subject:"Re\: Re\: Re\: \[PEIRCE\-L\] Nativity scenes"

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 .

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

2017-12-31 Thread Helmut Raulien

Wendy,

Best,

Helmut

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

Helmut,

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),

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

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

2017-12-31 Thread Edwina Taborsky

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, List

Thank you - A really excellent letter - Sets us all up for the New
Year.

First - I concur with the caution about Morris, who provided in my
view, a simple mechanical outline of metaphoric signification. Rather
similar to the Saussurian frame where 'this' stands for 'that'.
Nothing at all to do with the Peircean analysis which is, as Gary R
points out, a dynamic perspective about the evolution of
consciousnessor, as I'd prefer...the evolution of Mind [for Mind
is not always 'conscious'.].

I consider that the Sign [capital S] is an irreducible triad and
thus, confining its definition to ONE relation, that between the
Representamen and the Dynamic Object - which can be termed: Iconic;
Indexical; Symbolicmisses the vital other actions of the triad;
namely, that of the Representamen [qualisign, sinsign, legisign] and
the actions between the Representamen and the Interpretant [ rheme,
dicent, argument]. The Peircean Sign cannot be reduced to any of its
so-called 'parts'. 

This triad is the infrastructure of an existential morphology, which
means that one can examine semiosis within the biological and
physico-chemical realm and not simply in the conceptual realm. So, a
cell IS a Sign [capital S] in itself, operating within that triad as
a morphological entity,  interacting with other cells [Signs] - each
as an agential expression of Mind. 

That's where, I think, the pragmaticism of Peirce becomes vital -
for it can show how these morphological entities network with, inform
each other, communicate with each other - and how each affects the
other. We are now acknowledging that plants communicate with other
plants; we acknowledge how each evolves with and adapts to the other.
Mind is not static.The same thing can be seen in the larger
morphologies such as societies, which are huge populations operating
as massive organisms. 

So- even though many on this list are not involved in these areas, I
hope that in the New Year, we can consider some aspects of them.

All the best for the New Year

Edwina Taborsky
 On Sat 30/12/17 10:02 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
sent:
 Peter, Jeff, list,
 Peter, I too found the various viewpoints expressed in this thread
interesting and, taken as a whole, valuable in ways which may go
beyond your initial question. In any case, the discussion certainly
in no way disappointed me either. 
 By the way, Peter, I do not believe that I am alone in suggesting
that Morris' "pragmatics" rather fully distorts Peirce's pragmatism
and has led to considerable misunderstanding as to what Peirce's
views actually were. Continuing, Jeff wrote: 
 JD: Peirce provides the resources needed for understanding how a
contemporary Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, etc. might be
able to engage in fruitful conversation about the nativity scene with
the aim of seeking to better understand their differing experiences
and perspectives on the world. 
 I agree, and would be interested in what other Peircean resources,
along with the ones you just pointed to (or at least hinted at) you
and others might imagine contributing to efforts towards bridging the
communication gap currently prominent not only in religion, art and
literary criticism, but in many other fields as well.  
 One resource which I believe might be productively mined and
developed in consideration of this pursuit of increased intra- and
inter-disciplinary communication is succinctly adumbrated in the
quote in my last post.
 Methodeutic  or philosophical rhetoric . . . studies the principles
that relate signs to each other and to the world: 
 If Peircean philosophical rhetoric (which includes not only
pragmatism, but what some have seen as the basis for a complete
theory of inquiry) can indeed better show how "signs relate to each
other and to the world," it might be the quintessential branch of
logic as semeiotic possibly contributing means for improving
inter-disciplinary communication and communication generally. For as
Peirce continues: 
 "[Philosophical rhetoric's] task is to ascertain the laws by
which in every scientific intelligence one sign gives birth to
another, and especially one thought brings forth another" (CP 2.229).
 
