Re: Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes

[Wendy Wheeler]

Dear Helmut (and list),

I’ve come to this discussion both late and rather incompletely. I haven’t read 
every contribution closely. Can I point out, though, and in case nobody else 
has, that the Holy Family were not refugees. They were travelling to Joseph’s 
birthplace in obedience to the requirements of the Roman census. They returned 
home afterwards. The Trondheim Nativity scene under discussion here thus looks 
like an iconic sign used to mislead.

Best wishes,

Wendy Wheeler

Sent from my iPhone

> On 30 Dec 2017, at 16:53, Helmut Raulien  wrote:
> 
> Edwina,
> Maybe Ben should better have written "One result is that the refugee culture 
> is now a continuing source of divinity", instead of "the", but in any case 
> she did not say that it is the only source, which would, according to 
> conquerer´s logic, give the conquerer the right to conquer. A logic of which 
> I donot think, that it is Ben´s logic too. So perhaps you did read too much 
> into something?
> And what about me reading the argument "Christians should care about 
> refugees, because the holy family were refugees too" into the said piece of 
> art? Do you thing that too would be an overinterpretation?
> Best,
> Helmut
>  
> 30. Dezember 2017 um 17:20 Uhr
> "Edwina Taborsky" 
>  
> Ben, list:
> 
> Ben - you wrote:
> 
> 
>  "The Trondheim Nativity scene may be seen as an attempt to drain the symbol 
> of the Holy Family from its original, culturally specific reference to a 
> unique event, by appropriating its meaning to the generalized situation of 
> all refugees--particularly millions of refugees today. Thus it drastically 
> changes the symbol from one of specific meaning and cultural relevance, 
> particularly its unique religious importance, to something general and 
> political in nature. One result is that the refugee culture is now the 
> continuing source of divinity, rather than a singular event in history. One 
> culture appropriating the symbol of the Holy Family for itself, disconnected 
> to either its original meaning or its original cultural message to a 
> different culture"
> 
> The above outline seems to me to be an action of open rejection of the values 
> of the host culture, and inserting the refugee population as the 'divine' or 
> 'to-be-worshipped' culture. Your analogy to conquering cultures destroying 
> the culture of the conquered - suggests that the refugees have conquered 
> Christian Europe. Is that your analysis?
> 
> I think one can read too much into these images...and will stop commenting.
> 
> Edwina
> 
> 
>  
> 
> On Sat 30/12/17 10:56 AM , Ben Novak trevriz...@gmail.com sent:
> 
> Dear All:
>  
> I had really hoped that Peirce scholars might help in analyzing this simple 
> example, for it is an example of a far larger set of issues.
>  
> First, why is it, of all the nativity scenes created around the world, that 
> this one has received so much attention? 
>  
> I am particularly interested because I was involved for several years with 
> the Austrian Society for the Protection of Cultural Property, and the United 
> Nations Treaty for the Protection of Cultural Property, and attended several 
> conferences in Vienna on the subject. One observation: in any conflict, the 
> destruction of the cultural property of the other side seems to be a major 
> objective in most wars, as a means of demoralizing the enemy. As a result, in 
> addition to the human casualties, the destruction of cultural property is 
> also often a major casualty.
>  
> Part of any war, whether violently fought, or otherwise, is war on the 
> opponent's culture. This may take the form of outright destruction or 
> cultural appropriation, among other means of conflict. We've seen this in the 
> removal of  American Indian names from sports teams, the removal of 
> Confederate monuments, etc. 
>  
> The Trondheim Nativity scene may be an instance of this latter kind of 
> cultural war, which is at a very high level in Europe right now due to the 
> influx of refugees from a very different culture, especially in Scandinavian 
> countries. In this context, the Nativity scene with immigrant figures conveys 
> many messages. Many on the list noted the message of sympathy for the plight 
> of refugees in general. If that were the only message symbolized, I doubt 
> that it would have received so much international coverage. 
>  
> Rather, another message may be that of cultural appropriation. The Holy 
> Family is first of all a symbol of the birth of the Christian Son of God. One 
> message may be that it is the refugees that now symbolize the birth of God, 
> rather than the original Holy Family. In other words, a Nativity scene is 
> meant to symbolize a unique and discrete event in history, which is 
> culturally important. The Trondheim Nativity scene may be seen as an attempt 
> to drain the symbol of the Holy Family from its original, culturally specific 
> reference to a unique event, 

Re: Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

Helmut, list

I can't completely reply to your questions - after all, it was Ben
who brought up the notion of the conquering population that destroys
the host's culture.

As for your second point [Christians..refugees]..of course that is
an obvious interpretation of the refugee-nativity - My point is only
that you don't need an extensive Peircean semiosic analysis to
explain that to anyone.

