showing me what happens inside in a divine instant, while the mind had no shot of analyzing it. My mind, wayyyy after the fact, wanted to analyze all sorts of things around it. How did that happen? How do I maintain it? Does it mean I was closed off before this experience? What do I do with this energy, if logic says it can’t make sense at this time?
The experience showed me that energy flows when it wants to, through the vehicle and its plumbing. When the response is a no, the energy doesn’t flow that way. When it’s a yes, it does. Honoring the flow as it happens is integrity.
Think about all the times you’ve tried to effort yourself into wanting to do something, and couldn’t…or making something happen and couldn’t…or despite how “great” something may seem, it doesn’t feel right…and on and on. We can attempt to stop the energy. Redirect the energy. Channel the energy for other uses. However, the energy will do as it is inclined. At times, it seems that our part is to be the deliverer of the energy to preserve its integrity. Other times, we are to simply bear witness to it, experience it, and gain knowledge from it.
If you’ve soaked in all of the above, it may be relatively easy to then see in the world all of the loss and lack of integrity that exists. It is why things are the way they are. I would argue that there is an element of free will at play in that, despite what any system may tell you. Just enough to make the contrast apparent, and give rise to understand of the object that contrast is being applied against.
To be of integrity, or not to be. That is the question.