Michael, Thank you for a valuable posting. I really appreciate your
thoughtfulness as well as your sensitivity.
===============
Here's where I don't want to distract from your authentic expression of
experience - which is shared by us all at least at times. The feeling of
conflict is information about the values and their relationship but not
necessarily about values conflicting.
==================
Please DO respond to what I said. I put it out there precisely because we
have to prove our theories against our everyday experiences, or they are
not valid theories. The dialog is what this is all about. I learn a
great deal from the responses. And while I took a position in that last
posting, I am not wedded to it.
===============
If values are "possibilities of action which one strongly favours" (or
some such formulation) then they are not absolutes that come into conflict
but possibilities to be worked out. This is the sense where I think we
have a great deal of power and personal growth without an inordinate
amount of self-doubt, internal conflict, etc. (I don't expect these ever
to disappear nor would I want them to.)
================
I have ambiguous feelings about values. I agree with your statement that
values are possibilities of action which one strongly favors.
Simultaneously, I am quite sure that for me, there is an inviolate core to
my values. Which is not to say I never violate them, but I am aware of it
when I do. Also, in saying there is an inviolate core, that does not
prevent my values from evolving over time. For example, 20 years ago, I
would have never accepted some of the premises that I have been promoting
here.
I think that on the edge, where two values conflict, a lot of work has to
be done to resolve the issues. Honesty and feeding the family can come
into conflict. Fairness and feeding the family can conflict. Each person
makes their own decision on this boundary. For me, where the decision
falls is less important than that the person honestly struggled with the
issue. Now, that's a value-laden statement, but it is how I feel.
As a consequence, even if I start with your statement that values are
possibilities of action that one strongly favors, I still end up with
conflicts between two possibilities of action both of which I strongly
favor. Now, how do I resolve these? For me, I have to go back to 'first
principles'. Why do I feel as I do about these two possibilities?
Perhaps because they both originate in a value of caring for people (all
hypothetical). How do I decide which possibility to take? Perhaps the
one which results in benefits to the most people, perhaps the one which
results in benefits to those whose values I most respect. I would be
unlikely to favor a dishonest person, for example.
As you can see from the example, even if I push the values back and insert
'possibilities' I still have to decide among possibilities, and at some
point, I refer to values. I think most of us do.
I would agree with you that these values originate in our western cultural
heritage, and also in my family upbringing. I agree they are not
consistent across other cultures, although many of them are. I agree that
they will evolve over the years and over the generations. I tend to think
of this evolution as 'continuous improvement'. Values do need to be
refined in the face of a changing environment.
As I said in another posting, I understand that another person in exactly
my position would resolve the conflict differently, and that is fine with
me. Frankly, 20 years ago, I would have resolved it differently.
Nevertheless, values are an anchor for me and for most of us.
I am still interested in the CORE values that most of us could agree on,
even accepting that they might change. These I have referred to as
self-evident truths.
--Rol Fessenden LL Bean, Inc. 76234.3636@compuserve.com
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>