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

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes

2017-12-31 Thread Jerry Rhee

Dear list,



Here are selected passages from Moss that pertains to our current
conversation on virtuous interpretation and action.  Of late, I have begun
to stop using quotation marks because Google and *up to us* to find out.

_



Aristotle clearly takes himself to be in broad agreement with Plato in
identifying *logos* as what transforms a quasi- or proto-virtuous state
into genuine virtue.



Parallels between phronêsis and two other intellectual excellences in
Aristotle’s system:  technê (craft) and epistêmê (science).  The *EN*
characterizes all three as being “with logos,”..



..what transforms Platonic quasi-virtue into full virtue, and what
transforms both Platonic and Aristotelian inferior epistemic states like
experience into technê, epistêmê, or other forms of wisdom, is not a rule,
proportion, ratio, or form, nor is it Reason itself;   instead, it is a
particular kind of deliverance of Reason.



It is an *explanatory account* – an account of the *aitia*, cause or
explanation, that

underlies the facts available to the proto-virtuous, or to the layman.



*[Flattery] isn’t craft, but mere experience, because it has no logos of
the nature of whatever things it applies [or to what] it applies them, so
that it’s unable to state (eipein) the cause (aitia) of each thing.  And I
refuse to call anything without a logos (alogon) craft. (Gorg. 465a)*



*quid sit*..


Nothing is complete (*teleion*) which has no end (*telos*); and the end is
a limit.



Best wishes,
Jerry R

On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Jerry Rhee  wrote:

> Dear list,
>
>
>
> Why Luke and not Matthew?.. Why not John?
>
>
>
> *"In the beginning was the **λόγος**". *
>
> *This is the very word used by the emperor: *
>
> *God acts, **συ**̀**ν* *λόγω**, with logos.*
>
>
>
> *I don't call a thing without logos** [**alogon**], a techne.*
>
>
>
> *quid sit deus*.. what would God be?
>
>
> *Blessed be the Lord God of Israel.. *
>
> *as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old..*
>
>
>
> Best for the New Year,
>
> Jerry R
>
> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Wendy Wheeler 
> wrote:
>
>> It’s okay, Helmut.
>>
>> Happy New Year everyone.
>>
>> Wendy
>>
>>
>> On 31 Dec 2017, at 18:23, Helmut Raulien  wrote:
>>
>> 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,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes

2017-12-31 Thread Jerry Rhee

Dear list,



Why Luke and not Matthew?.. Why not John?



*"In the beginning was the **λόγος**". *

*This is the very word used by the emperor: *

*God acts, **συ**̀**ν* *λόγω**, with logos.*



*I don't call a thing without logos** [**alogon**], a techne.*



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


*Blessed be the Lord God of Israel.. *

*as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old..*



Best for the New Year,

Jerry R

On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Wendy Wheeler 
wrote:

> It’s okay, Helmut.
>
> Happy New Year everyone.
>
> Wendy
>
>
> On 31 Dec 2017, at 18:23, Helmut Raulien  wrote:
>
> 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

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes

2017-12-31 Thread Wendy Wheeler

It’s okay, Helmut.

Happy New Year everyone.

Wendy


> On 31 Dec 2017, at 18:23, Helmut Raulien  wrote:
> 
> 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 .
> 
> 
> 
> 


-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click

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

ss of the making and whether those decisions improved the effectiveness of the goals aimed at. After all the history of the visual arts can be looked at as explorations of the communicative and expressive possibilities of signs. 
	A Peircean semiotic analysis is only (semi) formal. It may structure a cultural exegesis by organizing the topics dealt with, but it must not be confused with it for other interests than when looking for changes in sign use or communication habits. In this respect its role is similar to the role of logic or grammar.


 

My best wishes for 2018 to all,

 

Auke an Breemen

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Van: Gary Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com]
Verzonden: zaterdag 30 december 2017 0:32
Aan: Peirce-L 


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


 



 



Peter, Ben, Claudio, Edwina, Auke, list,



 



I would tend to agree with you, Peter, that Peircean semiotics may not have too much to offer in the analysis of the Nativity scene example; or, perhaps better, that what it might have to offer is probably not potentially as valuable as other kinds of analyses.



