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 <gary.richm...@gmail.com> 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 > <https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781614516415/html>. > > 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 <mkettel...@msn.com > <mailto:mkettel...@msn.com>> wrote: >> Thank you for your 10-minute presentations Gary, Jon and Gary. >> >> What a fascinating phenomenon, a zoom conference with Powerpoint >> representations of Peirce’s trichotomies, synechism, and Kaina Stoichea! >> >> I supposed it was seeing each other, and hearing each other’s voices, that >> spark my wanting to inquire into our participation (as pragmatist >> philosophers) in our world currently—given what we learn from Peirce about >> science, the long and synechistic view, and the power of signs. >> >> You all chose these topics wisely; they capture crucial aspects of what’s >> irreducibly original in Peirce’s work. I submit that many of the questions >> raised by participants in this conference (not unlike many of the >> discussions here on the Peirce-list) reflect the challenge it is to >> communicate what’s fresh, relevant, and pragmaticistic in Peirce. I >> appreciate the patience, good will, and insight you three—in >> particular—bring. >> >> In the background of the question I’m going to propose for discussion here >> is a recognition that, although I did write a dissertation on Peirce's >> semeiotic/metaphysics and receive a PhD from Temple U, I immediately left >> academic life and became a "philosopher of the marketplace,” meaning--in my >> case--business coach. I apply synechism everyday in my work, partnering with >> business people to build and sustain meaningful, successful, and ethical >> businesses. >> >> My question is, given (as Gary Fuhrman points out) that it is legisigns that >> have pragmatic power to get things done; and assuming that the purpose of a >> zoom conference on Peirce is to “combat nominalism”--as Ian MacDonald so >> actualistically put it--or rather embody the discovery-process that >> pragmaticism/synechism is: What’s the best approach? What symbols should we >> use? How do we represent the scientific endeavor anew, holistically (in a >> Peircean sense, i.e. in terms of what’s possible what’s actual, and what’s >> potential)? >> >> Diagrams and bullet-points certain help; but I think there’s a more >> fundamental and urgent question to ask ourselves about how to insinuate >> realism in a nominalist/individualist world. On the one hand, this is a >> question about how to embody realism in an academic conference, but it’s >> also a question about how we (pragmatist philosophers) might embody realism >> in the world generally. 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? >> >> Thank you for considering, >> >> Martin W. Kettelhut, PhD >> ListeningIsTheKey.com >> 303 747 4449 >> >> <PastedGraphic-1.tiff> >> >>> On 19 Apr 2023, at 12:50 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> List, >>> >>> I agree with both Jon and Gary Fuhrman as to the nature and purpose of >>> Peirce-L. Because of its relevance, over the years I have had occasion to >>> post the same quotation by Joe Ransdell that Jon did today. Especially for >>> those new to this Peirce forum -- and, perhaps, for everyone here -- it >>> might be helpful to review not only that quotation, but all that Ransdell, >>> the creator and first moderator of Peirce-L, had to say about Peirce-L >>> (btw, it's not a long read). See: >>> https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu/PEIRCE-L/PEIRCE-L.HTM >>> >>> I would also reiterate this point of Gary Fuhrman's as getting to the heart >>> of the matter of the anticipated 'audience' of this forum versus other >>> venues, that, as he says, there are publications "aimed at venues and >>> audiences other than the community of students and scholars with a special >>> interest in Peirce, which I think describes the membership of peirce-l. If >>> we want the wider world to benefit from Peircean analysis of contemporary >>> issues, then we need to work in venues that are devoted to those issues." >>> >>> Finally, and while I've stressed this in the past, it is easy to forget >>> that it is helpful, really important, to change the Subject line when one >>> introduces a new topic. For, as Jon wrote by way of the example at hand, ". >>> . . none of Dan's suggested topics nor his subsequent exchange with Helmut >>> fall within the subject matter of this thread, which is specifically >>> intended for further discussion about the "10-Minute Thesis Initiative" >>> session that the Charles S. Peirce Society conducted last Saturday. >>> >>> Thanks, Dan, for your collegial and gracious response to Jon's gentle >>> admonition, your commenting that in the future you'd "begin new threads >>> rather than to invade others’ existing threads." >>> >>> For everyone, I do believe that that is usually the very best way to >>> proceed, that is, to introduce an entirely new thread. >>> >>> Occasionally, however, it makes sense to modify the Subject of an existing >>> thread, for example, when in commenting on some facet of the intellectual >>> content of a given thread one is brought to a quite different train of >>> thought, say one springboarding from or necessarily deviating from the >>> Subject of that thread. >>> >>> In that case, before posting I would recommend that you modify the existing >>> subject in this manner: Precede the Subject of the thread you are changing >>> with the Subject of the new thread >>> >>> For example, here's how that might look were one to change the current >>> thread Subject, which I have: >>> Comments on the nature and purpose of Peirce-L, was, The Basis of Synechism >>> in Phaneroscopy. >>> >>> (Some would include the entire address so as to read: >>> Comments on the nature and purpose of Peirce-L, was, Re: [PEIRCE-L] The >>> Basis of Synechism in Phaneroscopy. Either is acceptable.) >>> >>> Gary Richmond (writing as moderator of peirce-l) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 12:43 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> List: >>>> >>>> I agree with Gary F. and will add that anyone is welcome to start a new >>>> Peirce-L thread on any topic, as long as it is legitimately related to >>>> Peirce's thought. Here is how the late Joe Ransdell put it. >>>> >>>> Since PEIRCE-L is best thought of as a public forum, which is primarily a >>>> place rather than a discussion group, people contribute or not as they >>>> think best, and come and go freely, as is taken for granted in public >>>> forums wherever they occur. There is no standing agenda except