Author
|
Topic: virus: New virian virtue (Read 4313 times) |
|
simul
Adept
Gender: 
Posts: 614
Reputation: 7.87
Rate simul
I am a lama.
 
 
|
 |
Re: virus: New virian virtue
« Reply #15 on: 2003-11-11 12:47:54 » |
 |
(Kalkor) It would seem reasonable to lie to my captors in certain situations in order to escape.
I would say that it was an integrity with respect to your commitments to freedom and perhaps for the lives of those who love and depend on you.
But look as what happens when you decide to maintain integrity in even that situation: you can end apartheid in south africa.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
First, read Bruce Sterling's "Distraction", and then read http://electionmethods.org.
|
|
|
simul
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 614
Reputation: 7.87
Rate simul
I am a lama.
|
|
Re: virus: New virian virtue
« Reply #16 on: 2003-11-11 14:48:27 » |
|
: This seems to be exactly the same as avoid hypocrisy
If I say I'm going to meet you at noon, and then I don't show up... Is that hypocratic? Or is it a lack in integrity?
Perhaps. Perhaps we should add the "positive reinforcement" versions for clarity.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
First, read Bruce Sterling's "Distraction", and then read http://electionmethods.org.
|
|
|
Kalkor
Magister
Gender:
Posts: 109
Reputation: 6.94
Rate Kalkor
Kneading the swollen donkey...
|
|
RE: virus: New virian virtue
« Reply #17 on: 2003-11-11 17:15:41 » |
|
[Erik]
No that is an issue of overlapping integrity. You promise to yourself, you
friends and your family that you will survive. You lie to your captors...as
a last resort.
Sometimes you are put in a situation where you feel you must break one
virtue in order to uphold another.
In those times you can use you other Virian virtues.
Vision - imagining a future which inspires me, which of these actions is
consistent with that vision?
[Kalkor]
I have a lack of integrity because of my lie to my captors. I have integrity
because of trying to keep the promise to myself and my loved ones that I
will survive.
However, at no time have I been hypocritical. My internal desire is to
escape, and it's pragmatic of me to do whatever needs to be done to have
that happen.
Thus, at the same time, I have failed to have integrity but I have never
become hypocritical.
I think hypocrisy should continue to be a virian sin because it prevents
rational, efficacious, or pragmatic action.
I do not think integrity should be a virian virtue because it does not have
to necessarily follow in the absence of hypocrisy. In addition, you can be
absolutely irrational and yet at the same time have a sort of integrity to
the irrationality. I think this is very undesireable in our context, and
integrity should be left off the list.
Good discussion tho ;-}
Kalkor
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Kalkor
Magister
Gender:
Posts: 109
Reputation: 6.94
Rate Kalkor
Kneading the swollen donkey...
|
|
RE: virus: New virian virtue
« Reply #18 on: 2003-11-11 17:22:02 » |
|
[Erik]
If I say I'm going to meet you at noon, and then I don't show up... Is that
hypocratic? Or is it a lack in integrity?
Perhaps. Perhaps we should add the "positive reinforcement" versions for
clarity.
[Kalkor]
To cop another analogy, what if you have a firm dedication to your study of
neurochemistry, and a potential breakthrough in understanding rears its ugly
head an hour before your appointment? It would NOT be hypocrisy to stay and
work on the breakthrough, because your actions are consistent with your
thoughts. However, it shows a lack of integrity in that you made a promise
but let another promise (to your internal consistency) sway you into
breaking the lunch engagement.
On the flip side, you could have integrity in that you refuse to miss the
lunch engagement while being hypocritical to yourself (you promised yourself
a week ago that if the results of experiment X turned out a certain way, you
would stay through experiment Y to avoid losing your train of thought or
whatever.) You still want to stay and work, and you have rational reasons
for staying to work, but you chose the irrational path of making the lunch
date to avoid lacking integrity.
It just seems like too fuzzy a concept to try and anchor it as a Virian
Virtue.