 Peirce explains that by "scientific intelligence" he means "one
capable of learning." Better understanding this branch of semeiotics
having the potential for contributing to "the growth of learning"
through, especially as you wrote, Jeff, "fruitful conversation. . .
with the aim of seeking to better understand. . . differing
experience"  might prove to be invaluable in this pursuit of
improving communication.
 And, again, since Peirce defines a "scientific intelligence" as one
"capable of learning," and since as biosemiotics and related fields
have made amply clear, biological organisms, being most certainly
"capable of learning,"

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 <eugene.w.halto...@nd.edu>
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" <a.bree...@chello.nl> 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" <a.bree...@chello.nl>
>>
>>
>> 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 <h.raul...@gmx.de>]
>> *Verzonden:* zaterdag 30 december 2017 18:49
>> *Aan:* tabor...@primus.ca
>> *CC:* tabor...@primus.ca; Ben Novak <trevriz...@gmail.com>; PEIRCE-L <
>> peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>; Auke van Breemen <a.bree...@chello.nl>;
>> Claudio Guerri <claudiogue...@gmail.com>
>> *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" <tabor...@primus.ca>
>>
>>
>> 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

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" <a.bree...@chello.nl <mailto:a.bree...@chello.nl> >
 

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 <mailto:tabor...@primus.ca> 
CC: tabor...@primus.ca <mailto:tabor...@primus.ca> ; Ben Novak 
<trevriz...@gmail.com <mailto:trevriz...@gmail.com> >; PEIRCE-L 
<peirce-l@list.iupui.edu <mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> >; Auke van Breemen 
<a.bree...@chello.nl <mailto:a.bree...@chello.nl> >; Claudio Guerri 
<claudiogue...@gmail.com <mailto:claudiogue...@gmail.com> >
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" <tabor...@primus.ca <mailto:tabor...@primus.ca> >
 

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 
<mailto: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 
<mailto:trevriz...@gmail.com>  sent:

Dear All: 

 

I had really hoped that P

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

2017-12-30 Thread Helmut Raulien

Wendy,

Best,

Helmut

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

Helmut,

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),

Best wishes,

Wendy Wheeler
Sent from my iPhone

On 30 Dec 2017, at 16:53, Helmut Raulien wrote:

Edwina,

Best,

Helmut

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

Ben, list:

Ben - you wrote:

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?

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

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

2017-12-30 Thread 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 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 
>

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

2017-12-30 Thread 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,

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

2017-12-30 Thread Helmut Raulien

Sorry, you said it is not a dicent, but a rheme. "Refugees"? "Holy"? "Family"? "Syrians"?

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" <a.bree...@chello.nl>

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 <trevriz...@gmail.com>; PEIRCE-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>; Auke van Breemen <a.bree...@chello.nl>; Claudio Guerri <claudiogue...@gmail.com>
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" <tabor...@primus.ca>

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,

Best,

Helmut

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

Ben, list:

Ben - you wrote:

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?

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

2017-12-30 Thread Helmut Raulien

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" <a.bree...@chello.nl>

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.

Best,

Auke van Breemen

Edwina,

Best,

helmut

30. Dezember 2017 um 18:06 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca>

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.

Edwina

On Sat 30/12/17 11:53 AM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:

Edwina,

Best,

Helmut

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

Ben, list:

Ben - you wrote:

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?

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

2017-12-30 Thread Ben Novak

Dear List:

EDWINA: "My point is only that you don't need an extensive Peircean
semiosic analysis to explain that to anyone." I agree with Edwina.

My question, however, is different and arises as follows: Apparently there
is considerable opinion and debate about a certain Nativity scene in
Norway, which is seemingly symbolic and full of messages and signs; and
many different interpretants and interpretations. While, as Edwina says, we
may not need Peircean semiosic analysis to explain it to anyone, the
question is: Can Peirce's analysis help us to understand the terms of
the debate better?

John Sowa writes that Peirce's Methodeutic or philosophical rhetoric .
. . studies
the principles that relate signs to each other and to the world: "Its task
is to ascertain the laws by which in every scientific intelligence one sign
gives birth to another, and especially one thought brings forth another"
(CP 2.229).

So, if Peirce is to help us to  understand the "principles that relate
> signs to each other and to the world,"  and "to ascertain the laws by which
> in every *scientific intelligence* one sign gives birth to another, and
> especially one thought brings forth another" (CP 2.229),

> then the use of a Nativity scene which traditionally had one particular
> meaning and now gives birth to another message, and where obviously we have
> an instance of  "one thought bring(ing) forth another"  it only seems
> logical that those scholars who study Peirce ought to be able to tell us
> of the laws and principles at work in such a way as to deepen our
> understanding of what is happening before our eyes (I mean a worldwide
> debate and Peter's sister writing some part of her dissertation about
> it...)

