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

[Xmca-l] Re: Intrinsic motivation?



Maybe yes, someone.  BUT in-so-far-as/if/when a someone is constructing/within/under-the-control-of the community or project.  And not so much as an all-purpose person someone.

I'm thinking of a lot of different kinds of variability that attaches to things like "well-motivated argument" type problems (and other types from other traditions). Luria's (I think) work in Uzbekistan especially about the bears, D'Andrade's work with the Sears' cashier problems, some of Scribner's work and Cole's work (even beyond the wise and not so wise Kpelle, is it?), and, I think Warren Simmons' work on the sort of hide-and-seek proficiency that depended on whether the thinking is observed occurring inside or outside the respondent's area of specialization.

I'm thinking this inquiry knowing how much it and we miss the chance of Paula Towsey chiming in and digging deep.
PG



On Sunday, August 10, 2014 10:45 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
 


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.
>>    
>
>
>