Kalkor
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
simul
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 614
Reputation: 7.87
Rate simul
I am a lama.
|
|
Re: virus: New virian virtue
« Reply #19 on: 2003-11-12 02:14:49 » |
|
You can quantify Integrity. You have lists of things you promised to do.
When they don't overlap, you do them. When they do overlap, you prioritize them and request to be cleared of the lower priority ones.
Any time you fail, you acknowledge it as failure, and attempt to learn from it: how to better organize your time, what kinds of commitments to give.
These are, of course, techniques. Those who are practised in the art of integrity can perform these tasks without thinking too much about it.
Yous scientist friend should at least call to say he'll be late. Or call afterwards to apcknowledge his lack of integrity. Etc. And he can learn not to waste other people's precious time by scheduling appointments he cannot keep.
------Original Message------
From: Kalkor
Sender: null
To: null
ReplyTo: null
Subject: RE: virus: New virian virtue
[Erik]
If I say I'm going to meet you at noon, and then I don't show up... Is that
hypocratic? Or is it a lack in integrity?
Perhaps. Perhaps we should add the "positive reinforcement" versions for
clarity.
[Kalkor]
To cop another analogy, what if you have a firm dedication to your study of
neurochemistry, and a potential breakthrough in understanding rears its ugly
head an hour before your appointment? It would NOT be hypocrisy to stay and
work on the breakthrough, because your actions are consistent with your
thoughts. However, it shows a lack of integrity in that you made a promise
but let another promise (to your internal consistency) sway you into
breaking the lunch engagement.
On the flip side, you could have integrity in that you refuse to miss the
lunch engagement while being hypocritical to yourself (you promised yourself
a week ago that if the results of experiment X turned out a certain way, you
would stay through experiment Y to avoid losing your train of thought or
whatever.) You still want to stay and work, and you have rational reasons
for staying to work, but you chose the irrational path of making the lunch
date to avoid lacking integrity.
It just seems like too fuzzy a concept to try and anchor it as a Virian
Virtue.
Kalkor
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
First, read Bruce Sterling's "Distraction", and then read http://electionmethods.org.
|
|
|
simul
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 614
Reputation: 7.87
Rate simul
I am a lama.
|
|
Re: virus: New virian virtue
« Reply #20 on: 2003-11-12 02:14:28 » |
|
That last message contained too much original text. I had promised earlier that it wouldn't happen. I'm sorry about that.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
First, read Bruce Sterling's "Distraction", and then read http://electionmethods.org.
|
|
|
metahuman
Anarch
Gender:
Posts: 212
Reputation: 3.68
Rate metahuman
|
|
Re:virus: New virian virtue
« Reply #21 on: 2003-11-12 03:04:19 » |
|
That's not integrity, simul. That's responsibility. Integrity would be Jessica Lynch turning down appearances with Britney Spears and the social rank of "Glamour Woman of the Year" while staying to true to her claim that she is not a hero and just a survivor. Instead she appears with Britney Spears. She accepts the social rank of "Glamour Woman of the Year." She gallops around like a hero while saying she is not. She is without integrity.
Integrity: a strong sense of honesty and morality; firmness of moral and ethical character.
Integrity and hypocrisy can coexist. These are two concepts that are not mutually exclusive. You can have integrity and you can be a hypocrite. The hypocrite does not hold himself to the same ethics and morals that you hold him. He is aware of his rules--of his philosophy--and it is in this way that one can be an honorable hypocrite. For instance, the knight that swears allegiance to his lord yet goes against the will of his lord to save a damsel in distress is a chivalrous hypocrite.
I agree with Erik, but instead of merely providing more words to read, I suggest the Church of Virus remove the entire Sins/Virtues system and replace it with a Code of Ethics. The problem with philosophy is that it is prescriptive and not descriptive like ethics. You cannot force Virians to always have the Virtues decreed by the Church of Virus nor can you ever expect anyone to never sin as far as the Sins of the Church of Virus go. The Sins/Virtues system is expectant even though its caretakers say otherwise. With a Code of Ethics, Virians will hold it much higher in their adherence priorities than with a simple listing of Virtues and Sins "we" consider to be morally right and good to have or not have. Just as Marines are Marines first and humans later, knights were knights first, and held their Code of Chivalry much higher than their religious and political leanings.
