Rol raises some issues regarding values that I think can be looked at
with a view from emergence and complexity that might provide new
openings for the exploration of values in groups.
He quotes: Discussions of
> values, I think, need to address the limits of each "value"in real life,
> and the very practical issues that arise when values clash in real life.
> For example, if we value survival, and we value honesty, do we refuse to
> do something (foregoing the money), if we feel we cannot help our
> customer/client? I've found that people are very interested in discussing
> the dilemna, but not so much in discussing the abstract point.
The dilemna is inherited from our Western positivist, reductionist
tradition that suggests that values are independent of each other and of
circumstances and leaves us to deal with the dichotomies this view
presents.
>From a view that values occur in a complex adaptive environment and
are themselves complex adaptive linguitic phenomena, we can see this
question from a somewhat different perspective. In this view, there
are no single values. Values do not exist separately from each
other. Values exist only as networks or clusters which are all
interrelated yet not in any necessary fixed relationship to each
other. These values emerged from an interplay with a social
environment and continue to emerge in similar interplays. The
relationship between them is always at least influenced by the
environment.
Rol responds by distinguising: there are the
> values we espouse, and then there are the values-in-action -- the values
> discernible from our actions. Frequently these are not the same.
The distinction between values-we-espouse and values-in-action is
called for by more of our Western thinking heritage. Here, we
divorce subject and object and thought from deed. Values can be
thought of individually and can be thought of divorced from action
but they *exist* as part of a whole complex life in complex social
systems and they co-emerge with the ability to make choices and
intitiate action.
Rol goes on to say:
> When values clash, which one takes precedence?
Do "values clash" or do values provide information that suggests
thinking or, as Rol points out, dialogue? In a world of
energy-information then values don't "clash" but provide us with
opportunities to "wake up" from our cultural sleep and automatic
behaviours.
Michael McMaster : Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk
book cafe site : http://www.vision-nest.com/BTBookCafe
Intelligence is the underlying organisational principle
of the universe. Heraclitus
--Michael McMaster <Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>