wondering

**SHATOUSHKA** · April 7th, 2005, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by The Reverend Dark Angel:
So the beginning and end of motovation is motovation itself. The rest are just reactionary moments caused by the motovation or lack thereof.

yeah but you don't seem to define what causes
motivation.

Originally posted by Chele:
Whew I thought I was the only one who voted for will shatz.. [img]wink.gif[/img] I was worried about people in general.. [img]eek.gif[/img]

i was wondering what fabulous soul picked the
same answer i did [img]tongue.gif[/img]

**SHATOUSHKA** · April 7th, 2005, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by stingger:
Its who cares, when people don't care and think nothing is going to happen it happens when people care and get all excited with this and that thats when nothing happens.

the thing is... that 'nothing' wouldn't be
noticed if you hadn't the eyes to see it

Originally posted by stingger:
If you cared about careing and someone did'nt care about you careing about careing and then they did'nt care about someone else careing about you careing and the other person careing and so forth ..... then who cares

teehee... that was hard for me to read. but
after i got it, it made me chuckle. [img]biggrin.gif[/img]

**The Reverend Dark Angel** · April 8th, 2005, 02:56 AM

Motovation would have to be taken on a case by case bases. It's like if someone takes a punch at you; you may will yourself to duck, the opportunity however short to duck is there, but it's instinct that brings on the motovation to duck.
You see a hot girl in a thong and you look. You will yourself to look. The opportunity to stare at a hot girl's crack is there. But the motovation for it is reactionary.
Hot coffee spills in your lap while you're driving and you drive off the road. You willed yourself to move about like a Mexican Jumping Bean. The opportunity to not pay attention to the road and pay attention to your lap is there. But it's stupidity that brought on the motovation for that whole thing to happen.
See where I'm going here?

**SHATOUSHKA** · April 8th, 2005, 05:21 AM

i see where you are going, but i have to disagree.
you seem to suggest that will cannot be controlled
even in those situations.

let's take it from your examples:

if someone takes a punch at you; you may will yourself to duck, the opportunity however short to duck is there, but it's instinct that brings on the motovation to duck.

instinct is controlled by will alone. you have
an instinct to use the bathroom, but you can
will yourself to wait. the same is true for the
punch scenario. to say that instinct controlls
your actions is to suggest that every time someone
takes a punch at you, no matter the situation
surrounding the punch, you will duck. we both
know this isn't so.

You see a hot girl in a thong and you look. You will yourself to look. The opportunity to stare at a hot girl's crack is there. But the motovation for it is reactionary.

this, again, seems relational to instinct. while
the motivation seems to surpass will, it seems
that you would have no choice but to stare at
an ass regardless of the circumstances.

but.... technically the motivation is the
particular ass in the particular situation...
to which the circumstances had already been
deemed appropriate (for additional staring) by
you... ie. by your will.

if you walked in to an occupied dressing room
by mistake and saw the same woman, you would
not hesitate to close the door as fast. therefore,
a process of thought (per circumstance) must
preceed the motivation.

* * *

the hot coffee scenario goes in many angles so
i'm just going to approach the main situation,
ie -- you aren't paying attention therefore
coffee spills and you swerve off the road.

as with all of the above examples, there is a
difference between instinctual reaction and
motivation. motivation is self-inspired whereas
instinctual reaction isn't.

if a piece of hot ash falls on your arm without
your prior knowledge, your instinctual reaction
is to swat it away. this type of reaction would
be true of any human. jolts of fear or excitement
are 'instinctual' and cannot be instantaneously
controlled without prior experience to control
it.

in the coffee scenario, i suspect anyone would
have reacted in some manner to hot coffee being
spilt on your lap in the car. there is no
motivation to swerve because that would suggest
that you had contemplated swerving prior to
actually doing it... instead of the swerving
just being a reaction caused by the jolt of your
arms as you reacted to the coffee on your body.

**SHATOUSHKA** · April 8th, 2005, 05:24 AM

also let me go ahead and state that this thread
was a legitimate question. it's not like i've
made a trick question. i was genuinely curious
what others thought.

as for my replies, well, i'm quite biased about
my selection and i'm arguing my side. thats all.

**The Reverend Dark Angel** · April 8th, 2005, 05:34 PM

Well I'm arguing with you... it's fun.

Someone who plays sports may will themselves to do certain things during the sport, but the motovation for them is to win, to be the best of the best. There is no will involved, there is no reaction involved, and it's not instinct... it's desire. So maybe motovation begins with desire and ends because of desire.