>I write to comment on views expressed by Martin Hall, partly because they
>express views which are likely to be accepted by many readers - but aspects
>of which I do want to comment on, and if possible clarify. (Also - cf. Wm
>Blake -
>_ Without contraries there is no progress_!)
>Martin writes:
>>I think a key issue here is that even self organizing systems have values.
>>The core or primary values are emergent properties that develop from the
>>interaction of all the pieces in the "system". All the individuals that
>>contribute are going to contribute to the core values of the SuperBrain.
>
>Things may work out in this way, but if systems are self-organized it is
>only _because of_ their specific values, i.e. the higher level integrative
>purposes which selectively support those functions which make integration
>and system unity possible. Core values do not emerge with inevitability.
What I was commenting on here was what I seemed to be gathering from a few
people is that the best thing to do was "let it happen". I was starting to
feel that the reason for this was because they did not want any particular
values made as a priority, in essence I think they were hoping for
something that was "value-free". I was simply saying that even a
self-organizing system would have core values.
>There is risk and perhaps drama involved in whether new entities will
>survive and find a sustaining environmental or social/cultural niche. Not
>all contributors will in fact shape core values. Some will not be able to
>contribute enough or adapt to the new organization. This is not a
>sentimental view.
I believe that contributors will in fact help shape core values. But they
will not all have an equal hand in it. Some may be very passive, but to
the extent at which they are not driven out of the organization they
will/must be accomadated, even if unwittingly. If they cannot adapt to the
new organization they will no longer be part of the organization (they will
either leave or be driven out). In this instance, their values will likely
_not_ help shape the values of the system, unless of course the exit of the
individual is particularly spectacular and must be addressed.
>>I think most everyone will agree that is going to be impossible to create a
>>"value-free" SuperBrain. What you can do is be very explicit about the
>>values of those involved or that you think will be propagated. If one of
>>the ideas is to not exclude anyone from participating, then the values of
>>adaptability and flexibility should be part of the equation.
>
>Many important values are not, and cannot be made, explcit. For example,
>the artistic integrity or unity of a performance of a Beethoven symphony is
>carried out by the orchestra under the leadership of a conductor, but every
>player, with the conductor's explicit direction if need be (error
>correction in rehersal, etc.) must be highly aware of exactly how his/her
>own contribution fits into the purposes of the whole.
I disagree. While the valuing of a specific item might not be able to be
made explicit, and organization can say that they value Art, Beauty,
Integrity, and Unity (and maybe Quality), in their various forms. As long
as they are explicit about the scope of the definitions of these items, it
can be done. If they do not explicitly state these assumptions, but still
believe them, then their actions will make it apparent to those interacting
with the organization.
>Historically it has been the human experience that it is necessary at times
>to exclude some disruptive individuals or else groups and organizations
>cannot survive.
Yes, that is usually related to values conflicts. If the organization does
not have enough variety (Ashby) to have a diverse organization, then the
organization will likely become vigilant in making sure members have
congruent values, or else get rid of them.
>So values of flexibility must operate within a structure of
>values which sets limits and conditions in the interests of the whole,
>presumably another part of the equation. I see values as immanent within
>the structure and function of an integrated system, part of an individual's
>perceptual world, not primarily verbal and not an add-on i.e. not to be
>superimposed by instructions or authority.
The values will exist whether or not you state them. They may not be as
clear if you are not explicit about them but they will still exist. What I
want to know is _who_ is this keeper of the whole? The organization gets
its values from the individuals in the organization/system. It is those
values that are congruent among the individuals and which are needed for
the survival of the organization which will survive for the organization.
The extent to which these values can be made explicit will be the extent to
which individuals will be able to efficiently and effectively interact with
the organization. The communication will be much cleaner.
Bruce writes:
>
>Yet for some individuals beliefs in a conspiracy may be fundamentally
>different from others. I would see values as the resultants of highly
>individual aspects of the perceptual world of each of us.
Yes, the specifics may be different but the reaction is the same. Core
values are like finger prints. If there are a finite number of values and
priorities on these values, the exact manifestation of this set of values
is not likely to be the same for anyone. So your cluster of values will
help you to take on a certain world view, but how it is _specifically_
expereinced by you may be different. But from this a certain
predictability of behavior will arise.