 



I would also tend to agree with you that it is probably desirable to end at least the Peirce-L discussion of this example while, of course, folk are always free to take the discussion off-list.



 



Finally, thank you for providing the image of the Trondheim nativity scene.



 



May we all have a healthy and productive 2018. Here's one of my favorite New Year's quotes.



 




And now we welcome the new year. Full of things that have never been. 



Rainer Maria Rilke



 




Best,



 



Gary R



 




 












 



Gary Richmond



Philosophy and Critical Thinking



Communication Studies



LaGuardia College of the City University of New York



718 482-5690








 


On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Skagestad, Peter <peter_skages...@uml.edu> wrote:




List,

 

I appreciate Ben's _expression_ of sympathy, but I tend to agree with those who have opined that there is just not much to be said, from a Peircean point of view, about this analogy.

 

I am not sure of the wisdom of continuing this thread any further, but a couple of listers have  requested an image of the Trondheim Nativity scene, so here it is, attached.

 

Best,

Peter






From: Ben Novak <trevriz...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 5:13:43 PM
To: Jerry Rhee
Cc: Auke van Breemen; Peirce-L
Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes


 







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 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 Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> 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 <a.bree...@chello.nl> wrote:








Peter,

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

2017-12-31 Thread Edwina Taborsky

lds
have made amply clear, biological organisms, being most certainly
"capable of learning," then work in those fields (including complex
adaptive systems as well as such fields as social systems research,
etc.) might all contribute to this great goal of improving
communication, perhaps contributing to (dare I say?) what Peirce
called the last 'field' where evolution is still active, namely  the
evolution of consciousness.
 Ah, well, no doubt an all too ambitious goal (most certainly for
this list to take up alone!), but in no way a utopian one, at least
not in my view. In any event, and towards the new year, to paraphrase
Robert Browning, our human reach should exceed our grasp.
 Best, 
 Gary R
 Gary RichmondPhilosophy and Critical Thinking Communication
StudiesLaGuardia College of the City University of New York718
482-5690
 On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard  wrote:
Peter, Gary R., List, 
What might a semiotic theory contribute that goes beyond a
contemporary literary analysis? Not having 20 pages to dig into
details, here are some ideas that jump to the fore when I reflect on
Peirce's account  of signs and how they grow--focusing first on
points from the speculative grammar and then moving towards the
methodeutic. 
Consider what is involved in the interpretation of three different
kinds of signs that are expressed in the nativity scene: 
1.  iconic signs--including the various qualisigns-- and their
attendant feelings and emotions.  
2. indexical signs--including the dicisigns one might express--and
the challenges different interpreters face in trying to ensure that
they are talking about the same sorts of objects when they  refer,
for instance, to the individual figures in the scene. 
3.  symbolic legisigns--including the manifold arguments that the
nativity scene might be taken to express by the creators or by those
viewing the scene--raises issues about what is needed for different 
interpreters to evaluate those arguments as good or bad. 
One point a Peircean semiotic theory might contribute to an
intellectual discussion of nativity scenes is a clearer and richer
account of what is necessary for the various kinds of signs to be
communicated  in a meaningful way. Many of those who are working in
literary criticism and art criticism today hold assumptions that are
outright skeptical of our ability to understand one another. 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. 
--Jeff 
Jeffrey Downard
 Associate Professor
 Department of Philosophy
 Northern Arizona University
 (o) 928 523-8354 [2]
-
 From: Skagestad, Peter 
 Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2017 6:12:01 PM
 To: Peirce-L; Gary Richmond
 Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes  
Gary, list, 
Yes, I also thought the aspect of Peirce’s semiotics that might be
helpful was precisely his methodeutic or rhetoric -  corresponding, I
believe, to what today, following Charles Morris, is generally
referred to as pragmatics. And that was indeed the drift of Eugene
Halton’s suggestions, in particular. However much it might help my
sister – somewhat, I think – I think  it has been a valuable
discussion, with a number of interesting viewpoints represented. I
certainly have not found the discussion disappointing, and I want to
thank all who have contributed. 
Best, 

