Edwinia:

Please re-read my post.

It simply states two parallel sentences.

Does your response, with its conjectures that give a hint as to the identity 
your character, confirm my suggestion that there is no room for compassion in 
semiotics?  :-)

Best Wishes to All for a New year filled with compassion.

Cheers

Jerry


> On Dec 28, 2017, at 1:00 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Jerry, list - but apart from the perhaps-not-quite-accurate analogy of 
> 'destitute in a foreign land' - don't you consider that it is rationally 
> dangerous to set up an analogy that might imply that the attributes of one 
> set can possibly be fully applied to the second set?
> 
> Human compassion has nothing to do with this attempt at analogous comparison 
> and to me, it doesn't make sense to suggest that To Make Such An Analogy is 
> an Act-of-Compassion. 
> 
> It's a similar false analogy as in the common logical fallacy of:
> 
> All cats are animals
> All dogs are animals
> Therefore, all dogs are cats. 
> 
> 
> Edwina
> 
>  
> 
> On Thu 28/12/17 1:47 PM , Jerry LR Chandler [email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]> sent:
> Peter, List:
> 
> Is it possible that what is missing from this philosophical discussion is 
> simple human compassion?
> 
> The Holy Family were destitute in a foreign land.
> 
> in parallel sentence structure for the image (icon) without regard to the 
> facts not stated of the two images,
> 
> The refuges are destitute in a foreign land.
> 
> Of course, the concept human compassion is seldom an acceptable argument in 
> semeiotics, or is it?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Jerry
> 
>> On Dec 28, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Skagestad, Peter < <>[email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> 
>> Listers,
>> 
>> I have a somewhat unusual question. My sister is writing an Art History 
>> thesis on nativity scenes and their contemporary relevance. An example is 
>> one at a street mission in Trondheim, Norway, depicting the Holy Family as 
>> present-day refugees from the Middle East. Now the question is what, if 
>> anything, might semiotics have to say about such depiction? The answer may 
>> be obvious, but it escapes me, at least for the moment. Any suggestions?
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Peter
>> 
>> -----------------------------
>> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
>> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to 
>> [email protected] <> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L 
>> but to [email protected] <> with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the 
>> BODY of the message. More at  
>> <http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm>http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
>>  <http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm> .

-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .




Reply via email to