>
>For some (paranoid) individuals, unfounded beliefs in conspiracy are not
>open to corrective information, possibly associated with neural pathology
>due to previous emotional stress, etc. Feelings that one is caught in a
>conspiracy, on this view, may well be a reaction to avoid otherwise
>incapacitating anxiety and disorganization. This would be control by
>(patho)physiology, not by abstract values (except as conceptualized by an
>observer - who risks missing the existential aspects).
I think the idea of corrective information is irrelevant. If you are
operating in a certain world view you will stay there until your values
shift. Maybe you are homeless, and have difficulty finding food. Your
perception of the world is going to be one focussing on survivability, food
and shelter. You would likely take a dim view, albeit distrust, of anyone
that steers you away from this goal. Your world view at this point is
going to be somewhat narrow.
If you are then given food, shelter, etc. and maybe even a job. And this
is maintained over time, the values will shift and consequently also the
world view. The focus is no longer on the food, shelter, etc. But on
something else (maintaining the job, acquiring material possessions,
indulging in Art, or Charity, etc.). Unfortunately, my understanding of
this dynamic as it extends to acute mental health issues is weak, but I
believe the dynamic is similar except in case where the mental problem is
so severe as warp perceptions of "reality".
The reason that outside observer can get some idea of what is valued, is
through observing decisions. The process of "valuing" is a decision making
process. The observer does not know what brought the person to this place
in time but the can observe the decisions being made. If these decisions
are made around commonly defined entitys, then standard definitions of
values can arise.
>
>I think that the precise individual factors which are manifested in
>personal choices, even those described abstractly as values, are unlikely
>to be captured by statistical methods.
I disagree. I have seen it done. It takes a certain rigor in creating
sets of standard definitions. But once done, much of the interplay between
sets of value choices can be worked out.
> I guess this is just my view that
>statistical methods in relation to individual human beings cannot be
>expected to identify the key specific causal factors and feedback-loops or
>operating valuations. Statistical methods may be better than nothing, but
>should not lead to illusions about the adequacy of insights to be gained by
>such methods.
If values changed quickly then maybe you would have a point. But it is
relatively rare except in radical live changing events, for values to
change. So for a period of time when you "measure" your values they will
largely be accurate for set period of time. Enough so, that statistically
accurate observations of behaviour can be made. I have seen it done, I
have done it myself, and I have read the norm studies related to this type
of work.
I wrote:
>>I would say that you can do this if you can believe that values or other
>>human behaviors can be given standardized defintions. That is really the
>>only way to create an objective playing field for discussion...
>
>To create an objective or shared conceptual framework for discussion is one
>valuable objective. However, it has seemed to me that the really important
>values for each of us individually, which serve to integrate our own unique
>life experiences, are superordinate to what we can capture in our language.
What is being captured is not your exact experience or even the exact
expression of your values. But indications of the value dynamics. What
values tries to capture is the likely way you will make decisions given the
experiences you have had in life. It is the decision making dynamic that
we are trying to capture. We, as people, want interact with others that
make decisions in a manner that is congruent with our own operating style.
>
>O.K. but I am really trying to capitalize on possible insights of cybernetics.
As am I.
>My reading in the area of values as traditionally considered, viz as
>abstract ideals, which is admittedly limited, gives me the impression that
>too much traditional philosophy, sociology and indeed psychology has been
>badly lacking in approaches to these questions (human needs, purposes and
>values) which are really useful rather than problematic. By comparison I am
>looking for a clearer and more adequate conceptual and existential frame of
>reference which includes but, as a matter of principle, reevaluates and
>goes beyond any particular conceptual formulation. If I feel puzzled and a
>bit lost in this, I reflect that perhaps this is indeed the nature of the
>human situation, and it may be best to be aware of it.
I think we are all digging through this together. Some will be more
enlightened about certain things at certain times. From a cybernetic point
of view, I look at understanding values (and getting at core values) as a
way of creating a "cleaner" communication between human beings. The idea
is not to sanitize the communication but to lay the assumptions out a
little better so that information can be best conveyed in the manner in
which it was intended.....
Best regards,
----Martin----
----Martin---- Martin L.W. Hall, M.S. Cyb.Sys.
martin@netcom.com Moderator: SysVal-L@netcom.com
martin@nbn.com martin@values.com
mxh@autodesk.com martinhall@aol.com CS:70751,3575
Office: 2860 Pine Street, Napa, CA 94558-5829 (707) 257-8158 Fax (707) 257-8318