Edwina
 On Sat 30/12/17 11:53 AM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
  Edwina, Maybe Ben should better have written "One result is that
the refugee culture is now a continuing source of divinity", instead
of "the", but in any case she did not say that it is the only source,
which would, according to conquerer´s logic, give the conquerer the
right to conquer. A logic of which I donot think, that it is Ben´s
logic too. So perhaps you did read too much into something? And what
about me reading the argument "Christians should care about refugees,
because the holy family were refugees too" into the said piece of art?
Do you thing that too would be an overinterpretation? Best, Helmut   
30. Dezember 2017 um 17:20 Uhr
 "Edwina Taborsky" 
  Ben, list: 

Ben - you wrote: 
  "The Trondheim Nativity scene may be seen as an attempt to drain
the symbol of the Holy Family from its original, culturally specific
reference to a unique event, by appropriating its meaning to the
generalized situation of all refugees--particularly millions of
refugees today. Thus it drastically changes the symbol from one of
specific meaning and cultural relevance, particularly its unique
religious importance, to something general and political in nature.
One result is that the refugee culture is now the continuing source
of divinity, rather than a singular event in history. One culture
appropriating the symbol of the Holy Family for itself, disconnected
to either its original meaning or its original cultural message to a
different culture" 

The above outline seems to me to be an action of open rejection of
the values of the host culture, and inserting the refugee population
as the 'divine' or 'to-be-worshipped' culture. Your analogy to
conquering cultures destroying the culture of the conquered -
suggests that the refugees have conquered Christian Europe. Is that
your analysis? 

I think one can read too much into these images...and will stop
commenting. 

Edwina 
 On Sat 30/12/17 10:56 AM , Ben Novak trevriz...@gmail.com sent: 
Dear All:   I had really hoped that Peirce scholars might help in
analyzing this simple example, for it is an example of a far larger
set of issues.   First, why is it, of all the nativity scenes created
around the world, that this one has received so much attention?I
am particularly interested because I was involved for several years
with the Austrian Society for the Protection of Cultural Property,
and the United Nations Treaty for the Protection of Cultural
Property, and attended several conferences in Vienna on the subject.
One observation: in any conflict, the destruction of the cultural
property of the other side seems to be a major objective in most
wars, as a means of demoralizing the enemy. As a result, in addition
to the human casualties, the destruction of cultural property is also
often a major casualty.   Part of any war, whether violently fought,
or otherwise, is war on the opponent's culture. This may take the
form of outright destruction or cultural appropriation, among other
means of conflict. We've seen this in the removal of  American Indian
names from sports teams, the removal of Confederate monuments, etc.   
The Trondheim Nativity scene may be an instance of this latter kind of
cultural war, which is at a very high level in Europe right now due to
the influx of refugees from a very different culture, especially in
Scandinavian countries. In this context, the Nativity scene with
immigrant figures conveys many messages. Many on the list noted the
message of sympathy for the plight of refugees in general. If that
were the only message symbolized, I doubt that it would have received
so much international coverage.Rather, another message may be that
of cultural appropriation. The Holy Family is first of all a symbol of
the birth of the Christian Son of God. One message may be that it is
the refugees that now symbolize the birth of God, rather than the
original Holy Family. In other words, a Nativity scene is meant to
symbolize a unique and discrete event in history, which is culturally
important. The Trondheim Nativity scene may be seen as an attempt to
drain the symbol of the Holy Family from its original, culturally
specific reference to a unique event, by appropriating its meaning to
the generalized situation of all refugees--particularly millions of
refugees today. Thus it drastically changes the symbol from one of
specific meaning and cultural relevance, particularly its unique
religious importance, to something 

Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes

[Helmut Raulien]

Edwina,

Maybe Ben should better have written "One result is that the refugee culture is now a continuing source of divinity", instead of "the", but in any case she did not say that it is the only source, which would, according to conquerer´s logic, give the conquerer the right to conquer. A logic of which I donot think, that it is Ben´s logic too. So perhaps you did read too much into something?

And what about me reading the argument "Christians should care about refugees, because the holy family were refugees too" into the said piece of art? Do you thing that too would be an overinterpretation?

Best,

Helmut

 

30. Dezember 2017 um 17:20 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky" 
 




Ben, list:

Ben - you wrote:


 "The Trondheim Nativity scene may be seen as an attempt to drain the symbol of the Holy Family from its original, culturally specific reference to a unique event, by appropriating its meaning to the generalized situation of all refugees--particularly millions of refugees today. Thus it drastically changes the symbol from one of specific meaning and cultural relevance, particularly its unique religious importance, to something general and political in nature. One result is that the refugee culture is now the continuing source of divinity, rather than a singular event in history. One culture appropriating the symbol of the Holy Family for itself, disconnected to either its original meaning or its original cultural message to a different culture"

The above outline seems to me to be an action of open rejection of the values of the host culture, and inserting the refugee population as the 'divine' or 'to-be-worshipped' culture. Your analogy to conquering cultures destroying the culture of the conquered - suggests that the refugees have conquered Christian Europe. Is that your analysis?

I think one can read too much into these images...and will stop commenting.

Edwina


 

On Sat 30/12/17 10:56 AM , Ben Novak trevriz...@gmail.com sent:


Dear All:
 

I had really hoped that Peirce scholars might help in analyzing this simple example, for it is an example of a far larger set of issues.

 

First, why is it, of all the nativity scenes created around the world, that this one has received so much attention? 

