I have been thinking a lot about what integrity means. It is a notion of consistency and alignment with initial or underlying crux which can be applied to a range of ideas, forms, concepts, beliefs etc.
Looking at a number of definitions it is described that; “inter-lying as a concept it has to do with consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations and outcomes.” Another definition, in the contexts I’m looking at, describe it as:
1. Adherence to principles
2. The quality of being unimpaired, soundness
3. Unity / wholeness, from an etymological / latin based stand point, it means wholeness or perfect condition - from the latin ‘integer’ meaning whole.
Of course the filament or membrane that constructs a fold is whole - unbroken - un-seamed, however it will always have an edge, but maybe this cant be distorted, or completely hidden?
In two dimensional form I guess the shape with the most integrity is the circle (one sided), in three dimension, its the sphere which when flattened makes the ellipse. However a circle is still closed, can it somehow be open? This kind of makes me think of this Merleau Ponty quote;
“If one wants metaphors, it would be better to say that the body sensed and the body sentient are as the obverse and the reverse, or again, as two segments of one sole circular course which goes above from left to right and below from right to left, but is not but one sole movement in its two phases.” [1962, pg. 138]
The circle is of course constructed from one side, however is moves in two sets of coupled directions, up and down (y axis) side to side (x axis). By splitting the two types of a circle and making their path lie in one continuing direction we create a fold. Two sides of a circle - split them open so they are visible? Makes a fold?
Here is another Merleau Ponty quote which shows the arrangement of closed circle in experience. The idea can relate to form and display.
“There is the circle of the touched and the touching, the touched takes hold of the touching; these is a circle of visible and then seeing, the seeing is not without visible existence; there is even an inscription of the touching in the visible, of the seeing in the tangible - and the converse; there is finally a propagation of these exchanges to all the bodies of the same type and of the same style which I see and touch - and by this virtue of the fundamental fission or segregation of the sentient and the sensible which, literally, makes organs from my body communicate and founds transitivity from one body to another.” [1962, pg. 143]
Allowing the sentient if be seen through the sensible - cutting the circle - un-folding the fold - pulling back the curtain. Much like this diagram from Deleuze [1993. pg 120]