Gary, and Peirce-list; To your two questions, Gary…(and keep in mind that I’m still working all of this out)
1) What does the “pulling" in a leadership relationship is the future (vs the leader or the follower) that leader and follower are committed to. They are pulled forward together by the enticement of a reason or cause they’ve created together. I take this to be much like the interpretant’s (the effect/representamen's) relation to the subject (for which the interpretant stands) and the quality (which, in the leadership relationship, is qua leading) in the sign. E.g., I might be coaching you at swimming, but it’s the prospect of your winning the meet that pulls us both out of bed at 5 a.m. to practice. This is important, because it’s not the push-pull between leader and follower that actually does the work of moving things forward; it’s the potential future in which you win the meet. And it’s not just leading by example either; the coach might very well not be in shape for a meet, or even get in the water. 2) Expanding on the notion of leadership as triadic, since leadership brings out the summum bonum (the good, reasonable, beautiful) in a person, team, project, government or community, it requires these three elements: a) someone or something that is BEING leader and hence causing movement/change. Who/what embodies this quality can shift in course of the partnership. The coach brings out the best in the student-swimmer, and then the student allows the coach to be expert swimmer. Or in a group or team, say, the fullback sees the opening in the defense’s configuration on the field, and then the forward moves into scoring position. Some corporate teams use software to embody this quality (Agile, e.g.); but this raises other questions, since a piece of software is ultimately a binary system. I’m pointing to the spontaneous element in the leadership relation, which nevertheless gives the leadership relation its definite tendency. Remember how Peirce deepens Aristotle’s conception of causation by distinguishing the element of chance in every act of causation. (See his 1902 paper “On Science and Natural Classes” CP1.203-37) b) someone or something that is being led or effected; that which undergoes change (which, even if who’s leading and who's led doesn’t vary, means that "we’re all in this together") c) the Future that leader and led have created together, and to which they are mutually committed and hope to bring about the potentiality in virtual of which leader and led interpret their relationship. I’d like to also comment briefly on the leadership relation within oneself when one commits to embody "the reasonable in itself,” i.e. be God(-like), since this is what—in this string--we’ve been saying is the key to living pragmaticistically in this world. In this case, one has to see herself as innumerable community, both cause and effect, real creator. Martin Kettelhut > On 20 Apr 2023, at 8:35 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 > <mailto: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 >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> >> On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 10:14 AM Martin W. Kettelhut <mkettel...@msn.com >> <mailto: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 >>>> <mailto: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 >> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ >> ► 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.
