Gene, Gary R., List: How one actually responds to this or any other Sign (Dynamic Interpretants) will depend on one's peculiar habits of interpretation (Final Interpretants)--feeling, action, and thought--as inculcated by one's upbringing and subsequently cultivated by one's deliberate self-control and self-criticism. Observing one's different responses to analogous Signs, as well as anticipating them in advance as possibilities (Immediate Interpretants), can contribute to the latter process as a form of the "outward clash" that always confronts us, perhaps calling attention to an inconsistency in one's own character. In a sense, it is not so much our initial responses that define us as how we respond to those responses.
As a terminological aside, an evangelical Christian is not necessarily a fundamentalist, and a fundamentalist is not necessarily a political and/or religious conservative. Of course, Peirce would almost certainly oppose fundamentalism of any stripe, including both the dogmatic and relativist varieties. 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 12:56 PM, Eugene Halton <eugene.w.halto...@nd.edu> wrote: > Yes, Gary, perhaps I did not state it clearly enough. Without the capacity > to be the other at the same time as oneself, key to Mead's definition of > the significant symbol and to empathy, nothing will be imparted. With that > capacity, the scene can impart something new to the witness, an > identification of the family of Jesus as refugees with contemporary > refugees today. One can experience "the other" as oneself, feel what that > situation is, and presumably, have compassion for it. > And yes, Gary, evangelical Christian fundamentalists in the US, such > as the 80% of those in Alabama who voted for an accused child molester > recently, disregarding the accusations and even often denigrating the > accusers because he represents their political ideology, like all > fundamentalists perhaps, have retreated into a bubble wherein the other is > not simply denied, but attacked. Here callousedness replaces empathy, and > "the other" is scapegoated. Mead's "ability to be the other at same time > that he is himself" is reversed: the ability to not be the other at the > same time that he is himself becomes the recipe for the loss of the > capacity for self-criticism. > Gene H > > On Dec 28, 2017 1:06 PM, "Gary Richmond" <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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: Gary Richmond] >> >> *Gary Richmond* >> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >> *Communication Studies* >> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >> *718 482-5690 <%28718%29%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 .