John Sowa goes on to say in the next sentence regarding the words
"scientific intelligence" (bolded above), that "Peirce meant any intellect
capable of learning from experience, among which he included dogs and
parrots." Now, if Peirce's concepts extend even to dogs and parrots, is it
too much to ask that they also extend to Norwegians?

[These quotes are from the paper that John Sowa linked to at:
http://jfsowa.com/pubs/signproc.pdf ]

Doggone it, if Peirce offered a "Methodeutic or philosophical rhetoric" . .
. (that) studies the principles that relate signs to each other and to the
world, then I simply think that Peter Skagestad and his sister are owed
more than has been offered.

Respectfully submitted,
Ben Novak

*Ben Novak*
5129 Taylor Drive, Ave Maria, FL 34142
Telephone: (814) 808-5702

*"All art is mortal, **not merely the individual artifacts, but the arts
themselves.* *One day the last portrait of Rembrandt* *and the last bar of
Mozart will have ceased to be—**though possibly a colored canvas and a
sheet of notes may remain—**because the last eye and the last ear
accessible to their message **will have gone." *Oswald Spengler

On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:

> 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

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

2017-12-30 Thread 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 <trevriz...@gmail.com>; PEIRCE-L 
<peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>; Auke van Breemen <a.bree...@chello.nl>; Claudio 
Guerri <claudiogue...@gmail.com>
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" <tabor...@primus.ca <mailto:tabor...@primus.ca> >
 

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 
<mailto: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 
<mailto: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 otherwis

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

2017-12-30 Thread Helmut Raulien

Edwina,

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.

Edwina

On Sat 30/12/17 11:53 AM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:

Edwina,

Best,

Helmut

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

Ben, list:

Ben - you wrote:

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?

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.

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

2017-12-30 Thread 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

2017-12-30 Thread Helmut Raulien

Edwina,

Best,

Helmut

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

Ben, list:

Ben - you wrote:

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?

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,

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

2017-12-30 Thread Edwina Taborsky

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}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, and Value of the
signs is pretty unmistakably clear. If Peirce's thought on signs
cannot be brought to bear here, then it would seem to be useless, and
all the scholarly discussion of signs is no more than how many angels
on the head of a pin.   
 Please help me (and Peter's sister) understand the relevance of
Qualisign, Sinsign, and Legisign, and rhea, index, symbol, etc. going
on here.
 Of course, we need not be limited to the Trondheim example; there
may be simpler ones on which to imply the concepts and methodologies.
But, for goodness sake, if the thought of the Founder of
Pragmatism--er,

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

2017-12-29 Thread Edwina Taborsky

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Ben, list

Then, how, Ben, would you have advised Peter?

I agree with you that there is, at least on this list, unfortunately
little discussion relating Peirce's concepts/methods to concrete
examples, but in the biological world and in the artificial
intelligence world - there is a great deal of discussion. It just
seems that most people on this list are focused on pure philosophy
and are not interested in these other areas. 

I personally don't feel that a Peircean analysis would add a thing
to the meaning/function of a Refugee-family imagized as the Holy
Family. To do so, would, as I've been trying to say, move the imagery
into remote intellectual abstraction. That's why I suggested a basic
analogy framework, but, locating the images within the politicial,
societal, economic background of each era/location/setting etc. 

Edwina
 On Fri 29/12/17  5:13 PM , Ben Novak trevriz...@gmail.com sent:
 Dear List:
 I am a long-time follower of the discussions on Peirce List, and am
most grateful for some of the discussions of Peirce's thought, which
makes me continue to read each entry. However, I have long been
wondering why there is so little discussion of relating Peirce's 
concepts and methodologies to concrete examples, or other 20th and
even 21st century thinkers.
 The current discussion of Peter Skagestad's simple, practical
question about a nativity scene in Trondheim, has been disappointing.
All he asked was the relevance of Peirce's semiotics to a presently
existing symbolic representation.  
 The general discussion that has ensued seems to confirm that even
the most frequent and seemingly most expert expositors of Peirce's
thought are stumped by Skagestad's simple example, with seemingly
little to offer in the way of helpful analysis to Skagestad's artist
sister. 
 Poor Peter Skagestad finally had to give up on Peirce, noting that
only  " 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."
 If ever there were an example of scholars unable to descend from
their ivory towers of abstraction to deal with real world examples,
this is a classic. 
 Respectfully submitted,
 Ben Novak 
 Ben Novak5129 Taylor Drive, Ave Maria, FL 34142Telephone: (814)
808-5702
 "All art is mortal, not merely the individual artifacts, but the
arts themselves.  One day the last portrait of Rembrandt and the last
bar of  Mozart will have ceased to be—though possibly a colored
canvas and a  sheet of notes may remain—because the last eye and
the last ear  accessible to their message will have gone." Oswald
Spengler
 On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Jerry Rhee  wrote:
Auke, Peter, list, 
Is not “Holy Family as present-day refugees from the Middle
East” image enough? 

