At 06:47 PM 5/03/03 +0000, you wrote:
>You wrote:
>Les. I don't know if you read all I wrote but you seem to have missed
>the important point that I REJECTED the glib contention that there
>was only the two categories. vis; FEAR and SELFISHNESS. Have another
>look!
>*********************************************************************
>My apologies.
>
>I agree with your premise that fear is a negative motivation. I also
>believe that it can be the result of self-obsession, however; I don't
>agree that fear and self-obsession are one and the same.
(Then I would argue Les that parlaying fear cannot be seen as
anything else BUT self obsession. It is the ultimate in concern for
ones personal welfare. I am not saying it is wrong, merely
that it is self specific, where-as simple selfishness need not be so.)
>I am more interested in how you arrived at these premises than in the
>premises themselves.
# (As I stated at first, this contention that there are only the two
motivation of fear and selfishness, is not mine. It is a common
assertion by certain American field motivation specialists.)
# (My position is that it is incorrect and misleading. Such a
stance requires me to qualify my position which I have, but
you seem to be responding from some incomplete reading
of my explanation. I am not attacking you but I certainly do
not appreciate your curt responses when you have obviously
not read what I have written. )
>
>You stated: "selfishness is the argument of persons with an axe to
>grind."
# (Please don't misquote me Les. I said the proposition that the dual
contention of ..F&S is the argument of
persons with an axe to grind. Not just selfishness. )
I'd like to know how you came to that conclusion since you
>offer no explanation as to why you felt that way.
# (Yes I have.)
>
>Flat statements given without reasonable explanations tend to
>frustrate me.
# ( Then it should have driven you to re-read the input. )
Reg.
|
