* Why is it necessary to have a "canonical set of independent concepts?"
If we live or work in a community, by one means or another we figure out
what is "feasible," canonical or not. And the results of this "figuring
out" allows to...how shall I say...get on with it. We can spend a hell of
a lot of time peeling away layers of the onion until we come to the final
layer and find nothing. I don't know that there's much to be gained from
this sort of endeavor.
* Why does the eliciting of values necessarily correspond to abuse in any
form? I don't (alright, this is me talking, and I hesitate to generalize;
but for argument's sake, why don't we proceed...) have problems with
someone asking -- directly or indirectly -- what I believe in, what's
important to me, etc. (answer: integrity, lack of hypocrisy, irony). Lots
of "heavy scholars" have used up lots of trees trying to construct
theoretical frameworks whose contents are deemed less important than the
frameworks themselves. The result, for me, is absolutely deadening..
* The distinction you make between values and virtues is, for me, unclear.
(There probably is one, but I don't get it..Virtues sounds nice and
objective, something you can walk around, admire, read the labels, and
then move on. Values are perhaps feistier, argumentative,
whatever...Actually, I apologize for this exercise in the pathetic
fallacy; whoever determined the adjective knew what he or she was talking
about.)
* Finally, when folks come together, in an organizational context, to,
e.g., create a new product or figure out how to open up a new market, and
begin to articulate how this new product or this new market both reflects
and expands on what I called a "consensual set of values" -- canonical or
not -- then the organization, and its members, are -- in the highly
technical sense of the work -- cooking.
More?
-- Ron Mallis 12 Chestnut Street Boston, MA 02108 617-723-8362 ron2785@eworld.com