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

2017-12-31 Thread Helmut Raulien 

Jon,

Yes, Ive read that too: After the three wise men had left, an angel told Mary and Joseph that Herod wants to kill the child, and they should flee to Egypt, which they did. But the portray was "taken" in the barn, so they were not on their way yet, so technically they were not refugees already, only the next day or so. But maybe to portray them as refugees is justified with the artist´s license to hop over this small time gap? I think, the pope did not make the same mistake like me, but the journalist writing about the pope did. Anyway, Wendy is right by saying they were not refugees when the portray was "taken", and the sign becomes more complicated with this aspect of artist´s license having to be included. Maybe it increases the number of required pages to more than 20?

Happy new year,

Helmut

 

31. Dezember 2017 um 18:32 Uhr
Von: "Jon Alan Schmidt" 
 


Helmut, List:
 

There are two accounts of the Holy Family in the Bible.  Matthew includes the flight to Egypt to escape Herod after the visit of the Magi, which is presumably what the artist who portrayed them as refugees had in mind.  Luke omits that particular episode.

 

FYI, www.biblegateway.com is a handy site for looking up Bible passages, especially since it includes various English versions and numerous other languages.

 

Regards,

 





Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA

Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman

www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt





 

On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:





Uh! Ive looked it up, and apologize. I am embarassed, why did I answer before looking it up? Now I dont see the point in the nativity picture anymore, an agree with Gary not to talk about it anymore. Sorry again, Wendy, happy new year!




Wendy,

but Mary, knowing she was pregnant, could not know whether somebody she had told this might have told it to Herodes´ spies? I dont know, maybe you are right, I just have to trust somebody about this, and please forgive me, I (at the time, hypothetically) rather trust the pope than you. I have not looked the matter up in the bible, though.

Best,

Helmut



30. Dezember 2017 um 21:35 Uhr
Von: "Wendy Wheeler" 


Helmut,
 

The reason they travelled was as I’ve stated - as given in the gospel of Luke. Had they stayed at home, there would have been no slaying of the first born by Herod since the latter, according to Matthew, heard of the birth in Bethlehem from the three wise men who came to witness it.

 

I’m not concerned with the Pope’s comparison.

 

Wendy
 
Sent from my iPhone


On 30 Dec 2017, at 20:09, Helmut Raulien  wrote:





Wendy,

if they had stayed home, they would have had their first born slain. If this does not make them refugees, discuss it with the pope, who also compared them with the contemporary refugees.

Best,

Helmut



30. Dezember 2017 um 20:57 Uhr
Von: "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
























- 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

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

2017-12-31 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt 
Helmut, List:

There are two accounts of the Holy Family in the Bible.  Matthew includes
the flight to Egypt to escape Herod after the visit of the Magi, which is
presumably what the artist who portrayed them as refugees had in mind.
Luke omits that particular episode.

FYI, www.biblegateway.com is a handy site for looking up Bible passages,
especially since it includes various English versions and numerous other
languages.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:
>
> Uh! Ive looked it up, and apologize. I am embarassed, why did I answer
> before looking it up? Now I dont see the point in the nativity picture
> anymore, an agree with Gary not to talk about it anymore. Sorry again,
> Wendy, happy new year!
> Wendy,
> but Mary, knowing she was pregnant, could not know whether somebody she
> had told this might have told it to Herodes´ spies? I dont know, maybe you
> are right, I just have to trust somebody about this, and please forgive me,
> I (at the time, hypothetically) rather trust the pope than you. I have not
> looked the matter up in the bible, though.
> Best,
> Helmut
> 30. Dezember 2017 um 21:35 Uhr
> *Von:* "Wendy Wheeler" 
> Helmut,
>
> The reason they travelled was as I’ve stated - as given in the gospel of
> Luke. Had they stayed at home, there would have been no slaying of the
> first born by Herod since the latter, according to Matthew, heard of the
> birth in Bethlehem from the three wise men who came to witness it.
>
> I’m not concerned with the Pope’s comparison.
>
> Wendy
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 30 Dec 2017, at 20:09, Helmut Raulien  wrote:
>
> Wendy,
> if they had stayed home, they would have had their first born slain. If
> this does not make them refugees, discuss it with the pope, who also
> compared them with the contemporary refugees.
> Best,
> Helmut
> 30. Dezember 2017 um 20:57 Uhr
> *Von:* "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
>
>

-
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

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

2017-12-30 Thread Jerry Rhee 
Gene, list:



Your maxim, which involves quite simply, living through your heart and not
merely in your head, is rather incomplete, won’t you agree?



