Some of my best friends are evangelicals or fundamentalists and thoroughly compassionate people. Enough said. But Gene's references to both Pope Francis and G.H. Mead strike me as highly relevant to my question, and I will refer my sister to a few quotes from Mead.
Thanks, Peter ________________________________ From: Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2017 3:11:43 PM To: Eugene Halton Cc: Peirce List Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes Gene, Gary R., List: How one actually responds to this or any other Sign (Dynamic Interpretants) will depend on one's peculiar habits of interpretation (Final Interpretants)--feeling, action, and thought--as inculcated by one's upbringing and subsequently cultivated by one's deliberate self-control and self-criticism. Observing one's different responses to analogous Signs, as well as anticipating them in advance as possibilities (Immediate Interpretants), can contribute to the latter process as a form of the "outward clash" that always confronts us, perhaps calling attention to an inconsistency in one's own character. In a sense, it is not so much our initial responses that define us as how we respond to those responses. As a terminological aside, an evangelical Christian is not necessarily a fundamentalist, and a fundamentalist is not necessarily a political and/or religious conservative. Of course, Peirce would almost certainly oppose fundamentalism of any stripe, including both the dogmatic and relativist varieties. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.LinkedIn.com_in_JonAlanSchmidt&d=DwMFaQ&c=lqHimbpwJeF7VTDNof4ddl8H-RbXeAdbMI2MFE1TXqA&r=FDb_MiuBhz-kalFUhg0uAyMl7SzpVFxovBRZ5FwNBJY&m=aN7jp6iApO3C_w2v5WmgkcfFo_ThmgiB4LsM7iW41uI&s=nCPO-Ac96siInpxbxnaqE1HFu13jkQKMXgtEphNugkE&e=> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__twitter.com_JonAlanSchmidt&d=DwMFaQ&c=lqHimbpwJeF7VTDNof4ddl8H-RbXeAdbMI2MFE1TXqA&r=FDb_MiuBhz-kalFUhg0uAyMl7SzpVFxovBRZ5FwNBJY&m=aN7jp6iApO3C_w2v5WmgkcfFo_ThmgiB4LsM7iW41uI&s=oYb5Y2wN2EpfBbGyT7PRKTQ_1b0_SYlRIAwqz8N4g9Q&e=> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Eugene Halton <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Yes, Gary, perhaps I did not state it clearly enough. Without the capacity to be the other at the same time as oneself, key to Mead's definition of the significant symbol and to empathy, nothing will be imparted. With that capacity, the scene can impart something new to the witness, an identification of the family of Jesus as refugees with contemporary refugees today. One can experience "the other" as oneself, feel what that situation is, and presumably, have compassion for it. And yes, Gary, evangelical Christian fundamentalists in the US, such as the 80% of those in Alabama who voted for an accused child molester recently, disregarding the accusations and even often denigrating the accusers because he represents their political ideology, like all fundamentalists perhaps, have retreated into a bubble wherein the other is not simply denied, but attacked. Here callousedness replaces empathy, and "the other" is scapegoated. Mead's "ability to be the other at same time that he is himself" is reversed: the ability to not be the other at the same time that he is himself becomes the recipe for the loss of the capacity for self-criticism. Gene H On Dec 28, 2017 1:06 PM, "Gary Richmond" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Eugene, Peter, list, I very much like your analysis, Gene. You wrote: The implication here is that the experience of the nativity scene, with refugees representing today as echoing Jesus as a refugee, imparts in the witness an ability to empathize with "the other." However, I think that rather than 'imparting' "an ability to empathize with 'the other' " (although it may do that in some, perhaps few, individuals) that one needs already to possess that 'ability' to appreciate the analogy and respond to it. In the USA at least it would appear that many Christians, esp. of the evangelical fundamentalist stripe, have lost it (or at least suppress it). Best, Gary R [Gary Richmond] Gary Richmond Philosophy and Critical Thinking Communication Studies LaGuardia College of the City University of New York 718 482-5690<tel:%28718%29%20482-5690> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Eugene Halton <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Dear Peter, Peirce described the way in which symbols can grow over time. And clearly one of the meanings of the symbol of the nativity is the family. Feuerbach called attention to how the holy family symbol is a representation of the earthly family. Marx took it further by claiming that the holy family symbol of the earthly family is also a projection of the bourgeois family in his time. A year ago Pope Francis adapted the symbol to the refugee situation by including a Maltese fishing boat in the nativity scene at the Vatican, a reference to refugees arriving by boat. Perhaps George Herbert Mead can have more to say on this than Peirce, in Mead's description of what he termed "the significant symbol." In Mead's significant symbol the other is included reflectively in the meaning of the symbol: "it is through the ability to be the other at same time that he is himself that the symbol becomes significant." (From "A Behavioristic Account of the Significant Symbol"). The implication here is that the experience of the nativity scene, with refugees representing today as echoing Jesus as a refugee, imparts in the witness an ability to empathize with "the other." Gene H On Dec 28, 2017 9:34 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 .
