Fear of Death, Etc

Hi Ishmael,

Thanks for the update.

On Merleau-Ponty:   It is perhaps one of the major western philosophical works of the 20th Century.   And, the only use we can possibly make of it is highly foundational.  Such that one has to assimilate how he characterizes and studies "experience" and "perception" within that view of experiencing.   Then, and only then, would one be able to begin to think about fear as something we perceive in human experiences (whether as a component of some view of leadership, or, without our own perception of our selves).    So, it might be better to let Merleau-Ponty side on the sidelines for a while to see if the basic notion of grasping things "phenomenologically" becomes more pressing or relevant.   I'm sure it is.  But everything must happen in time and in the development of our ability to comprehend.   So I think we can let it sit a bit.

On fear of death:   I brought this up since in a practical way it seems to be fairly common human experience (expressed or not expressed in various ways).  So, this is in effect a different platform or foundation for consideration of the nature of "fear".   (That is:  it's a different approach from going at this via Merleau-Ponty.)  In this consideration we assume that something called "fear" is common in human experience.   The only reason I feel comfortable with that is that this subject been addressed in a lot of literature of various cultures.  Expressed differently, it's a version of "fear" related the "unknown".  

So, this approach is comparative in nature.   If we can understand something widely expressed and discussed in human experience....that links fear and the unknown?   Then we may be able to discern similar aspects of experiences of "leadership".   Do leaders lead (consciously or unconsciously) by evoking aspects of the unknown?   Do followers also (consciously or unconsciously) respond to dimensions or aspects of this?  

In this way, I think fear of death itself is not that important to us.  But how the discussions of it shed light on experiences of leadership may be instructive.

Hope this makes sense?   In part, it's a mode of exploring a useful "definition" that can be operationalized in your work....but this approach really starts at ground zero and tries to shed any past associations we've had.   Of course, this is parallel to studying anything "cultural" where the web of considerations to be studied is totally open-ended for a long time before one settles on what one can say intelligently (that is:  with limitations) and still have it be useful in a practical and knowledgeable way.