For the whole problem is whether and/or how to embrace Refugees, who by
definition are not our (local) neighbors, and thus, how can I love where I
cannot trust?



In your mockup, life (Third) and feeling (First) are like spirit, and



*spirit has two parts, and the virtues are divided between them, one set
being those of the rational part, intellectual virtues, whose work is
truth, whether about the nature of a thing or about its mode of production,
while the other set belongs to the part that is irrational but possesses
appetition (for if the spirit is divided into parts, not any and every part
possesses appetition), it therefore follows that the moral character is
vicious or virtuous by reason of pursuing or avoiding certain pleasures and
pains.*



Thus, it does not surprise me that you prefer not to count how many angels
can dance on a semi-idiotic pinhead, for you say who is claiming the direct
observation.



Jokingly yours,
J

On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Eugene Halton 
wrote:

> I prefer not to count how many angels can dance on a semi-idiotic pinhead.
> Instead, here is a direct observation by Peirce, attached, resonant with
> Mead's observation I cited early in the thread, which involves quite simply,
> living through your heart
> and not merely in your head.
>  In good humor and heartfelt wishes for the New Year,
>  Gene
>
> On Dec 30, 2017 4:23 PM, "Auke van Breemen"  wrote:
>
>> Helmut,
>>
>>
>>
>> It is an instance of a legisign.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>
>> Auke
>>
>>
>>
>> *Van:* Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de]
>> *Verzonden:* zaterdag 30 december 2017 20:45
>> *Aan:* a.bree...@chello.nl
>> *CC:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
>> *Onderwerp:* Aw: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes
>>
>>
>>
>> Auke,
>>
>> I see, except, if it is symbolic (convention, as you wrote) mustn´t it be
>> a legisign? I agree that it might be just a dicent, and to make an argument
>> of it would require additional information.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Helmut
>>
>>
>>
>>  30. Dezember 2017 um 20:26 Uhr
>> *Von:* "Auke van Breemen" 
>>
>>
>> Helmut,
>>
>>
>>
>> It is a replica sinsign (of disputable quality to me).
>>
>> It can’t be an icon because you need to know the convention that relates
>> it to its object.
>>
>> I hold it, as it is presented on the list, to be rhematic. Just raises an
>> idea, enabling everybody to go his or her way with the interpretation as
>> the conversation shows. I can’t judge it in its original location and
>> context, where it might appear, but this is just unwarranted speculation,
>> as a dicent and maybe as such as a part of an argument.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>
>> Auke van Breemen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Van:* Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de ]
>> *Verzonden:* zaterdag 30 december 2017 18:49
>> *Aan:* tabor...@primus.ca
>> *CC:* tabor...@primus.ca; Ben Novak ; PEIRCE-L <
>> peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>; Auke van Breemen ;
>> Claudio Guerri 
>> *Onderwerp:* Aw: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes
>>
>>
>>
>> Edwina,
>>
>> I see, and agree. Peirce cannot do much for this example. But how about
>> the other way round? If this picture conveys an argument, can we say that
>> it is one? If so, it must be symbolic and a legisign. I would find it
>> interesting to analyse, in which way a combination of depictions or icons,
>> not containing letters or other elements usually known as symbols, suddenly
>> becomes symbolic and a legisign.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> helmut
>>
>>
>>
>>  30. Dezember 2017 um 18:06 Uhr
>>  "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

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

2017-12-30 Thread Jerry Rhee 
Dear list:



*Matthew:*

“Rise, take the child and his mother, and *flee to Egypt*, and remain there
until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy
him.”



“Rise, take the child and his mother and *go to the land of Israel*, for
those who sought the child’s life are dead.”



*Luke:*

In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world
should be registered.. And all went to be registered, each to his own town.



..And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth.

And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths
and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.



*Yes and No, First and Second, Matthew and Luke, Holy Family is or is not
Refugees*



The surprising fact, Holy Family of Nazareth icon of all families, is
observed;

But *if what evangelist Matthew narrates were true*,..

But *if what Luke narrates were true*,..



That of first is so tender that you cannot touch it without spoiling it;

but that of second is eminently hard and tangible..

But at last they are found inadequate, and the Third is the conception
which is then called for. The Third is that which bridges over the chasm
between the absolute first and last, and brings them into relationship.