 

I am particularly interested because I was involved for several years with the Austrian Society for the Protection of Cultural Property, and the United Nations Treaty for the Protection of Cultural Property, and attended several conferences in Vienna on the subject. One observation: in any conflict, the destruction of the cultural property of the other side seems to be a major objective in most wars, as a means of demoralizing the enemy. As a result, in addition to the human casualties, the destruction of cultural property is also often a major casualty.

 

Part of any war, whether violently fought, or otherwise, is war on the opponent's culture. This may take the form of outright destruction or cultural appropriation, among other means of conflict. We've seen this in the removal of  American Indian names from sports teams, the removal of Confederate monuments, etc. 

 

The Trondheim Nativity scene may be an instance of this latter kind of cultural war, which is at a very high level in Europe right now due to the influx of refugees from a very different culture, especially in Scandinavian countries. In this context, the Nativity scene with immigrant figures conveys many messages. Many on the list noted the message of sympathy for the plight of refugees in general. If that were the only message symbolized, I doubt that it would have received so much international coverage. 

 

Rather, another message may be that of cultural appropriation. The Holy Family is first of all a symbol of the birth of the Christian Son of God. One message may be that it is the refugees that now symbolize the birth of God, rather than the original Holy Family. In other words, a Nativity scene is meant to symbolize a unique and discrete event in history, which is culturally important. The Trondheim Nativity scene may be seen as an attempt to drain the symbol of the Holy Family from its original, culturally specific reference to a unique event, by appropriating its meaning to the generalized situation of all refugees--particularly millions of refugees today. Thus it drastically changes the symbol from one of specific meaning and cultural relevance, particularly its unique religious importance, to something general and political in nature. One result is that the refugee culture is now the continuing source of divinity, rather than a singular event in history. One culture appropriating the symbol of the Holy Family for itself, disconnected to either its original meaning or its original cultural message to a different culture

 

It seems to me that Claudio Guerri's chart offers a lot of tools to understand this issue of a conflict in the employment of symbols and messages. In this example, the Form, Existence, 

Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes

[Helmut Raulien]

Edwina, Peter, List,

I think, the sign is very suggestive, so it might seem, that there is not much space for interpretation left: Sign and interpretant on first glance seem to not differ much, merge to the Saussurian signifier. But on the other hand, seen from the Peircean semiotics: If the picture is the sign, and compassion/empathy the object, and all those interesting aspects that you all wrote about in this thread belong to the interpretant, which is much more than the sign. I think, this is so, because the dynamical object compassion/empathy includes so very much, e.g. all examples of it not having been applied at the proper time and situation.


What I dont know at all is: Are these aspects transported by the picture, so belong to the immediate object, or are they other signs, coming from the interpreter´s knowledge? Do connotations belong to the sign/immediate object? Do we have to ask the artist about his/her intentions, or is the sign only due to the interpreter?

Best,

Helmut


28. Dezember 2017 um 21:50 Uhr
 "Edwina Taborsky" 
wrote:


Peter, list

 

Semiotic  analysis of the analogy' would also include the societal effect as the Interpretant. My point is that using Peircean semiotics to simply relate two sets [the Holy Family refugee and the war-refugee family] is a rather tortuous method of simply relating, by analogy, these two sets. Why bother?

 

First - you define and describe your two sets. Then, you outline the 'feeling of compassion' developed by the first set - and explain how, by analogy, this same feeling is suggested as a valid response to the second set. That's it. No Peircean semiotics. You could use Saussure..to explain how the Signifier of the model of the Holy Family as correlated to the model of the Refugee Family ...leads to a Signified of compassion/empathy in both.

 

 

Edwina

 

On Thu 28/12/17 8:34 PM , "Skagestad, Peter" peter_skages...@uml.edu sent:




Edwina, list,

 

Of course I only had a question - no particular answer in mind. On reflection, though, I suspect semiotics would pertain, not to the analysis of this analogy, but rather to the social uses to which the analogy is put. And that use, it seems fairly clear, is the evocation of empathy.

 

Peter



From: Edwina Taborsky
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2017 3:19:17 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca; Jerry LR Chandler
Cc: Peirce List; Skagestad, Peter
Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes

 



Jerry: I am quite aware of your post and don't need to re-read it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "your response with its conjectures that give a hint as to the identity your character' means - but it sounds rather insulting and out of line on this thread.

There is no room for compassion in semiotics. Just as there is no room for hatred, anger, lust and so on.. in semiotics.

Semiotics is a logical process of reality and existence. There may definitely be, within this semiotic action, the feeling of compassion or the feeling of anger - but that is part of the semiosic triad, where, for example: An _expression_ of emotion...is mediated by knowledge...to be interpreted as a feeling of compassion. But the logical triad does not operate by compassion but by reason.

Again - that was not the original question - which was whether semiotics could be used to compare war-refugees with the Holy Family as refugee. The emotion of compassion was not in the question.

Edwina

 

On Thu 28/12/17 2:54 PM , Jerry LR Chandler jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com sent:

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  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 jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com 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