[Xmca-l] Re: Intrinsic motivation?

[Larry Purss]

Martin, Andy,

I hope Martin's answer [which came as a surprise as saying there are
multiple *objective motives*  and these multiple motives are not the
specific motives of a person opens this conversation towards the TYPES of
*relations* existing between the contrasting *objective motives*
Do each of these *objective motives* have an *inheritance*?? and possibly
we can understand the *mind* as the triadic *third* that interweaves these
multiple *objective motives*? .

This seems to have some *resemblance* to the notion of *modes* of
consciousness [or *ways* of life*]

It also opens up the notion of *gestures* as SHOWING  [ *MOTIVES*
*MODES*   *WAYS*]  through indicating how to proceed as  orienting and
paying *attention* to the *subject matter*  at hand.

SHIFTING TO a Deweyian language. The theme of *denotating empiricism*  [as
showing to say] or Merleau-Ponty's notion of language AS gestures.

I am attempting to *translate* the notion of *objective motive* through
notions of simultaneously existing human *worlds* that co-exist and when
gestured towards need continual translation of the *showings through
*sayings* [not showing only through the said]
For example when Martin *showed* [denotated* an expanded notion of
*objective motive** BEYOND the pre-existing single monism of *objective
motive*
This adds the temporal/historical *dimension* [a topological metaphor of
time] to the exploration of *objective motive* as a *concept*

Do we SEE *objective motives* when we POINT in their/there  direction??
This is the question of the relation OF *precept* AND *concept*
being *mediated THROUGH A THIRD?  Is this relation between perception and
conception a *to-and-fro movement* ??   Is this relation symmetrical or
asymmetrical??  [does perception or conception take priority?]  Does this
priority CHANGE THROUGH TIME as the mediating third is also historically
constituted??

To return to *objective motive* AS  *objective motiveS*  does EACH
particular *objective motive* carry or call forth a particular
*value/virtue* that is not merely subjective.

I am left curious to hear more of this conversation on the notion of
*objective motive* as a TERM

Larry





On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> OK! I admit that is a solution that I didn't see coming. :)
>
> I gather from your formulation that an objective motive is not the motive
> of a person (otherwise, how could you contrast it with 'personal motive').
> So that is my first question: who/what's motive is it, if not that of
> person(s)?
>
> Secondly, I agree that *every* motive is objective; but equally every
> motive is subjective. But the point is that Leontyev contrasts "objective"
> with "subjective" motives. I have no problem with the statement that every
> motive is objective in that (1) the aim is that a desired state of affairs
> exists in the material world, not as a state of mind, and (2) the desire is
> in the mind, but arises from the life-situation of the person in the
> material world, their material needs and so on; motives begin and end in
> the material world, but pass through consciousness. But the whole idea of
> "motive" is that it is active in consciousness. So it seems the idea of
> multiple objective motives can only be a truism. It cannot help Leontyev,
> because for Leontyev there is only one objective motive. I think you and I
> would be together in disagreeing with ANL here. But we would all agree that
> all "personal motives" are also objective in the sense (1).
>
> Thirdly, let me take a guess that you mean that an "objective motive" is
> the motive of the activity. It is only a guess, but you say: "multiple
> objective motives, none of them simply the sum of personal motives." Could
> you explain what exactly you would mean by the "motive" of an activity, if
> this is the case, and in what sense the "motive of an activity" can have
> multiple instantiations. Do you mean "kill two birds with one stone" so to
> speak? If that is what you mean, I agree, but that is only a trivial
> distinction. Do you mean that diverse social interests (not individual
> interests) are at play in an activity, and potentially all may be realised
> simultaneously? If so, I agree, but ANL would not.
>
>
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>
>
> Martin John Packer wrote:
>
>> But that would be a problem, Andy, only if there could be only one
>> objective motive. No, multiple objective motives, none of them simply the
>> sum of personal motives.
>> Martin
>>
>> On Aug 7, 2014, at 8:29 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> How is it then, Martin, that there is a women's movement? which even
>>> includes working class women?
>>> And how is it that there are dozens of different political currents in
>>> the workers' movement, even rival trade union federations?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>