At least surprising enough for Google. 
And ye tell me, friends, that there is to be no dispute about taste
and tasting? 

But all life is a dispute about taste and tasting!  
Taste: that is weight at the same time, and scales and weigher;  

and alas for every living thing that would live without dispute
about weight and scales and weigher!  
Best,
 Jerry R 
 On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Auke van Breemen  wrote:
 Peter,
Did you provide an image of what you described in your original
question?
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?

--
Seems to me to be relevant for a semiotic art history analysis.
Without it, it is just idly speculation on a symbol somehow pointing
to an image that may or may not surprise us semiotically . 
Best,

 Auke van Breemen 
Claudio, list:
I'll continue to disagree.  

The point is - an analogy doesn't conclude that the 'refugees
nativity is 'just an other nativity'. One can certainly discuss the
meaning of Being a Refugee in multiple ways - that don't involve a
triadic Peircean semiotic approach.
I don't agree that symbols/language 'isolate or exclude us from the
world' - They symbolize the world, but, as Peirce pointed out, we can
yet examine the hard truth, the objective non-symbolic reality of the
world - over time.  
I also don't agree that  "The qualities of the world enter into
language after the language has organized its internal relations".
That's smacks of sociolinguistics. I think that the realities of the
world exist - as Peirce said - quite apart from what anyone thinks

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

2017-12-28 Thread 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

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

2017-12-28 Thread Edwina Taborsky

 

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 [2] 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  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
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

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

2017-12-28 Thread Skagestad, Peter

Edwina, list,


The link that would evoke compassion - grounded in empathy - would be 
Feuerbach's insistence, cited by Gene, that the Holy Family symbolizes the 
earthly family, i.e. us.


Peter


From: Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca>
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2017 3:37:58 PM
To: tabor...@primus.ca; Jon Alan Schmidt
Cc: Peirce List
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes


Jon, list:

I consider you are diverting from the issue with your 'well, the question 
didn't use the term analogy'... Here's Peter's comment:

"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?"

That's a clear depiction/description of an analogy - even though it doesn't use 
The Word.  There is no depiction/description of 'compassion'.

Evoking compassion could indeed be a possible immediate Interpretant - IF one 
ALSO has the same emotion when viewing the original nativity scene. There is no 
certainty of such.  Other immediate Interpretants could also emerge because, as 
I said before, the situation is based  within the imagination rather than facts 
- there is no Secondness and no Thirdness.  And that's why I said that 
Saussurian semiology - which is very amenable to open conceptual 
interpretations - would be a better analytic method than Peircean semiotics. 
But -a  simple analogy would function just as well.

Edwina




On Thu 28/12/17 3:23 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:

Edwina, List:

Peter's initial post did not say anything about analogy, either.  The original 
question was about the "contemporary relevance" of nativity scenes.  From a 
Peircean semeiotic perspective, it seems obvious to me that this has to do with 
their Interpretants.  Evoking compassion is certainly one possible (Immediate) 
Interpretant of "depicting the Holy Family as present-day refugees from the 
Middle East."

Regards,

Jon S.

On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Edwina Taborsky 
<tabor...@primus.ca<javascript:top.opencompose('tabor...@primus.ca','','','')>> 
wrote:

Jon, list

Again, as I've said, the issue of compassion was never brought up in the 
question. The question was whether semiotics [which I presume refers to 
Peircean semiotics] was applicable to use in some kind of analytic comparison 
between the Holy Family-refugees and war-displaced refugees. My response was: 
No, Peircean semiotics wouldn't provide a 'reasonable analysis'.

