Gary, Jon, All: Jon left us with some very interesting quotes that I, like Gary, would love more discussion about! Maybe this can spur some of the discussion.
1) *"the theory of logic, in so far as we attain to it, is the vision and the attainment of that Reasonableness for the sake of which the Heavens and the Earth have been created."* This strikes me as the same mode of speaking Spinoza used to assert that power, wisdom, deductive consequence, causal efficacy, and Blessedness are all essentially the same. From what I've read, Peirce has a complicated relationship with the Principle of Sufficient Reason, but he also seems to have attended to it with a dedication that would make Spinoza proud. 2) *"**These thinkers consequently prescribe for us what they consider as an infallible recipe for being happy, if one only has the strength of mind to take the medicine, namely, to bring your desires into conformity with the general course of nature. [...] the maxim of happiness is to recognize and accept the truth [...]"* This actually sounds very Epicurean to me, although I may be biased as a fan of Epicurus and Lucretius. I think they supply just such a recipe, striving to bring our desires into conformity with nature. Although they may not put as much emphasis on "love for the community of soul," it would certainly be in the mix. I wonder if you noted exactly how Peirce discussed Epicurus in that unpublished manuscript - he was quite the historian of philosophy, but Epicurus has been unjustly maligned for millenia. And I personally think Peirce fell prey to a similar PR campaign against Hume. They could have been good friends. I'm not a huge fan of Confucius, but a quote of his is worth mentioning here too: “At fifteen I set my heart upon learning. At thirty, I had planted my feet firm upon the ground. At forty, I no longer suffered from perplexities. At fifty, I knew what were the biddings of Heaven. At sixty, I heard them with docile ear. *At seventy, I could follow the dictates of my own heart; for what I desired no longer overstepped the boundaries of right.” * Thank you for the advocacy you've done for all those positions you mentioned, Jon, Gary, Gary, et al. I find it hard enough to understand Peirce's thought, let alone to do a thorough comparison of his logic, metaphysics, philosophy of science, and ethics to the other philosophical positions I'm familiar with and have an appreciation for. For what it's worth, IMO, synechism, monism, and the Principle of Sufficient Reason are some of the topics I find most intriguing in Peirce and most neglected elsewhere. On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 9:36 PM Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Martin, Jon, List, > > If we agree that 'logic is rooted in the social impulse' and that > pursuing -- in our daily thought and actions -- Peirce's summum bonum of > directing these impulses to 'the reasonable in itself', that leadership is > yet necessary, then Jon's notion of a leadership style of 'pulling' rather > than 'pushing' is certainly desirable. One question immediately arises: how > is such 'pulling' different from leading by example or, as you put it, > Martin, 'leading our lives as expressions of this summum bonum? > > Martin, I will be eager to learn more about your understanding of > 'leadership as triadically relational'. So if you would expand on this > notion as you outlined it earlier -- "Leader (qua essential way of being) > - Follower(s)/Led (qua actual object) - Future (qua indeterminate > interpretant)" -- that would most certainly be helpful. > > Yet having asked if there is a distinction between 'modeling as example' > and 'pulling as a mode of leadership', I agree with you, Jon, that, if the > latter, it makes considerable sense that reframing the matter of leadership > as pulling and not pushing would seem to allow for "appropriate > flexibility in the *means *that [members of the community in question] > can employ to reach the specified end. . " But while the 'specified end' > in, say, structural engineering, may be clear enough, other vital human > goals are often much less so. > > Martin, I am humbled, honored, and pleased that you found Ben and my short > book chapter, "Logic is Rooted in the Social Principle (and vice versa)," > an inspiration for your own book, "Listening for Leadership: Three > Essential Sentiments [Love, Faith, Hope]." I will be most eager to read > it, perhaps even chapters in draft form as you develop it. We can certainly > look into opportunities to present it to an interested audience. > > Jon, I believe that you are correct in advocating countering 'value > monism in an intellectual climate of widespread pluralism' to Peirce's > *realism* and *objective idealism* as a challenge Peircean pragmatists > ought expect -- need! -- to take up.It appears to me to be as important as > the other two. For in what I consider to be something of a paradox, it is > through *value monism* that we are most likely to better create > *community*, exactly because the monad in question is the *summum bonum* > -- exactly 'the reasonable in itself'. I'd be interested to hear what sort > of arguments, if any, were *reasonably *offered against this form of > ethical monism in you exchanges with other pragmatists, Jon. > > Finally, I have begun to ask myself how Peirce's notion of bringing one's > desires "into conformity with the general course of nature" might bear > nourishing fruit for our further reflections on the task of Peircean > pragmatism in the 21st century. This seems to me not at all obvious, and > its connection to God and religion even more obscure. > > Best, > > Gary R > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 6:50 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Martin, Gary R., List: >> >> The challenge that we face as Peirceans today is advocating not only >> scholastic realism and objective idealism in an intellectual climate of >> widespread (and often uncritical) nominalism and materialism, but also >> value monism in an intellectual climate of widespread pluralism. As I >> recently learned from some interactions with self-described pragmatists on >> Twitter who are much more partial to James and Rorty than Peirce, there is >> considerable resistance to the notion of a single *summum bonum*. I did >> not have time to touch on esthetics and ethics in my 10-minute >> presentation, but as I see it, applying synechism in those normative >> sciences involves recognizing that concrete reasonableness is itself a >> manifestation of continuity as "a special kind of *generality*, or >> conformity to one idea" (CP 7.535n6, 1908). >> >> CSP: Such is the place of logic among the sciences; and such is its >> utility. Yet the reader will find that the aggregate value of all such >> applications will not compare with the treasure of the pure theory itself. >> For when he has surveyed the whole subject, he will see that the theory of >> logic, in so far as we attain to it, is the vision and the attainment of >> that Reasonableness for the sake of which the Heavens and the Earth have >> been created. (CP 2.122, 1902) >> >> >> The resulting ethical imperative is for each of us to exercise >> self-control over our future actions by deliberately cultivating habits of >> conduct accordingly. >> >> CSP: This development of Reason consists, you will observe, in >> embodiment, that is, in manifestation. The creation of the universe, which >> did not take place during a certain busy week, in the year 4004 B.C., but >> is going on today and never will be done, is this very development of >> Reason. I do not see how one can have a more satisfying ideal of the >> admirable than the development of Reason so understood. The one thing whose >> admirableness is not due to an ulterior reason is Reason itself >> comprehended in all its fullness, so far as we can comprehend it. Under >> this conception, the ideal of conduct will be to execute our little >> function in the operation of the creation by giving a hand toward rendering >> the world more reasonable whenever, as the slang is, it is "up to us" to do >> so. (CP 1.615, EP 2:255, 1903) >> >> >> I recently came across the following in an unpublished manuscript where >> Peirce aligns elliptical philosophy (no starting/stopping point) with >> epicureanism, parabolic philosophy (same starting/stopping point) with >> pessimism, and his own hyperbolic philosophy (different starting/stopping >> points) with meliorism. >> >> CSP: [Meliorists] think that throughout the universe as a whole, the >> good has a decided tendency to prevail. If you ask what they mean by the >> good, they will tell you they mean the *ultimate end* of the universe. >> Accordingly, when they say the good tends to prevail, they mean there is a >> general tendency throughout the universe toward some describable condition >> of things. These thinkers consequently prescribe for us what they consider >> as an infallible recipe for being happy, if one only has the strength of >> mind to take the medicine, namely, to bring your desires into conformity >> with the general course of nature. ... Since the maxim of happiness is to >> recognize and accept the truth, they declare that contempt for the *ego *and >> love for the community of soul is the truest and happiest sentiment. (R >> 953, no date) >> >> >> This might be the closest that Peirce ever comes to endorsing a version >> of natural law theory, especially in conjunction with my suggestion that >> the complete revelation of God is the overall final interpretant of the >> entire universe as a sign, i.e., the "describable condition of things" >> toward which "there is a general tendency throughout the universe." >> Accordingly, "to bring your desires into conformity with the general course >> of nature" would then amount to bringing your desires into conformity with >> the revealed character of God Himself, along with your actions and beliefs. >> >> Regarding leadership, I think that it makes a lot of sense to frame it as >> *drawing* followers toward a designated goal as a *final* cause (3ns), >> instead of the all-too-common approach of *pushing* them toward it as an >> *efficient* cause (2ns). This allows appropriate flexibility in the *means >> *that they can employ to reach the specified end, as opposed to >> dictating every step along the way. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> >> On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 10:14 AM Martin W. Kettelhut <mkettel...@msn.com> >> wrote: >> >>> 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> >>> 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 pragmati*cistic* 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 >>>> >>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ >> ► 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. >> > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► 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. >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
