First letter of Oz to the NG

robert rlmunoz at mediaone.net
Fri Aug 6 23:16:34 EST 1999


Hi there Malcom,

I missed the basis for your particular response.
I'm responding perhaps out of context to the last paragraph.





Malcolm McMahon wrote:

> On Sat, 31 Jul 1999 02:08:17 GMT, Bloxy's at hotmail.com (Bloxy's) wrote:
>
> >This is not "instability". This is freedom.
> >Undescriptability, may be, but instability?
> >Well, the "instability" is a driving force.
> >This is where intelligence kicks in,
> >as it forever seeks to go out of the limits of known.
> >
>
> When you think about the evolutionary history of inteligence the
> homostasis point of view seems more consistent. Our inteligence seems to
> have evolved at the end of the last ice-age when the climate was
> extremely variable. Evolution doesn't hand out inteligence with much
> enthusiam. Inteligence requires learning and learning is a dangerous
> business. It takes time. In our case brainsize has become a nightmare
> problem as far as procreation is concerned.
>
> It makes sense that inteligence evolved essentially as a coping
> strategy. It gives us the capacity to change our behaviour to fit
> conditions that change much faster than the evolution of instinct could
> possibly keep up with.
>
> >
> >Freedom, by DEFINITION, is outside of ALL dictates.
> >Dictates are for the crowds to organize in groups
> >and follow the party line of fasion
> >to be ultimately exploited by the fat cat.
> >
>
> Freedom the (relative) absence of externally imposed restraints. This is
> not really the issue here, I think. The issue is about motivation. What
> makes you decide what you _want_ to do.

My opinion:

Motivation, motive, suggests or is the reason if you will, for doing.
Motives are driven by goals, needs and wants.
Motivation also requires an action or no action, which is still an action.
Motives are good and bad. What makes you decide what you want to do
is the same thing that motivates you in the first instance: a need or  a
want.
The action , or response associated with the motive is almost entirely
dependent
on the degree or urgency of the need or want.

My questions:

Who can explain motivation beyond maslow's hierarchy of needs?

The question really is, why self actualization occurs at all?

Oz




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list