Catching up on email here, alas not due to vacation, but due to things
that definitely demand a vacation - but such life at the brink of the
millennium.
I was profoundly shocked to see Vera even introduce the word "values"
into the discussion. Values, like religion, had been passe and on the
verge of becoming taboo in our "politically overly-corrected society."
The term 'values' is I think still associated with conservative political
forces at least in the United States and can probably be associated in a
similar way in Europe.
Jay Lemke rhetorically asks:
>Is there any OTHER basis for the construction of identity THAN values ??
But the answer is quite obviously that identity is not formed of values,
Values are the veneer created by our identity. As Jay reminds us, we all
have multiple identities, that implies something perhaps unexpected: we
have multiple value sets - and yes, they do come into conflict.
Katherine Goff writes:
>my values are my own and i accept their limitations, their history, and
>their suitability for myself (or lack of such) but my understanding of the
>value of compassion is my own and might include actions that others find
>hurtful.
The logician in me cannot help apply the Value(X) predicate to
Katherine's attempt to mitigate her values and guess what, the attempt to
mitigate values is itself a value. Which I think provides a useful reply
to Jay's later comments:
>Hierarchy itself is a value; some people WANT to be able to say that their
>values are better than other people's, and for such intolerants a
>hierarchical framework for values is necessary, dictated by their values.
>Others value tolerance, diversity, cooperation, co-existence, and HATE the
>endless wrangling over whose values and goods and desires, much less their
>disguised philosophical, theoretical and scientific substitutes, are
>better, truer, and more necessary to all civilized and rational people ...
Indeed, I think Jay has captured the rationale for the attempt to discard
the concept of values from at least the populist lectionary. However,
what came in its place where indeed values under other names: karma,
space, comfort level, etc. We can paraphase Edward R. Murrow: Everyone
is a prisoner of her/his own identities. No one can eliminate values -
just recognize them.
Jay then goes on to attempt to "scientifize" what values are and draws on
probably the best source from which to take a stab at that: Bourdieu.
But in so doing, I think Jay falls back into the "anti-values" camp. His
account is strongly reductionist (not that Bourdieu isn't.) But if values
are nothing more than our "coordinates" in (class, race, ethnicity,
gender, sexual orientation, etc.) space, then what does that say about us
as a unique individuals? At the risk of conflating terms: what is the
'value' in having values?
I think that juxopposition of the word 'value' in the last sentence may
give a terrific insight into it's true place in human existence. Having
the "right" values is considered to be expression of human success. Some
people who could be thought of as having strong values include: Socrates,
Jeanne d'Arc, Abraham Lincoln, and Mahatma Ghandi. Yet having strong
values is itself of no guarantee of success since characters like:
Napoleon, Czar Nicholas II, Hitler, and Shah of Iran had equally strong
values. The common denominator in both lists is that everyone gave their
lives for their values - Why do we value the people on first list and not
the second?
As much as it might not fit well with the post-modern/scientific
perspective. It does seem that some values stand out and one can find
common values even across widely varying cultures, peoples, historical
epochs, and locations around the globe. Ironically, one place to look
for that convergence is in the bits of spiritual teachings and folklore
now spun into what could be called the millennium prophesies. If those
teachings are of any use at all, it is to remind us that our actions do
have consequences; thus, our values are not like the color of our
clothes. We can chose to be tolerant with the conviction Mahatma Ghandi,
or we can chose to be tolerant with the indifference of Czar Nicholas II.
In so doing we chose not merely our values, but our fate.
Peace, Edouard
+====================================================+
| Edouard Lagache, PhD |
| Webmaster - Lecturer |
| Information Technologies |
| U.C. San Diego, Division of Extended Studies |
| Voice: (619) 622-5758, FAX: (619) 622-5742 |
| email: elagache who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu" |
| web: http://canebas.dynip.com/~elagache/ |
+====================================================+
| The is only one fate worse than the Earth ending |
| in a great cataclysm. That fate is the |
| persistance of the injustice, mediocrity, and |
| misery that remains the strongest legacy of our |
| modern world. |
| Edouard Lagache, Jan 1, 1999 |
+====================================================+