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

[Xmca-l] Re: Intrinsic motivation?



Hi Peter,
Speaking of Philip Jackson, I called him
a couple of months ago to make sure I was
clear on his particular reading of Dewey's work. In passing,
I mentioned how pleased I was to see his work on Hegel
in* Teacher's College Record.*(Speaking of Thinking:
A Beginner's Guide to Hegel's *Science of Logic*, Parts I-5).
 He said that series of articles represented ten years of
research and that I was the only person that
ever mentioned anything about this work
to him. That is sad.
Robert



On Wed, 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
>
>
>