Yes, Robert, we do get down to anticipation of immediate consequences most
of the time, but I wonder if that is not a form of valuing which is more
revealing than our more publically proclaimed kind.
Your comment stimulated a thought for me that "values" in the way that I
am using them are also--and perhaps especially--those choices to act or
not which are based on something "other than" or "beyond" the call of the
immediate consequences. In other words, values appear whether my actions
are based on immediate expectations or something that is a higher order of
intention--and perhaps abstraction--yet which is still played out in the
gritty details of life. The extent and scope of my "values" would then be
a reflection of the personal level of development and capacity for
awareness and compassion (here I slip in one of my favorite values) that I
have managed to reach.
Why would such a notion be useful? Because it would suggest the futility
and inappropriateness of expecting the same set of values to be applicable
to all people at all times. (This is also reminding me of some of
Kohlberg's notions of a developmental sequence to valuing which we all may
have to move through.) And finally, that leads me to think again that
values are more for the valuer than for anyone else and not really all
that useful as standards for generating compliance.
I guess I am opting towards the values-in-personal-practice category
rather than the espoused values that often make the laundry lists. But it
is getting late and I'm not sure this all will make much sense in the
light of day...
But thanks for continuing the conversation and sparking a few more
connections for me.
Tobin
On Fri, 5 Jul 1996, Robert Bacal wrote:
> On 4 Jul 96 at 23:40, Tobin Quereau wrote:
> > Our ability to choose--if it does, in fact, exist--suggests to me
> > the existence of values. Otherwise upon what do we base the choices
> > we make?
>
> On anticipation of immediate consequences. I think VALUES are different
> than WHAT WE VALUE, from minute to minute. I don't have my social
> psych./soc. texts anymore, but I would hazard a guess that values are
> considered relatively enduring higher order concepts. They are at a higher
> order of abstraction than what we value from minute to minute, and are
> applicable to many many situations.
>
>
> > I don't think that the values we have--whether we are very conscious
> > of them or not--are related to the question of whether there _are_
> > values or not.
>
> It seems to me tha latter issue is nonsensical. The term values is a human
> construction, it is a human construct which is used to satisfy our
> psychological urge to perceive ourselves and others as acting in some
> consistent manner (which we generally don't btw). It is a construct. It
> doesn't exist, or not exist.
>
> Robert Bacal, CEO, Institute For Cooperative Communication
> dbt359@freenet.mb.ca, Located in Winnipeg, Manitoba.
> (204 888-9290.
-- Tobin Quereau quereau@austin.cc.tx.us
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>