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