[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Intrinsic motivation?
- To: Andy Blunden <email@example.com>, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Intrinsic motivation?
- From: Larry Purss <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2014 11:57:46 -0700
- In-reply-to: <53E572EC.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-archive: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l.mailman.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <CAPGTeH2qncZiDPWiRjk_qDX5-3m69YpO2GOnjT8kjaEQemail@example.com> <E23E629A42F087498471D39762DF7EB2DF6F6F718B@ESTES.ucdenver.pvt> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9025498@CIO-TNC-D2MBX01.osuad.osu.edu> <E23E629A42F087498471D39762DF7EB2DF6F6F718C@ESTES.ucdenver.pvt> <CAOkYDTW-FtVg4Csi9e0uSyo8mh-4F4CSd2xW4eR77ek_vMv9Dw@mail.gmail.com> <53E0F32D.firstname.lastname@example.org> <CAHH++PkEZd_z2gq-SPbmhkf_YN7Wy1dkoiipW6mECqQmTR3pZw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHH++P=Mugz5_UZV7pf+GSz7+MNqEVuvcmXtQRwxfN-+C5C-8Q@mail.gmail.com> <53E17CD1.email@example.com> <60ba2a3dc15442788114f3bd6dec035d@CO1PR02MB175.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <CAGivuc=ypCExEbEbcMZpbojR3+qVGQNd2NZpWJG=z0Z7WbGD3g@mail.gmail.com> <85B4E3A8-77FE-403B-8F0A-44B7F11B5B64@umich.edu> <CAOkYDTWK6D30c3hKUPeH7kT_07psNubXj-TM-zXJbv-q2iYeGg@mail.gmail.com> <53E2475E.firstname.lastname@example.org> <55BB8B6C-209C-40BE-BF8C-B2451F91B139@uniandes.edu.co> <53E4280E.email@example.com> <D54DB198-0C71-4D7A-B7CD-158639AF1642@uniandes.edu.co> <53E572EC.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Sender: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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
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
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
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Andy Blunden <email@example.com> 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
> 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 Blunden*
> 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.
>> On Aug 7, 2014, at 8:29 PM, Andy Blunden <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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?