Instead - as I and others said - the comparison was a basic analogy. BUT, my 
point was that one has to be careful when applying the method of analogy, to 
prevent an iconic perspective; i.e., where one considers that SOME common 
attributes of X and Y then become ALL attributes of X become also ALL 
attributes of Y. Such an illogical movement then becomes the fallacy of 
Excluded Middle where one concludes that All dogs are cats.

Again - the introduction of an Observer to these two sets - who feels 
compassion - is an entirely different issue.

Edwina

On Thu 28/12/17 2:49 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt 
jonalanschm...@gmail.com<javascript:top.opencompose('jonalanschm...@gmail.com','','','')>
 sent:

Edwina, List:

But that is not the form of argument in view here at all; it is more like the 
following, as I understand it.

  1.  The members of the Holy Family were destitute in a foreign land.
  2.  I feel compassion for the members of the Holy Family.
  3.  Therefore, I ought to feel compassion for anyone who is destitute in a 
foreign land.
  4.  Modern refugees are destitute in a foreign land.
  5.  Therefore, I ought to feel compassion for modern refugees.

#3 is a normative hypothesis, a plausible generalization, not a deductively 
valid conclusion from #1-2; but once #3 is accepted, #5 is a deductively valid 
conclusion from #3-4.  That is precisely why this is characterized as an 
argument from analogy, which Peirce described as "the inference that a not very 
large collection of objects which agree in various respects may very likely 
agree in another respect.  For instance, the earth and Mars agree in so many 
respects that it seems not unlikely they may agree in being inhabited" (CP 
1.69; c. 1896).  In this case, the Holy Family and modern refugees agree in the 
(iconic?) respect of being destitute in a foreign land, such that it seems not 
unlikely they may agree in the (rhematic?) respect of being proper objects of 
my compassion.

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=DwMFaQ=lqHimbpwJeF7VTDNof4d

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

2017-12-28 Thread Edwina Taborsky

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon, list:

I consider you are diverting from the issue with your 'well, the
question didn't use the term analogy'... Here's Peter's comment:

"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?"

That's a clear depiction/description of an analogy - even though it
doesn't use The Word.  There is no depiction/description of
'compassion'.

Evoking compassion could indeed be a possible immediate Interpretant
- IF one ALSO has the same emotion when viewing the original nativity
scene. There is no certainty of such.  Other immediate Interpretants
could also emerge because, as I said before, the situation is based 
within the imagination rather than facts - there is no Secondness and
no Thirdness.  And that's why I said that Saussurian semiology - which
is very amenable to open conceptual interpretations - would be a
better analytic method than Peircean semiotics. But -a  simple
analogy would function just as well.

Edwina
 On Thu 28/12/17  3:23 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
 Edwina, List:
 Peter's initial post did not say anything about analogy, either. 
The original question was about the "contemporary relevance" of
nativity scenes.  From a Peircean semeiotic perspective, it seems
obvious to me that this has to do with their Interpretants.  Evoking
compassion is certainly one possible (Immediate) Interpretant of
"depicting the Holy Family as present-day refugees from the Middle
East."
  Regards,
 Jon S. 
 On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
Jon, list

Again, as I've said, the issue of compassion was never brought up in
the question. The question was whether semiotics [which I presume
refers to Peircean semiotics] was applicable to use in some kind of
analytic comparison between the Holy Family-refugees and
war-displaced refugees. My response was: No, Peircean semiotics
wouldn't provide a 'reasonable analysis'. 

Instead - as I and others said - the comparison was a basic analogy.
BUT, my point was that one has to be careful when applying the method
of analogy, to prevent an iconic perspective; i.e., where one
considers that SOME common attributes of X and Y then become ALL
attributes of X become also ALL attributes of Y. Such an illogical
movement then becomes the fallacy of Excluded Middle where one
concludes that All dogs are cats.  

Again - the introduction of an Observer to these two sets - who
feels compassion - is an entirely different issue. 