It is time this community finally open their eyes and take another look at the system they have accepted as the status quo. There are serious flaws with the Church of Virus and these flaws must be repaired or converted into strengths.
|
|
|
|
|
simul
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 614
Reputation: 7.87
Rate simul
I am a lama.
|
|
Re: virus: New virian virtue
« Reply #22 on: 2003-11-12 10:24:29 » |
|
I'd like us to define integrity as "doing what you say you will do" - and that's it.
A virian is a meme producer and meme propagator. They are part of the virian machine. This machine functions well if its components have integrity.
This is known as "systems integrity" in the computer industry.
For the virian religion to be powerful it should have this kind of internal consistency.
I suppose, however, it can be an absence of hypocracy. That's fine.
It works well enough.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
First, read Bruce Sterling's "Distraction", and then read http://electionmethods.org.
|
|
|
Kalkor
Magister
Gender:
Posts: 109
Reputation: 6.94
Rate Kalkor
Kneading the swollen donkey...
|
|
RE: virus: New virian virtue
« Reply #23 on: 2003-11-12 11:47:48 » |
|
[Metahuman]
<snip>
Integrity and hypocrisy can coexist. These are two concepts that are not
mutually exclusive. You can have integrity and you can be a hypocrite. The
hypocrite does not hold himself to the same ethics and morals that you hold
him. He is aware of his rules--of his philosophy--and it is in this way that
one can be an honorable hypocrite. For instance, the knight that swears
allegiance to his lord yet goes against the will of his lord to save a
damsel in distress is a chivalrous hypocrite.
<snip>
[Kalkor]
He sounds more like an internally consistent man with little integrity. Loss
of integrity for going against the will of his lord, but internally
consistent for saving the damsel.
Kalkor
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
metahuman
Anarch
Gender:
Posts: 212
Reputation: 3.68
Rate metahuman
|
|
Re:virus: New virian virtue
« Reply #25 on: 2003-11-12 16:55:53 » |
|
Perception, perception, perception... 
The knight is a hypocrite for he has sworn allegiance to his lord yet has gone against his will. However, the knight is honorable (integrity) because he remains adherent to the Code of Chivalry which was esteemed far higher than allegiance to a particular lord.
I suppose by Kalkor's logic the soldier who enlists in the Marines and enters a warzone, saves the lives of his fellow soldiers against the orders of his commander is a man of little integrity. Silly logic, Kalkor.
Your definition of "integrity", simul is incorrect in several ways. With your definition that integrity is merely "doing what you say", you are focusing on honesty and only honesty. It is this that I find the other members correct in their rationalization that your "integrity" is needless as the Sin of hypocrisy is present in the literature which covers "doing what you say." Of course, we can destroy your concept further by using my claim that language is a barrier as all language is merely representative of thoughts instead of exact thoughts thus all language is inaccurate. If all language is inaccurate, then each of us is without "integrity" and are all hypocrites for we have never done what we said we'll do as we have always meant something else however minute the difference.
Integrity is "a strong sense of honesty and morality; firmness of moral and ethical character." (http://www.wordsmyth.net) The knight who adheres to the Old Code above all else is a man with integrity. Should this knight say he will do one thing and then do another, then he is a hypocrite, yet if he is still adherent to the Old Code, he is still with integrity. If you are to assume that he is without integrity because he is hypocritical in his actions, then the question arises: is it right for one to deceive another if deception is key to success? For instance:
The knight is facing his enemy the sorcerer. The sorcerer demands that the knight swear allegiance to him. The knight does so. However, the knight later betrays that trust in order to attack the sorcerer's weakness. The knight deceived the sorcerer in order to succeed and perhaps save his lord from the wicked sorcerer.
In this scenario, the knight became a hypocrite in this contained context after he had broken his promise to the sorcerer for the good of himself and his lord. Yet he also remained honorable for he never faltered in his promise to himself or to his lord. His oath of the knight's Code had remaind intact.
