Let me see if I understand what you are saying, Michael, and what I can
learn from it...
On Tue, 27 Jun 1995, Michael McMaster wrote:
> Replying to LO1783 --
>
[some snipped material]
> 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.
When I use the phrase "motivated from within" I mean it in the sense of
"being drawn toward" or "stimulated into" action. Much as a plant may be
"heliotropic" or drawn towards the nourishing light, we are motivated for
our own unique reasons or incentives--many of them unconscious at the
time--to take action in a particular way and time toward some personally
significant end.
I do not intend to separate the "action" or motivation from the self or
from the larger environment at all.Quite to the contrary, I see it more as
an _interdependent_ mutuality rather than a mechanistic cause and effect.
To extend your questions, I find it interesting to ask as well, "Who is
acting?" and "Who is aware of acting?" The answer in my book would have to
include the "whole"--the larger environment of nature, culture, heritage,
and spirit--with even the beginnings of an answer.
[snipping some stuff about "intention" and "inspiration"]
> 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.
This sounds right to me...
> 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.
Or, perhaps, not just a "match" but possibly a "stretch"?
> My assumptions are not motivating but the tools for my intelligence
> to work at the integration of my action and intentions with society.
Yes, and they are usually recognizeable when stated.
> 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.
And, in doing so, also discover yourself as a player somewhat _freer_ from
the constraints and limitations of that particular society... Perhaps that
emerging sense of self/system-discovery is what "motivates" us to such
profoundly challenging dialogue and reflection in the first place....
Are we more in synch that it appeared at first?
-- Tobin Quereau quereau@austin.cc.tx.us