[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Intrinsic motivation?



I was wondering whether this was necessary to the process itself, akin to
the locomotion of snakes or caterpillars.

The best authors I have read have been circumlocutionary (in a good way).
 I recall Bateson's daughter saying that in offering explanations, he would
not say what something is but where to put it.

Best,
Huw


On 6 August 2014 13:12, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> Since the writer was in the process of converting from Marxism to
> Catholicism while writing that book it would not be surprising if there
> were some eccentricities of style.
>
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>
>
> Ed Wall wrote:
>
>> Peter
>>
>>       I was the one who made the incorrect inference (although I
>> questioned myself at the time) re the apprenticeship of observation. In any
>> case, I would be interested in reading a pdf that complicates the notion.
>>
>>       I was not assigned After Virtue, but read it thoroughly on my own
>> and found it quite insightful and the argument reasonably pointed. Was your
>> label of meandering a criticism of style or content? In any case, what
>> seemed blunt and extraneous?
>>
>> Ed Wall
>>
>> On Aug 6, 2014, at 6:34 AM, Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I read After Virtue in grad school, assigned by Philip Jackson (and it
>>> was Lortie, not Jackson, who made the apprenticeship of observation a
>>> common term among teacher educators--someone posted earlier on this
>>> question. In case anyone's interested, I've got a forthcoming study of
>>> apprenticeship of observation that complicates Lortie's conclusions based
>>> on interviews from a different era, and would be happy to send the pdf to
>>> anyone who's interested).
>>>
>>> Anyhow, on MacIntyre: I remember discussing at the time that the book
>>> seemed like a rough draft that really would have benefitted from a thorough
>>> revision to cut out the meandering and make a more pointed argument.
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@
>>> mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 8:55 PM
>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Intrinsic motivation?
>>>
>>> Relevant references to MacIntyre's "After Virtue" are on pp. 7-8 of
>>> "Collaborative Projects. An Interdisciplinary Study," which I know you have
>>> a copy of, Greg. He uses the expressions "internal reward" and "external
>>> reward."
>>> Andy
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>
>>>
>>> Greg Thompson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> And one more thing Andy (I realize given the hour down-under, you are
>>>> probably slumbering - hopefully not dogmatically...), could you sell us on
>>>> why we should look at MacIntyre on extrinsic and intrinsic motivation.
>>>> Your suggestion that Cristina read MacIntyre on extrinsic and intrinsic
>>>> motivation was less than convincing to me if only b.c. I know nothing about
>>>> it!
>>>> -greg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Greg Thompson <
>>>> greg.a.thompson@gmail.com <mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>    Andy,
>>>>    I'm a bit baffled by your response to Cristina. It seems fair
>>>>    enough to try to recover Descartes as not necessarily a bad guy.
>>>>  But I didn't take that to be Cristina's point.
>>>>    It seems to me that she was arguing against Cartesian dualism - a
>>>>    particular way in which we Westerners (and we aren't the only ones
>>>>    who do this) divide up the world into various kinds binaries -
>>>>    subject/object, mind/body, nature/culture, emotion/reason, and so
>>>> on.    Are you advocating that these should be the governing categories
>>>>    of the human sciences?
>>>>    If so, then "real human language" will work just fine.
>>>>    If not, then the "real human language" called English will pose
>>>>    some significant problems for imagining things other than they are.
>>>>    Confused.
>>>>    -greg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
>>>>    <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>        Cristina,
>>>>        There is far too much in your message to deal with on an email
>>>>        list. What I usually do in such cases is simply pick a bit I
>>>>        think I can respond to and ignore the rest. OK?
>>>>
>>>>        I think *real human languages* - as opposed to made up
>>>>        languages like Esperanto or the kind of mixture of neologs,
>>>>        hyphenated words and other gobbydegook fashionable in some
>>>>        academic circles - can be underestimated. Sure, one must use
>>>>        specialised jargon sometimes, to communicate to a specialised
>>>>        collaborator in a shared discipline, but generally that is
>>>>        because the jargon has itself a long track record. Don't try