Back to Kalkor's logic now that I have thought about this a bit more... Kalkor assumes that consistency and integrity are different enough to dilineate. They are not. Although according to simul, integrity is the opposite of hypocrisy which would make Kalkor right, however, simul's definition of integrity lacks correctness meaning that Kalkor's assertion is based on the false assumpton that simul's definition is correct.
Furthermore, an honorable man is consistent in all of his doings. However, consistency is not equivalent to constancy, meaning that in theory all Virians who _always_try_ to be Virtuous and without Sin are honorable. While we may err in our pursuit of consistency, we do not constantly err.
It also should be noted that Wordsmyth provides ample similar words for comparison. Virtue is a similar word to integrity.
|
|
|
|
|
simul
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 614
Reputation: 7.87
Rate simul
I am a lama.
|
|
Re: virus: New virian virtue
« Reply #26 on: 2003-11-12 19:07:39 » |
|
Please describe how going against your word is hypocritical.
I say it's only hypocritical if you expect everyone else to honor their word.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
First, read Bruce Sterling's "Distraction", and then read http://electionmethods.org.
|
|
|
Kalkor
Magister
Gender:
Posts: 109
Reputation: 6.94
Rate Kalkor
Kneading the swollen donkey...
|
|
RE: virus: New virian virtue
« Reply #27 on: 2003-11-12 22:04:26 » |
|
[Metahuman]
<snip>
The knight is a hypocrite for he has sworn allegiance to his lord yet has
gone against his will. However, the knight is honorable (integrity) because
he remains adherent to the Code of Chivalry which was esteemed far higher
than allegiance to a particular lord.
[Kalkor]
So what you're saying, in effect, is:
1) The knight esteems the Code of Chivalry higher that allegiance to his
lord.
2) When faced with a dilemma between the two (obeying the code of chivalry
or obeying the lord), the knight choses the one he esteems more.
That is internal consistency. Whichever way he choses, he lacks integrity
(unless he can obey both, as promised - integrity). But if he choses the
lord, he's chosing the code that he esteems LESS, which is hypocrisy. Lack
of internal consistency.
[Metahuman]
I suppose by Kalkor's logic the soldier who enlists in the Marines and
enters a warzone, saves the lives of his fellow soldiers against the orders
of his commander is a man of little integrity. Silly logic, Kalkor.
[Kalkor]
Your analogy fails to take into account point #1, which paraphrases you,
above. Your inability to construct analogy does not constitute "silliness"
on my part. Try again.
[Metahuman]
<snip>
Back to Kalkor's logic now that I have thought about this a bit more...
Kalkor assumes that consistency and integrity are different enough to
dilineate. They are not. Although according to simul, integrity is the
opposite of hypocrisy which would make Kalkor right, however, simul's
definition of integrity lacks correctness meaning that Kalkor's assertion is
based on the false assumpton that simul's definition is correct.
<snip>
[Kalkor]
Ahhhhh. I assume, eh? In fact, they are surely different enough to
delineate. They have separate entries in all the dictionaries I've checked.
I even checked a thesaurus. The closest those two words came to each other
were as synonyms for "coherence" (as in "structural integrity").
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=consistency
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=integrity
"...according to simul, integrity is the opposite of hypocrisy..."
"...Kalkor's assertion is based on the false assumpton that simul's
definition is correct."
And how exactly do you explain the fact that I've been arguing that
integrity is NOT the opposite of hypocrisy?
Now, your problem with my "assumption" about consistency, above, probably
comes about from your not reading EVERY word in the sentence. "Internal
Consistency" is what I said, not just "consistency.” Or, as the CoV puts it:
http://virus.lucifer.com/sins.html
and
http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/hypocrisy
“When our actions reflect inconsistent beliefs we are guilty of hypocrisy.”
In the example, inconsistent beliefs can be as simple as professing a belief
that animal testing of beauty products is bad, but then using beauty
products that are developed with animal testing.
Or holding a Code of Chivalry higher than Allegiance to Lord, but then
chosing to follow the path of Allegience to Lord instead of the Code of
Chivalry.
