Michael --
In one post you said,
As "possibilities of action", I submit that they don't conflict. As
particular expressions of those possibility, many actual choices of
action do conflict. The dilemna is in the reality of action in a
social world - not in the possibilities. Certainly in what follows,
I can see possibilities that could be translated into action that do
not conflict. On the other hand, they seldom boil down to simple
either or choices.
The exciting possibility of a potential conflict,
for me, is that by attempting to resolve it so that no values are
violated, we might come up with new possibilities of action which go
beyond what was apparent at the beginning of the dilemna.
AND, now I have a deeper appreciation of what you meant, way back
when, about self-evident truths.
=====
Ok, I now see that I misunderstood your point. I understand that some
possibilities for action may conflict with my values. Some possibilities
for action may be in conflict with other possibilities for action. The
potential for conflict between the actions and the values can in fact
create an environment in which new possibilities emerge and the values are
not violated. Yes, that happens.
By the way, I sensed in your last 2 paragraphs, an emergent value. Is
that accurate, or not?
=====
In a related posting, Robert said,
The conflict of the values may not be resolved...even though you come to a
"decision" about what your behaviour will be. Our society, for example,
values both individual rights, and group rights. These often come into
conflict. Each decision point may eventually be resolved in terms of a
decision being made, but that does NOT mean that the conflict between the
two values is resolved.
In any event, the denial of values conflict (compartmentalization of
values) is a primary process in anti-social behaviour. Those that can
rationalize their conduct DESPITE the fact that they hold a value opposing
their behaviur, often use denial.
That is why, for example, a person can commit crimes, but feel perfectly
comfortable that they are honest people.
==========
I can see that this may be the case. Actually, I was referring to very
specific examples in which I concluded that my own values had priorities
-- some are more important than others -- in specific situations, and
certain actions would not be in violation of my values. This is different
than denial. However, it is accurate that one needs to examine
motivations closely to ensure, if it is ever possible in the end, that
what they are doing is in alignment with their values. Robert is correct
than it is all too easy to rationalize conduct.
--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/>