Edwina
 On Thu 28/12/17  2:49 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
[2] sent:
 Edwina, List:
 But that is not the form of argument in view here at all; it is more
like the following, as I understand it.
*The members of the Holy Family were destitute in a foreign land.
*I feel compassion for the members of the Holy Family.
*Therefore, I ought to feel compassion for anyone who is
destitute in a foreign land.
*Modern refugees are destitute in a foreign land.
*Therefore, I ought to feel compassion for modern refugees.
#3 is a normative hypothesis, a plausible generalization, not a
deductively valid conclusion from #1-2; but once #3 is accepted, #5
is a deductively valid conclusion from #3-4.  That is precisely why
this is characterized as an argument from analogy, which Peirce
described as "the inference that a not very large collection of
objects which agree in various respects may very likely agree in
another respect.  For instance, the earth and Mars agree in so many
respects that it seems not unlikely they may agree in being
inhabited" (CP 1.69; c. 1896).  In this case, the Holy Family and
modern refugees agree in the (iconic?) respect of being destitute in
a foreign land, such that it seems not unlikely they may agree in the
(rhematic?) respect of being proper objects of my compassion. 
 Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [3] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [4]  
 On Thu, 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

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

2017-12-28 Thread Edwina Taborsky

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R - I'll continue to disagree. I don't think that Peircean
semiotics can be used to correlate these two types of refugees.

As far as destitution of both sets - that is open to question on
both sets - and I repeat my concern about the correlation of two
sets.  Furthermore one set [the Holy Family] is defined as 'Holy';
are the war refugees also to be defined as 'Holy'? 

And yet again - the question of compassion was never brought up! The
only question asked was whether semiotics could be used as a
constructive method to analyze two Sets  And yet - for some
reason, suddenly the issue of compassion by an observer is inserted
into the discussion - when it has nothing to do with semiotics or the
original question!

Now - if the original question had been based around 'can one feel
compassion' for war-refugees? Can this compassion be similar to the
compassion one feels for the Holy Family? -...well, that's a
different debate. And frankly- I don't think such a comparison is a
very interesting analysis, for all one can answer is: Yes. 

Edwina
 On Thu 28/12/17  2:54 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
sent:
 Edwina, Gene, Peter, Jon S, Jon A, list,
 Edwina wrote:
 Where I would quibble with you, Gary, apart from the fact that such
an analysis has nothing to do with Peircean semiotics - is that one
has to, I think, be careful with analogies. One situation may be
similar to another situation only in part. The danger with an analogy
is that once one has made that first correlation of'
X-is-analogous-to-Y'- then, suddenly, one includes all the other
attributes that belong to ONLY Y. 
 I can't agree with you that such an analysis as Gene's "has nothing
to do with Peircean semiotics." First, as Gene remarked, it was
Peirce's view that "symbols grow," and the symbolic meaning of the
nativity has grown and can grow further--at least in some people's
minds (including mine).The Holy Family was, despite your seemingly
questioning it, if not quite "destitute," at least very poor, and no
doubt even more so having indeed traveled to "a foreign land."  
 And, further, while I might tend to agree with you that "one has to
be careful with analogies," I would hold that Gene's analysis most
certainly has its Peircean semeiotic facets, and moreover, that as
Jon A wrote (unfortunately, in another thread he created for no good
reason that I can see), there is in Peirce a very important "logic of
analogy," one which John Sowa has also done some significant work in.
See for example his "Analogical Reasoning." 
http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/analog.htm [1].
 I see that Jon S has addressed this well, so I'll stop here.
 Best,
 Gary R
 Gary RichmondPhilosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication
StudiesLaGuardia College of the City University of New York718
482-5690 
 On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
Gary R, list -

Where I would quibble with you, Gary, apart from the fact that such
an analysis has nothing to do with Peircean semiotics - is that one
has to, I think, be careful with analogies. One situation may be
similar to another situation only in part. The danger with an analogy
is that once one has made that first correlation of'
X-is-analogous-to-Y'- then, suddenly, one includes all the other
attributes that belong to ONLY Y. 

Edwina
 On Thu 28/12/17  1:05 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com [3]
sent:
 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 RichmondPhilosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication
StudiesLaGuardia College of the City University of New York718
482-5690 [4]
 On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Eugene Halton  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

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

2017-12-28 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt

Edwina, List:

Peter's initial post did not say anything about analogy, either.  The
original question was about the "contemporary relevance" of nativity
scenes.  From a Peircean semeiotic perspective, it seems obvious to me that
this has to do with their Interpretants.  Evoking compassion is certainly
one possible (Immediate) Interpretant of "depicting the Holy Family as
present-day refugees from the Middle East."