*Third*



Luke:  And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in
her womb.  And Elizabeth was *filled with the Holy Spirit*, and she
exclaimed with a loud cry, “*Blessed are you among women*, and blessed is
the *fruit of your womb*!



Everything in woman is a riddle, and everything in woman hath one solution
— it is called pregnancy. Man is for woman a means: the *purpose is always
the child*.  But what is woman for man?



.. “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his
people and has raised up a horn of salvation for us.. as he spoke by the
mouth of his holy prophets from of old, that we should be saved from our
enemies and from the hand of all who hate us; to *show the mercy promised
to our fathers and to remember his holy covenant*, the oath that he swore
to our father Abraham, to grant us that we, being delivered from the hand
of our enemies, might serve him without fear, in *holiness and
righteousness* before him all our days.



And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will
go before the Lord to prepare his ways, to give knowledge of salvation to
his people in the forgiveness of their sins, because of the tender mercy of
our God, whereby the sunrise shall visit us from on high to give light to
those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to *guide our feet
into the way of peace*.”



*quid sit deus*.. what would God be?



“*This - is now my way: where is yours*?'

Thus I answered those who asked me 'the way'.

For the way - does not exist!” ―



The object of reasoning is to find out, from the consideration of what we
already know, something else which we do not know.



With best wishes,

Jerry R

On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:

> Wendy,
> but Mary, knowing she was pregnant, could not know whether somebody she
> had told this might have told it to Herodes´ spies? I dont know, maybe you
> are right, I just have to trust somebody about this, and please forgive me,
> I (at the time, hypothetically) rather trust the pope than you. I have not
> looked the matter up in the bible, though.
> Best,
> Helmut
>
> 30. Dezember 2017 um 21:35 Uhr
> *Von:* "Wendy Wheeler" 
>
> Helmut,
>
> The reason they travelled was as I’ve stated - as given in the gospel of
> Luke. Had they stayed at home, there would have been no slaying of the
> first born by Herod since the latter, according to Matthew, heard of the
> birth in Bethlehem from the three wise men who came to witness it.
>
> I’m not concerned with the Pope’s comparison.
>
> Wendy
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 30 Dec 2017, at 20:09, Helmut Raulien  wrote:
>
>
> Wendy,
> if they had stayed home, they would have had their first born slain. If
> this does not make them refugees, discuss it with the pope, who also
> compared them with the contemporary refugees.
> Best,
> Helmut
>
> 30. Dezember 2017 um 20:57 Uhr
> *Von:* "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

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

2017-12-30 Thread Auke van Breemen 
Helmut,

 

It is an instance of a legisign.

 

Best,

 

Auke

 

Van: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de] 
Verzonden: zaterdag 30 december 2017 20:45
Aan: a.bree...@chello.nl
CC: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Onderwerp: Aw: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes

 

Auke,

I see, except, if it is symbolic (convention, as you wrote) mustn´t it be a 
legisign? I agree that it might be just a dicent, and to make an argument of it 
would require additional information.

Best,

Helmut

  

 30. Dezember 2017 um 20:26 Uhr
Von: "Auke van Breemen"  >
 

Helmut,

 

It is a replica sinsign (of disputable quality to me).

It can’t be an icon because you need to know the convention that relates it to 
its object. 

I hold it, as it is presented on the list, to be rhematic. Just raises an idea, 
enabling everybody to go his or her way with the interpretation as the 
conversation shows. I can’t judge it in its original location and context, 
where it might appear, but this is just unwarranted speculation, as a dicent 
and maybe as such as a part of an argument. 

 

Best,

 

Auke van Breemen

 

 

 

 

 

 

Van: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de]
Verzonden: zaterdag 30 december 2017 18:49
Aan: tabor...@primus.ca  
CC: tabor...@primus.ca  ; Ben Novak 
 >; PEIRCE-L 
 >; Auke van Breemen 
 >; Claudio Guerri 
 >
Onderwerp: Aw: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes

 

Edwina,

I see, and agree. Peirce cannot do much for this example. But how about the 
other way round? If this picture conveys an argument, can we say that it is 
one? If so, it must be symbolic and a legisign. I would find it interesting to 
analyse, in which way a combination of depictions or icons, not containing 
letters or other elements usually known as symbols, suddenly becomes symbolic 
and a legisign.

Best,

helmut

  

 30. Dezember 2017 um 18:06 Uhr
 "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