Instrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation, Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news4126.html

http://www.physorg.com/news4126.html

The classical differentiation between these two alleged modes of motivation reminds of the philosopher Searle"s original and derived intentionality.

Original intentionality (ORI)is regarded as a dynamic of consciousness and expressed in orientation, gestalt, cognitive and attitudinal processes and their potentially resultant enactment, whereas derived intentionality (DEI) is the embodied result of original intentionality and found in artefacts, memes, lexemes and systems. In this sense all identifiable ontological entities may be said to posses degrees of DEI due to being phylogenetically unique configurations, or integrations, of far more fundamentally fractal components. This is one reason why cosmic ontology has a strongly holographic fractal nature.

The unique configuration of ontological entities may be said to express their design intention, DSI. This, DSI, offers first-instance probabilities of interpretation of all non-self derived signals, modes of monitoring and reaction potential to environment. DSI may be seen pertinently reflected in FAPs (Fixed Action Patterns) in all animals (even humans) such as the egg-rolling response in geese, or chick-feeding response in herring gulls. Even in the case of highly evolved organic systems such as humans with their advanced cognitive processing capacities, the expression of their DSI is not just an intrinsic, purely endogenous process in any phase of cognitive processing - there is no such thing as non-exogenously entangled cognitive processing.

Motivation is indismissibly an aspect of intentionality and contains hybridised components of DSI, ORI and DEI. We may well ask what the most primary design intention is - this leads us into areas of teleology and religio-philosophical conjecture.

We are at no stage non-entangled with our non-self environment.
Analogously, we may well see that there is no such thing as

It appears a substantial part of my reply disappeared and I therefore repost:

The classical differentiation between these two alleged modes of motivation reminds of the philosopher Searle's original and derived intentionality.

Original intentionality (ORI)is regarded as a dynamic of consciousness and expressed in orientation, gestalt, cognitive and attitudinal processes and their potentially resultant enactment, whereas derived intentionality (DEI) is the embodied result of original intentionality and found in artefacts, memes, lexemes and systems. In this sense all identifiable ontological entities may be said to posses degrees of DEI due to being phylogenetically unique configurations, or integrations, of far more fundamentally fractal components. This is one reason why cosmic ontology has a strongly holographic fractal nature.

The unique configuration of ontological entities may be said to express their design intention, DSI. This, DSI, offers first-instance probabilities of interpretation of all non-self derived signals, modes of monitoring and reaction potential to environment. DSI may be seen pertinently reflected in FAPs (Fixed Action Patterns) in all animals (even humans) such as the egg-rolling response in geese, or chick-feeding response in herring gulls. Even in the case of highly evolved organic systems such as humans with their advanced cognitive processing capacities, the expression of their DSI is not just an intrinsic, purely endogenous process in any phase of cognitive processing - there is no such thing as non-exogenously entangled cognitive processing.

Motivation is indismissibly an aspect of intentionality and contains hybridised components of DSI, ORI and DEI. We may well ask what the most primary design intention is - this leads us into areas of teleology and religio-philosophical conjecture.

We are at no stage non-entangled with our non-self environment.
Analogously, we may well see that there is no such thing as "intrinsic motivation" and that this is a synthetic concept resulting in conflative confusions.

We all know however, that we do things we like doing, need doing, feel responsible for doing, are forced to do, and even do those things we don't WANT to do, because we WANT to do them. More accurate perhaps would be to recapture the essence of such contrasting intentionalities as Direct Motivation and Indirect, or Referred Motivation.

Such Direct and Indirect / Referred Motivation may be seen to correlate with different levels of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. When for example a child enters a phase where an activity previously spontaneously expressed for the love of it now gets rewarded, correlative resonance may shift level in Maslow's hierarchy, or even now resonate with several instead of just one. As such, even Maslow's H is a first approximation - Schubert, who died penniless, composed his lieder for the pure love of music, and surely not in the primary conscious need for survival. The effective integrity (read survival) of ethical tenets, has often been vitally more motivational than physical survival. History abounds with examples of this.

It would appear to me that the concepts of alleged intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are a simplistically false approximation, its perceived underlying dynamics more accurately seen in terms of first-instance probability expression of eigentype characteristics, and their modulation by non-self environmental pressures. This latter perspective is eminently analogised by parallels with Newton's Laws: eigentypes will show first-instance tendencies to perpetuate a linear momentum expression of their inherent "nature." Only in a second instance will a deflection of such linear trajectories of expression and action be effected by tangential applications of exogenous force, against the effective inertia of "habit" and "inclination."

We may in this regard well ask, in the recognition that non-self is an extension of self, and a mutually pervading system with self, where self ends and non-self begins... The individually perceived answers to this certainly have bearing on why and how we feel motivated and give expression to that.

FV

I hav had a question that someone asked me and has been bugging me for a while. How do you copare Maslow's Hierarchy to History? I don't understand how you could compare, but I feel as though there is an answer. Please reply.