the >>>> promotion of philosophical conversation of the sort which one would expect >>>> from people with a special interest in Peirce and of other communication >>>> in support of that. Thus discussion should be Peirce-related but not >>>> necessarily on Peirce, and the working test for relevance would simply be >>>> a plausible explanation of why the topic in question should be under >>>> discussion on a list called "PEIRCE-L: The Philosophy of Charles Peirce", >>>> given that people subscribe to such lists with some more or less definite >>>> expectations about subject-matter in mind. >>>> (https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu/Peirce-L/Peirce-L.htm#relevance) >>>> >>>> However, none of Dan's suggested topics nor his subsequent exchange with >>>> Helmut fall within the subject matter of this thread, which is >>>> specifically intended for further discussion about the "10-Minute Thesis >>>> Initiative" session that the Charles S. Peirce Society conducted last >>>> Saturday. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >>>> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian >>>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt >>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >>>> <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> >>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 11:35 AM <g...@gnusystems.ca >>>> <mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca>> wrote: >>>>> Dan, it’s true that “there are many contemporary issues that are crying >>>>> out for Peircean analysis.” I’ll mention below a few publications and >>>>> public venues that carry out this analysis in one way or another. But >>>>> those are aimed at venues and audiences other than the community of >>>>> students and scholars with a special interest in Peirce, which I think >>>>> describes the membership of peirce-l. If we want the wider world to >>>>> benefit from Peircean analysis of contemporary issues, then we need to >>>>> work in venues that are devoted to those issues. When I have something >>>>> Peircean to say on those issues, I say it in my online book or my blog or >>>>> one of the other spaces of discourse I participate in. >>>>> >>>>> Among the other books I know of which have applied Peircean analyses to >>>>> contemporary issues, these come immediately to mind: >>>>> >>>>> Deely, John (2001), Four Ages of Understanding (Toronto: University of >>>>> Toronto Press). >>>>> >>>>> Kohn, Eduardo (2013), How Forests Think: Toward an Anthropology Beyond >>>>> the Human (Berkeley: University of California Press) >>>>> >>>>> Ivakhiv, Adrian (2018), Shadowing the Anthropocene: Eco-realism for >>>>> turbulent times (punctum books, Earth, Milky Way; Creative Commons >>>>> BY-NC-SA 4.0 International license). >>>>> >>>>> My book Turning Signs has the same CC license as Adrian Ivakhiv's, by the >>>>> way, so both are accessible for free. >>>>> >>>>> I think the issues that receive Peircean analyses in those books are at >>>>> least as “empirical” as the ones you mention. >>>>> >>>>> Love, gary f >>>>> >>>>> Coming from the ancestral lands of the Anishinaabeg >>>>> >>>>> https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ Turning Signs <https://gnusystems.ca/TS/> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu >>>>> <mailto:peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu> <peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu >>>>> <mailto:peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu>> On Behalf Of Dan Everett >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 11:37 AM >>>>> To: g...@gnusystems.ca <mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca> >>>>> Cc: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu <mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Basis of Synechism in Phaneroscopy >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I really am enjoying all of this discussion. But the Peirce-L to my mind >>>>> (maybe this is its principal function and I have missed that fact) seems >>>>> largely concerned with the exegesis of Peirce (which is very important of >>>>> course). But there are many contemporary issues that are crying out for >>>>> Peircean analysis. For example, the success of ChatGPT over nativist >>>>> Chomskyan models; the superiority of Peircean inference over Fregean >>>>> compositionality in simplying a multitude of syntactic analyses (e.g. >>>>> Antecedent-Contained Deletion and other gap-filler problems in modern >>>>> syntax which simply do not arise in an Existential Graph analysis) and so >>>>> on. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Empirical problems addressed via Peircean ideas and theories are >>>>> veritably being demanded these days. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> One prominent question is whether in John Searle’s Chinese Room >>>>> Gedankenexperiment or in ChatGPT or in bee communication what is being >>>>> interpreted are iconic or indexical legisigns vs. symbols (assuming that >>>>> not all legisigns are symbols but all symbols are legisigns). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I would love to see more discussion of empirical issues on this list. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dan Everett >>>>> >>>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ >>>> ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >>>> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >>>> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu <mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . >>>> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to >>>> l...@list.iupui.edu <mailto:l...@list.iupui.edu> with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L >>>> in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at >>>> https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . >>>> ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and >>>> co-managed by him and Ben Udell. >>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ >>> ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >>> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >>> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu <mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . >>> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu >>> <mailto:l...@list.iupui.edu> with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE >>> of the message and nothing in the body. More at >>> https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . >>> ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and >>> co-managed by him and Ben Udell. >>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