>>>>        and make up words and concepts, at least, take a year or two
>>>>        about it if you have to.
>>>>
>>>>        Secondly, Descartes was no fool. He was the person that first
>>>>        treated consciousness as an object of science, and the many of
>>>>        those belonging to the dualist tradition he was part of wound
>>>>        up being burnt at the stake for suggesting that the world was
>>>>        not necessarily identical to how it seemed. So I'd say, better
>>>>        to suffer association with Descartes than make up words and
>>>>        expressions. The Fascist campaign launched against him in the
>>>>        1930s was not meant to help us. He deserves respect.
>>>>
>>>>        For example, my development is not the same the development
>>>>        some project makes. And no amount of playing with words can
>>>>        eliminate that without degenerating into nonsense. I must
>>>>        correct something I said which was wrong in my earlier post
>>>>        though. I said that the relation between projects was the
>>>>        crucial thing in personality development. Not completely true.
>>>>        As Jean Lave has shown so well, the relation between a person
>>>>        and a project they are committed to is equally important,
>>>>        their role, so to speak. Take these two together.
>>>>
>>>>        Motives instead of motivation is good. More definite. But I
>>>>        don't agree at all that Leontyev resolves this problem. For a
>>>>        start his dichotomy between 'objective' motives, i.e., those
>>>>        endorsed by the hegemonic power in the given social formation,
>>>>        and 'subjective', usually unacknowledged, motives, is in my
>>>>        view a product of the times he lived in, and not useful for
>>>>        us. The question is: how does the person form a *concept* of
>>>>        the object? It is the object-concept which is the crucial
>>>>        thing in talking abut motives. Over and above the relation
>>>>        between the worker's project of providing for his family (or
>>>>        whatever) and the employer's project of expanding the
>>>>        proportion of the social labour subsumed under his/her
>>>>        capital. The relation between these two projects doubtless
>>>>        seems to the boss to be the difference between the worker's
>>>>        subjective, secret, self-interest, and his own "objective"
>>>>        motive. But his point of view is not necessarily ours.
>>>>
>>>>        Have a read of Alasdair MacIntyre on extrinsic and intrinsic
>>>>        motives, too.
>>>>
>>>>        That's more than enough.
>>>>        Andy
>>>>
>>>>        ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> ------------
>>>>        *Andy Blunden*
>>>>        http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>>        <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        Maria Cristina Migliore wrote:
>>>>
>>>>            Greg and Andy,
>>>>
>>>>            Thank you for your comments.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>            Greg, I absolutely agree with you about the difficulties
>>>>            of overcoming our
>>>>            western language and thoughts, so influenced by the
>>>>            Cartesian dualism.
>>>>            Andy, I hope to be able to show a bit how I connect
>>>>            activities in what
>>>>            follow.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>            About my attempts to overcome a dualistic language: I tend
>>>>            to prefer to
>>>>            talk about a) single development (as suggest by Cole and
>>>>            Wertsh) instead of
>>>>            individual and activity (or context or project)
>>>>            development; b) dimensions
>>>>            of a phenomenon instead of levels of a phenomenon
>>>>            (micro-meso-macro); c)
>>>>            motives instead of motivation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>            However it happens that I need to swing between ‘my’ new
>>>>            language and the
>>>>            ‘standard’ one, because I am living in a still Cartesian
>>>>            world and I need
>>>>            to be understood by people (and even myself!) who are (am)
>>>>            made of this
>>>>            Cartesian world.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    --    Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>>>>    Assistant Professor
>>>>    Department of Anthropology
>>>>    882 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>>>>    Brigham Young University
>>>>    Provo, UT 84602
>>>>    http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>>>> Assistant Professor
>>>> Department of Anthropology
>>>> 882 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>>>> Brigham Young University
>>>> Provo, UT 84602
>>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>