When society (that is, when each one of us) makes changes ie when we're
compelled to change because we simply can't stand the way
it's going anymore, we change based on all manner of criteria. We
change when we stop enjoying what we're doing. We change when our
products have passed their expiration date. We change when we earn less
(or when we earn more). We change when we feel like
changing. When we get bored, we change in order to spice things up. We
change to protect ourselves from
danger.
When we get uncomfortable, we change to restore the status quo. And when
we get comfortable, we change to preserve the status quo.
Now watch: all of that's subjective. But how often do we make
changes based on integrity? Going with the
numbers
alone, making changes based solely on integrity, seems like such a
stretch for us. In particular, how often do we change because we notice
the impact of being out of integrity? How often do we change predicated
on restoring integrity when it's out? It's actually worse than that,
it's much worse: it's if we don't recognize integrity in the first
place, are the latter two even discernible?
If we go with the
numbers
alone, most of us don't ordinarily make changes to restore integrity
when it's out. That's just not one of our go-to criteria
for making any changes. But we will make changes to get
what we want, whether or not it serves the greater good. We
will make changes based on party lines and on political
expediency, whether or not it serves the greater good. And we
will make changes based on what will serve us
even though it may not also serve them, or the greater good.
It's not usual for all of us to make massive social changes to restore
integrity.
Based on the
numbers,
it's something that crosses our radar all too infrequently.
If being out of integrity serves us, we'll fight (and we'll justify
fighting) for our self-proclaimed (albeit misguided) right to stay out
of integrity. We'll even fastidiously and forcefully
resist
any move to restore it. And even when we do begin to get the power of
integrity, we barely grasp the oftentimes terrible global consequences
of pushing for our private agendas in violation of integrity's
gravity.
And even if we begin to almost grasp the oftentimes terrible global
consequences of pushing for our private agendas in violation of
integrity's
gravity,
we'll ignore them like ostriches with our heads in the sand, if doing
so kick-starts our selfish (small "ess") agendas.
When we can't delay changing any longer, when the consequences have
become too grave to ignore, we'll campaign to have them
voted
out. But the
trouble
is it's not the consequences we'll have to
vote
out. They're just the visible symptoms. They're the signs we see.
They're just the obvious. They're the manifest. What we'll
really have to
vote
out is the out-integrity behavior at the root of the unworkable
consequences. And if we don't get integrity in the first
place, that'll be a hard row to hoe.
So: out with the old, in with the new. Onward and upward! And be
careful: if "out with the old, in with the new" only applies to those
unworkable consequences, we'll at best experience a temporary respite
and a modicum of social change. But if "out with the old, in with the
new" applies to our behavior, and if it applies in particular to
our rampant out-integrity behavior, and especially to behavior which
willfully steps over and condones out-integrity, then
the world is transformedlike a possibility.