Having two conflicting obligations and then chosing one... while this is not
hypocricy as long as the one chosen is the one believed to be more important
or good or right or whatever... this IS however lack of integrity because an
obligation is broken. A promise made and then not fulfilled shows a lack of
integrity. Not hypocrisy.
Kalkor
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: New virian virtue
« Reply #28 on: 2003-11-13 03:09:32 » |
|
Erik Aronesty
> Sent: 13 November 2003 0208
> Please describe how going against your word is hypocritical.
>
> I say it's only hypocritical if you expect everyone else to honor
their
> word.
[Blunderov]
<q>
Merriam Webster
fr. Greek hypocrites, actor. A person who puts on a false appearance of
virtue or religion. Hypocrisy: a feigning to be what one is not or to
believe what one does not, esp the false assumption of an appearance of
virtue or religion.
</q>
Pondering this reminded me of how often I have been maneuvered in to
performing hypocritical actions especially with regard to religion. I
have been an atheist ever since I can remember and this made my life in
a 'Christian Nationalist' education system invidious.
If, at school, you proclaimed your true convictions too loudly you were
simply victimized by both the pupils and the teachers and so there was
little option but to pretend to sing the hymns and trudge off to church
on Sunday and so on. In this manner I found out a lot more about the
bible than I ever cared to know.
Probably the most memorable, and funny, instance of this sort of thing
was the events attending the christening of my two daughters. I suppose
it might be said that their agnostic (allegedly) mother had decided to
accept Pascal's wager. To me there seemed to be no great harm in once
again trundling off to church and going through with whatever motions
needed to be gone through. 'If this is the price of domestic accord' I
told myself 'then so be it.'
Imagine my surprise and startled amusement when the preacher saw fit to
roast me from the pulpit! Yes, the redoubtable Dr. Jack Deal launched
into a trumpeting paean of condemnation against those who pretended to
consent to perform certain important tasks on behalf of the church and
who had, in fact, no intention whatsoever of doing any such thing. He
didn't name me directly but it seemed to me that every single member of
the congregation was trying not to look at me.
Even now it makes me smile to realize just how much he failed to grasp
the depth of my contempt for everything he stood for. He must have
seriously imagined that he had the power to shame me into behaving like
a Christian!
Apparently his delusions knew no bounds.
Still, to him I must have been the most horrendous hypocrite, and,
sadly, perhaps he was right.
Best Regards
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
metahuman
Anarch
Gender:
Posts: 212
Reputation: 3.68
Rate metahuman
|
|
Re:virus: New virian virtue
« Reply #29 on: 2003-11-13 04:15:14 » |
|
I do think I may be wrong about my previous definitions of hypocrisy and integrity. We should staple to the board the form of integrity and hypocrisy we are discussing. Are we speaking of religious hypocrisy and religious integrity, intellectual hypocrisy and intellectual integrity, social hypocrisy and social integrity, political hypocrisy and political integrity, or something else?
I'm going to do some more reading on the subject of intellectual integrity and intellectual hypocrisy as these two subjects are far more interesting to me than the religious versions.
"Hypocrite: the man who murdered both his parents... pleaded for mercy on the grounds that he was an orphan." -- Abraham Lincoln.
Quote:Intellectual integrity is defined as recognition of the need to be true to one’s own thinking and to hold oneself to the same standards one expects others to meet. It means to hold oneself to the same rigorous standards of evidence and proof to which one holds one’s antagonists – to practice what one advocates for others. It also means to honestly admit discrepancies and inconsistencies in one’s own thought and action, and to be able to identify inconsistencies in one’s own thinking.
The opposite of intellectual integrity is intellectual hypocrisy, a state of mind unconcerned with genuine integrity.
Source: http://www.clc.cc.mn.us/bentley/Critical%20Thinking/Integrity.htm |
Resources for intellectual integrity
http://www.erasmatazz.com/library/JCGD_Volume_7/Intellectual_Integrity.html
http://apk.net/~qc/mind/sci/index.html
http://www.criticalthinking.org/University/intraits.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
