[Xmca-l] Re: Intrinsic motivation?

[Andy Blunden]

Of course I love your very hegelian take on this question of motivation, 
Peg. Yes, this does reflect the objectivity of motivation. But it 
remains the case, doesn't it, Peg, that to be a well-motivated argument, 
someone still has to be motivated by it, and make the argument, or act 
in a way which manifests well motivated actions, be they speech acts or 
not. :)
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/


Peg Griffin wrote:
> Here's a class of replies to the Latour question Martin Packer referred to , "But then he also wrote 'What is an objective motive? Or to put it another way, what motive is there which is not personal?'":  
>
> The motives in "well-motivated arguments" starting way back in classical logic.  
>
> (Wouldn't you say these "belong" to a community or a project not a person?)
>
> PG
>
>
>
> On Saturday, August 9, 2014 8:38 PM, Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote:
>  
>
>
> Larry, 
>
> I didn't have this in mind when I responded to Andy's assertion that every motive is personal. But your question "does EACH particular *objective motive* carry or call forth a particular *value/virtue* that is not merely subjective" brings to mind Bruno Latour's latest book, A Inquiry into Modes of Existence. The LCHC group recently studied this book with some care, I believe, so they can say more than I can. But Latour aims to go beyond his previous studies of the ways that social realities are assembled, always a network or web, by exploring what circulates in different kinds of assemblage. What each network delivers - different in each case - he calls "value."
>
> In Latour's analysis, each kind of social institution - the law, the church, science, politics, technology, - 15 in all - has its own mode of existence and its own mode of value. These values define, I think we can say without distortion, the interests that people have in each domain; in economy, for example, their "passionate interests." 
>
> Latour does a pretty good job of exploring, describing, and explaining how the modes of our modern social world, and their intersections, define the values we take to be self-evident, and the ways that we are concerned and interested within these modes. Perhaps Andy will say that this is what he meant when he wrote that "*every* motive is objective; but equally every motive is subjective." But then he also wrote "What is an objective motive? Or to put it another way, what motive is there which is not personal?"
>
> Martin
>
> On Aug 9, 2014, at 1:57 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>   
>> 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.
>>     
>
>
>