Dear list,
The disparity between what something is and how an opinion or opinions about it show up in someone of a particular character is always the engine of any Platonic argument.. All deliberative mediation, or thinking, takes the form of a dialogue. The person divides himself into two parties which endeavor to persuade each other. From this and sundry other strong reasons, it appears that all cognitive thought is of the nature of a sign or communication from an uttering mind to an interpreting mind.. ..These logicians and philosophers did not take the ‘as if’ character of there being persons, or corresponding theoretical entities, in any way helpful in logic. The reason for this is not altogether clear.. one two three sophist statesman philosopher artist lawgiver philosopher Hth, Jerry R On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> 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 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 > > > [image: Blocked image] > > Gary Richmond > Philosophy and Critical Thinking > Communication Studies > LaGuardia College of the City University of New York > 718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690> > > On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Eugene Halton <eugene.w.halto...@nd.edu> > wrote: > >> Dear Peter, >> Peirce described the way in which symbols can grow over time. And >> clearly one of the meanings of the symbol of the nativity is the family. >> Feuerbach called attention to how the holy family symbol is a >> representation of the earthly family. Marx took it further by claiming that >> the holy family symbol of the earthly family is also a projection of the >> bourgeois family in his time. >> A year ago Pope Francis adapted the symbol to the refugee situation >> by including a Maltese fishing boat in the nativity scene at the Vatican, a >> reference to refugees arriving by boat. >> Perhaps George Herbert Mead can have more to say on this than >> Peirce, in Mead's description of what he termed "the significant symbol." >> In Mead's significant symbol the other is included reflectively in the >> meaning of the symbol: >> "it is through the ability to be the other at same time that he is >> himself that the symbol becomes significant." >> (From "A Behavioristic Account of the Significant Symbol"). >> The implication here is that the experience of the nativity scene, >> with refugees representing today as echoing Jesus as a refugee, imparts in >> the witness an ability to empathize with "the other." >> Gene H >> >> >> On Dec 28, 2017 9:34 AM, "Skagestad, Peter" < peter_skages...@uml.edu> >> 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 >>> <http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm> >>> 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>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 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 .
