Robert raises clearly the dilemna of values as expressed from values in
action. I think the issue as he raises it is different from the issue
that Rol was raising when he made the distinction in this conversation.
What I get from Robert's work is the distinction between values expressed
and "actual" values. It seems to me that this is a related but different
issue from Rol's. The issue here is do we say in public what is authentic
or do we say something else like what is socially acceptable or what
"works" from our own point of view?
These are not issues of values conflicts but of speaking, social
acceptability and personal self-confidence.
A similar situation applies internally and this is very important. That
is, the values that we really believe we hold may also be those that are
socially acceptable in some internal representation. The values that we
operate from may be different. And for similar reasons to the above, we
cannot distinguish - say to ourselves - clearly what our authentic values
are.
The importance of this is that I am very careful about judging the
authenticity of another person. An apparent conflict between expressed
values and observed action is a signal (information) that suggests
dialogue or more observation but is does not say which is "authentic".
My own approach in this field is to take what I consider to be an extreme
pragmatic and empirical view. That is, what is being expressed in action
is what matters and what is expressed as values is trivial (in ordinary
conversation). What is exhibited in action is the basis on which I make
patterns for understanding, prediction and affinity.
And speaking is action.
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/>