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

[Xmca-l] Re: Intrinsic motivation?

Please take me off the list.


This email message may contain confidential, proprietary and/or privileged
information. It is intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s).
If you have received it in error, please immediately advise the sender by
reply email and then delete this email message. Any disclosure, copying,
distribution or use of the information contained in this email message to
or by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. Any
views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except
where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Pitney Bowes.
Thank you.

On 8/6/14, 10:36 AM, "Ed Wall" <ewall@umich.edu> wrote:

>       I'm glad you brought this up. I've read what Andy had written (I
>just checked and there seems to be more or perhaps a different format or
>perhaps I've just forgotten) and have also studied Hegel's Science of
>Logic in a bit of depth. I've also read the first in Jackson's series and
>was uncertain whether this was an help or improvement (Dewey seems to
>have lectured on this piece by Hegel by the way); however, I admit to
>possible bias because of these other readings. Thus I've always wondered
>how helpful other people found the series and why.
>Ed Wall
>On Aug 6, 2014, at 9:17 AM, Robert Lake <boblake@georgiasouthern.edu>
>> 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
>>> Lortie, not Jackson, who made the apprenticeship of observation a
>>> term among teacher educators--someone posted earlier on this question.
>>> case anyone's interested, I've got a forthcoming study of
>>>apprenticeship of
>>> observation that complicates Lortie's conclusions based on interviews
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> a copy of, Greg. He uses the expressions "internal reward" and
>>> 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
>>>>    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 Œmy¹ new
>>>>            language and the
>>>>            Œstandard¹ 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