Re: Presuppositions? Assumptions? LO1814

Michael McMaster (Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk)
Tue, 27 Jun 1995 19:42:11 +0000

Replying to LO1783 --

Tobin, I like what you say and the way that you've thought it - even
though I don't agree with it. I think that "motivation" applied to
yourself has the same connotations and the same problems stemming
from the same source.

Let's see if that's seems to be valid.

I think the point you make is valid - and important - that we tend to
apply it to others (as a judgement) and not to ourselves. Thereby we
make the whole idea suspect.

Making motivation a "thing" is also part of the problem.

But "being motivated from within" is not the same as "having
motives". To be motivated is either a descriptive judgement or a
force which produces action. It is this force which produces action
that I think we are dealing with and where I think the problem is.

You say,
> One can be motivated
> from within to engage in or accomplish any number of "purposes", but one
> cannot be "motivated" from outside or for other's purposes...

So who is the "motivator" from within? Who is being motivated? I
think that the heart of the matter is that we see an active process
and think that we can "do it to ourselves". This applies the
mechanistic model to a single individual - and has the same
consequences of missing the richness by bringing this cause/effect
thinking.

intent says (adj)"fixed with close attention" and"having the mind
bent on" (n) "the thing aimed at"
intention says "the stretching of a mind toward an object"

The linearity and singularity of the term make it not what is wanted
for much of life - and applicable to some.

inspire says "to draw into the lungs" and "to infuse into"
inspiration "the act of breathing into" - as in life from god

These have the external implications of a source outside of oneself -
and moving a similar source inside doesn't alter the fundamental view
of causality - things doing things to other things.

And each is probably cleaner in that they motive force is more
directly and bluntly related to manipulation of someone as though
(merely) a thing.

Now, I think what you are after - and certainly what I'm after - is
an emergence, an arising, an occurring which is not merely
accidental. That is, we have something to say about our own motives,
our own intentions, our own inspiration. But what has to say more
about it is the whole environment, circumstances, culture.

I suggest that anything that we call intention, motive or commitment
that is deeply rooted and profound - worthy of our attention - is
this latter phenomenon. We are looking for the integrative time when
we "just are" intentional but have something to say about it. Or
maybe, god forbid, it just feels right when it does occur.

What I'm looking for is this arising together of my own intention and
my own expression that seems to reflect my whole being and is a match
for the society in which I am participating.

My assumptions are not motivating but the tools for my intelligence
to work at the integration of my action and intentions with society.

My presuppositions are not available in so easy a way and are closer
to the whole which is emerging - and by discovering them, I discover
myself as a player in society.

--
Michael McMaster
Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk