Let‘s say, I need to come to an agreement with someone on some very important subject. The wise approach would be to find common understanding about some underlying subjects and put this understanding as a foundation of the agreement. On this foundation, we could arrive, step-by-step, to some compromises: find groups of decisions, where each feels that losses and gains balance each other. If and when it is possible to cover this way entire field, then this is an agreement – a solution acceptable for both sides. It is never a perfect solution, but it is better, than the disagreement, which preceded it.
To achieve the agreement, I could proceed in a different way. I could forget for a moment that I and he are different people and I could perceive him and myself as the same. I could do that, because in essence, variances of our circumstances and desires are defined not by “who we are”, but “in which place” each of us is in a moment. I can do that because of the “feeling” of that universal underlying “integrity”. For me, achieving of such agreement becomes a process of growth in understanding.
The word “feeling” instead of the word “thinking” is the right one, because this is not something that arrives from understanding of boundaries and concepts, but something different, something that has access to the “INTEGRITY”, which is not limited by any boundaries.
Boundaries are in the foundation of our thinking, “feeling” transcends boundaries.
Note though, that the word “feeling” is used here in a way similar to the use of the word “INTEGRITY” – it is rather a “pointer” to something, to which we are able to relate, but there is very little in our culture, which could support its discussion.
We know, what the word “unity” means: “unity” happens when we combine a few “things” without erasing boundaries between them and usually applying some “force” (possibly, benevolent) to keep “things” together. Such “unity” is not “INTEGRITY”. One who achieved understanding of “INTEGRITY” does not see boundaries, not because he ignores them, but because there is crucially important point of view, where such boundaries do not exist.
They see Humanity not only as a collection of individuals, each bound by own culture and circumstances, they also see each individual as a reflection of Humanity, where differences between reflections are important, but not essential. One who understands “INTEGRITY” sees possibilities, which others do not see and he allows oneself to take actions, which others see as dangerous.
People, who have such understanding, guide growth of the Humanity and show ways out of dangerous situations.
There are familiar powerful tools of analysis, where we present ourselves (and our counterparts) as a system of different “sides”, which are interacting inside one person and between persons. With this approach of “sides” analysis, person A first “draws” a “matrix”: for each pair (own “side”, counterpart’s “side”) there is description of agreements and conflicts. This would be A’s picture of the situation. The counterpart “draws” a similar “matrix” – B’s picture of the situation.
Neither A nor B can ignore, what the other side is thinking, they have to guess how the counterpart sees the situation. Hence, both add counterpart’s “matrix” to own description of the situation.
As one could see, these descriptions of the situation grow infinitely, and the mind cannot handle it. Suspicion and frustration grow and both sides start seeing the situation, as a battle with winners and losers.
When focus is placed on “INTEGRITY”, “feeling of INTEGRITY” could guide the conversation without emergence of confrontation.
One would think that this is obvious, then why do we run into terrible conflicts?
We know different sides of ourselves; we do not talk and sometimes even do not want to think about some of them. This discomfort with oneself impedes our ability to think and act.
However, when one perceives oneself as something “integral” - recognizes “integrity” of Self, and starts seeing different “sides” of Self as different views of Self, inevitably partial and often distorted, one could start changing oneself and could start affecting world around in ways, which one even could not think as possible.
From one hand, such ubiquitous “blindness” looks strange. After all, everyone knows that it is impossible to perceive oneself without taking in account ones society, because humans are social creatures. It is impossible even to define, who a human is, without describing Humanity and the intricate system of social interaction and activity. From the other hand, this shows how not trivial and rare the “feeling of INTEGRITY” is.
One, who opens up to the “feeling of INTEGRITY” sees in Humanity, in different societies and in oneself and in different people the reflection of “INTEGRITY” and everything falls in place.
One does not learn “feeling of INTEGRITY”, one just opens up to it. This is different way of thinking.
Alexander Liss 11/17/2019