Regards,

Jon S.

On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> Jon, list
>
> Again, as I've said, the issue of compassion was never brought up in the
> question. The question was whether semiotics [which I presume refers to
> Peircean semiotics] was applicable to use in some kind of
> analytic comparison between the Holy Family-refugees and war-displaced
> refugees. My response was: No, Peircean semiotics wouldn't provide a
> 'reasonable analysis'.
>
> Instead - as I and others said - the comparison was a basic analogy. BUT,
> my point was that one has to be careful when applying the method of
> analogy, to prevent an iconic perspective; i.e., where one considers
> that SOME common attributes of X and Y then become ALL attributes of X
> become also ALL attributes of Y. Such an illogical movement then becomes
> the fallacy of Excluded Middle where one concludes that All dogs are cats.
>
> Again - the introduction of an Observer to these two sets - who feels
> compassion - is an entirely different issue.
>
> Edwina
>
> On Thu 28/12/17 2:49 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:
>
> Edwina, List:
>
> But that is not the form of argument in view here at all; it is more like
> the following, as I understand it.
>
>1. The members of the Holy Family were destitute in a foreign land.
>2. I feel compassion for the members of the Holy Family.
>3. Therefore, I ought to feel compassion for anyone who is destitute
>in a foreign land.
>4. Modern refugees are destitute in a foreign land.
>5. Therefore, I ought to feel compassion for modern refugees.
>
> #3 is a normative hypothesis, a plausible generalization, not a
> deductively valid conclusion from #1-2; but once #3 is accepted, #5 is a 
> deductively valid
> conclusion from #3-4.  That is precisely why this is characterized as an
> argument from analogy, which Peirce described as "the inference that a
> not very large collection of objects which agree in various respects may
> very likely agree in another respect.  For instance, the earth and Mars
> agree in so many respects that it seems not unlikely they may agree in
> being inhabited" (CP 1.69; c. 1896).  In this case, the Holy Family and
> modern refugees agree in the (iconic?) respect of being destitute in a
> foreign land, such that it seems not unlikely they may agree in the
> (rhematic?) respect of being proper objects of my compassion.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Thu, 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 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 
>> 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

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

2017-12-28 Thread Edwina Taborsky

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Jon, list

Again, as I've said, the issue of compassion was never brought up in
the question. The question was whether semiotics [which I presume
refers to Peircean semiotics] was applicable to use in some kind of
analytic comparison between the Holy Family-refugees and
war-displaced refugees. My response was: No, Peircean semiotics
wouldn't provide a 'reasonable analysis'.

Instead - as I and others said - the comparison was a basic analogy.
BUT, my point was that one has to be careful when applying the method
of analogy, to prevent an iconic perspective; i.e., where one
considers that SOME common attributes of X and Y then become ALL
attributes of X become also ALL attributes of Y. Such an illogical
movement then becomes the fallacy of Excluded Middle where one
concludes that All dogs are cats.

Again - the introduction of an Observer to these two sets - who
feels compassion - is an entirely different issue.

Edwina
On Thu 28/12/17 2:49 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Edwina, List:
But that is not the form of argument in view here at all; it is more
like the following, as I understand it.
*The members of the Holy Family were destitute in a foreign land.
*I feel compassion for the members of the Holy Family.
*Therefore, I ought to feel compassion for anyone who is
destitute in a foreign land.
*Modern refugees are destitute in a foreign land.
*Therefore, I ought to feel compassion for modern refugees.
#3 is a normative hypothesis, a plausible generalization, not a
deductively valid conclusion from #1-2; but once #3 is accepted, #5
is a deductively valid conclusion from #3-4. That is precisely why
this is characterized as an argument from analogy, which Peirce
described as "the inference that a not very large collection of
objects which agree in various respects may very likely agree in
another respect. For instance, the earth and Mars agree in so many
respects that it seems not unlikely they may agree in being
inhabited" (CP 1.69; c. 1896). In this case, the Holy Family and
modern refugees agree in the (iconic?) respect of being destitute in
a foreign land, such that it seems not unlikely they may agree in the
(rhematic?) respect of being proper objects of my compassion.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Thu, 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 [4] 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 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

Links:
--
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')

-
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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

26 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information