Philp, I'm looking forward to the discussion. Your paper certainly has a lot to say for the ID field. Particularly, it highlights, in my mind at least, the differences in between the field of instructional design, which can be rather specific, and the task that instructional designers are called upon to perform.
I would like a bit more detail on your statement, "Motivation is essential to consider in instructional design in order to eliminate it from instruction." It seems that that approach is radically utilitarian, i.e., a person will be motivated to participate in an instructional experience because of the rewards they will receive once the experience is completed. If they don't expect a benefit the learner should not become involved with the instruction in the first place. Thus there is no need, and in fact, it is detrimental for instruction, in and of itself, to be rewarding, reinforcing, pleasing, or even aesthetic. Is that fair or have I misunderstood? From your further comments I take it that you are not against activities designed to motivate but desire a clear separation between the activities of motivation and instruction both retaining value.