subject:"\[PEIRCE\-L\] Leadership, was\: A question for pragmatists, was, Comments on the nature and purpose of Peirce\-L, was, The Basis of Synechism in Phaneroscopy"

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Leadership, was: A question for pragmatists, was, Comments on the nature and purpose of Peirce-L, was, The Basis of Synechism in Phaneroscopy

2023-04-20 Thread Helmut Raulien

Supplement: But you already said so, by writing, that for you leadership is not "leadership as traditionally conceived, namely as characteristics of an individual". So, I apologize for my redundant comment.

Dear Martin, dear list,

Calling people "leader" or "follower" is a classification. Classifications however are often final, such as taxonomy. In this case though, I think it has to be said from the beginning, that the classification in "Leader" and "Follower" is merely a temporal purpose-serving one. A leader is one qua essential way of being, and this essence is love, faith and hope. Love is to want the best for others. The best is, that these others participate with this essence as well, so a leader, who acts from this essence of love, will teach them that, so they will not remain followers, but gain the same leading competence the leader has. So a good leader pursues the abolition of his own leadership. Do you agree? I think it is necessary to say that from the beginning, because the world has a problem with self- declared taxonomy-leaders.

Best Regards,

Helmut

Gesendet: Donnerstag, 20. April 2023 um 17:13 Uhr
Von: "Martin W. Kettelhut"
An: "Gary Richmond"
Cc: "Jon Alan Schmidt" , "Gary Fuhrman" , "Peirce-L"
Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] A question for pragmatists, was, Comments on the nature and purpose of Peirce-L, was, The Basis of Synechism in Phaneroscopy

I appreciate your response, Gary.

Yes, serving our world as pragmatists is fundamentally about leading our lives as expressions of the summum bonum, and the passages from Peirce’s papers rooting the logic of probability in the "social impulse” are at the core of the book I’m writing on leadership as triadically relational (vs leadership as traditionally conceived, namely as characteristics of an individual):

Leader (qua essential way of being) - Follower(s)/Led (qua actual object) - Future (qua indeterminate interpretant).

I’m a big fan of your and Ben’s chapter in "Peirce in His Own Words" on this topic. It’s an inspiration for my book, in fact.

I’d be honored if given the opportunity at some point to offer a presentation on the book I’m writing, working title: "Listening for Leadership: Three Essential Sentiments [Love, Faith, Hope]."

Yours sincerely,

Martin W. Kettelhut, PhD

ListeningIsTheKey.com

303 747 4449

On 19 Apr 2023, at 11:04 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:

Martin, List,

Thanks for joining our 10 minute thesis presentation this past Saturday and for your post to Peirce-L today.

I think that your suggestion that "there’s a. . . fundamental and urgent question to ask ourselves about how to insinuate realism in a nominalist/individualist world" points to perhaps the most urgent task for pragmatists, most certainly for those of a Peircean stripe.

Your question seems to point to a kind of decision we need to make as to how we ought conduct ourselves, not only in conferences and discussion forums and the like but, perhaps especially, in our quotidian lives. On Peirce's esthetic theory, this would represent the employment of a form of the summum bonum, this in conjunction with his ethical theory which includes making a decision to make that a habit of one's life. If we can do that, then perhaps we can hope to begin to personally model that kind of behavior in our scientific and philosophic work, as well as in our collegial, familial and work lives.

The goal would seem to involve our coming to live more and more by faith, hope, and love, a trio of values Peirce saw as essentially logical. See, for example, the chapter "Logic is Rooted in the Social Principle (and vice versa)" by Ben Udell and myself in Charles Sanders Peirce in His Own Words.

While it doesn't seem at all clear to me how this can be brought about very generally in our philosophical and scientific communities in their current nominalistic/individualistic state, it is certainly something which we as pragmatists likely need to reflect on and attempt to work together toward.

Jon has consistently tried to address some related issues in his papers on the ethics of engineering, and Gary Fuhrman in his e-book, Turning Signs, as well as in the electronic discussions he's created around it.

Perhaps it would be helpful for us to reflect deeply on this question you posed in your post.

MWK: How are we serving the needs of a world engendered by reductionism in politics and the media, the over-extension of pluralism in social media platforms, relativism gone wild in the interpretation of the law, the conundrums of individualism for economics, and rampant nihilism in every sector?

Best,

Gary R

On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 5:50 PM Martin W. Kettelhut wrote:

Thank you for your 10-minute presentations Gary, Jon and Gary.

What a fascinating phenomenon, a zoom conference with Powerpoint representations of

[PEIRCE-L] Leadership, was: A question for pragmatists, was, Comments on the nature and purpose of Peirce-L, was, The Basis of Synechism in Phaneroscopy