Peter
-
 From: Gary Richmond 
 Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2017 5:49:25 PM
 To: Peirce-L
 Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes  List, 
  Well, whether or not much of this discussion has been very helpful
to Peter's sister, there has certainly been considerable interest in
continuing it. While beyond the topic at hand, I think a
meta-analysis of the discussion  might prove valuable on other levels
than the semiotic one of the nativity scene (of which more a little
later).  
  But even at the semiotic level it is perhaps helpful to recall that
for Peirce semeiotics is a much broader study than theoretical grammar
and critical logic (the later being what we normally think of as
logic, "logic as  logic" in Peirce's phrase). It is completed by a
third branch: 
   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). 
   An important facet of Peirce's rhetoric is, of course, his
pragmatism involving, among other things, a theory of learning.
Perhaps had Peter stated his question in terms of what Peirce'

RE: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes

2017-12-31 Thread Auke van Breemen

Gary, list,

 

I agree with your general remarks on speculative grammar. However I remain 
unsure about the coverage you assign to it. So, some words on my view on it. If 
you include the wild cultural speculations that passed this list in the 
nativity example I disagree. Those belong sooner to the special sciences (the 
psychical). Semiotics is more formal, its role is akin to the role of logic.

 

Lets start with Hegels erroneous (in our present day eyes) definition of logic: 
it studies the idea in the formal element of thought. In Peirces work the 
formal element is the subject of logic. For the study of the idea (sign would 
have been better) in the formal element Peirce coined semiotics. Some 
interesting parallels may be drawn between logic and semiotic. 

 

Speculative grammar – propositional logic (sub species eternitate, solipsistic)

Critic -   quantification (and modality?) are added. (the idea of worldly 
affairs added)

Speculative Rhetoric – (modality?) approaches like the socratic dialogue, 
medieval obligations, Hintikka’s game theoretical semantics, EG (interaction 
between graphist and interpreter added)

 

I am unsure about the place of modality, but maybe it just boils down to a 
firstness and secondness view on the issue. 

 

Anyhow, if the above makes any sense, then it would follow that Speculative 
Rhetoric would consist in a branch of study that provides a semi-formal study 
of the interaction between two man signs, mediated by all kind of signs, (man 
regarded as a dynamical argument in which all sign aspects are involved) that 
if performed long enough would eventually yield a graphical system akin to EG. 

 

1.  We would have to assume that a man sign (A) being in a state receives 
an effect sign x (In a first approximation one of the ten sign types that 
follow from the small classification, later to be extended into the 66 possible 
signs of the Welby classification).  
2.  The processing of x by A must be pictured in steps that follow the 
triadic structure and be cast in terms of the sign aspects. This hold for x, 
but also for A, but here we might want to take the corresponding interpretant 
aspectual names.
3.  Result of the interpretation process is the utterance of a response on 
x, x´. This x´effects man sign B that also is in a certain state, processes x´ 
and responds x” to A. Etc.

 

Note that the immediate object of A (A being a semiotic sheet comparable to the 
EG sheet), will differ from the immediate object of B. 

The dynamical object is reality. It is to be looked at as the common sheet of 
which the individual sheets are part (truth and falsity being present). One 
could look at the individual sheets as being comprised of Sowa’s conceptual 
graphs as they are realized in that individual and could be taken as a mapping 
of all conceptual content that can be drawn upon by the sheet when entering an 
interpretation process. So, that scheme would go into the index position, each 
item typified according to its sign aspectual possibilities.

 

The state being defined by the currently reigning emotional state (a 
firstness), the conceptual content (a secondness) and the goal (a thirdness) 
that rules sheet A or B at the moment it gets effected. 

 

In the content part of the nativity discussion we have seen this process in 
actu, but very unstructured, it is the task of semiotics to provide tools to 
structure this kind of conversation and to ensure that progress is made in an 
orderly fashion and in such a way that the sheet of A and B, for this issue 
merge. That is why semiotics is a normative science.

 

Best wishes,

 

Auke van Breemen

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Van: Gary Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com] 
Verzonden: zondag 31 december 2017 4:02
Aan: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Onderwerp: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes

 

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,

75 matches

Mail list logo