Erratum: I wrote, "As I mentioned in an earlier post, to some degree Pettee's views seem to me to parallel Frederik Stjernfelt's in *Natural Propositions: The Actuality of Peirce's Doctrine of Dicisigns* (2014) regarding constraints, both arguing that life works by constraints that connect symbolic and dynamic domains. However, I should note that Pattee critiques Deacon for placing 'interpretation' "too early." See: "Symbol Grounding Precedes Interpretation: Commentary to the target article by Terrence Deacon" (Biosemiotics, 2021)."
I stand by my first comment regarding Stjernfelt's dicisigns as perhaps paralleling Pattee's epistemic cut, but was thinking of Deacon at about the same time (I had spoken with him regarding a related issue at an ICCS conference about a decade ago). Having momentarily lost my intellectual compass, I erroneously pointed to Pattee's remarks concerning Deacon. I haven't yet read "Symbol Grounding Precedes Interpretation: Commentary to the target article by Terrence Deacon." GR On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 7:01 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > List, > > In the past few weeks there have been several references to Howard H. > Pattee's theory of an "epistemic cut" as argued in his essay, "The Physics > of Symbols: Bridging the Epistemic Cut" (2001). > > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12009802_The_physics_of_symbols_Bridging_the_epistemic_cut > > I had heard of the epistemic cut several times over the past decade and a > half, especially after becoming quite interested in biosemiotics and so > reading some of the literature related to it. At that time I joined the > biosemiotics list, then at a 2011 biosemiotics conference in New York City, > presented a paper by Vinicius Romanini, a good friend and colleague, who > was at the last minute unable to attend. I was able to meet and, in some > cases, have instructive/constructive conversations with several of the > leading figures in the field then such as Don Favareau, Kalevi Kull, > Marcello Barbieri, Eliseo Fernandez, Susan Petrilli, Søren Brier, John > Collier, and others. I should note that while some had, not all of these > scholars had embraced Peirce's theories. However, as an introduction to > biosemiotics as it relates to Peircean thought, I highly recommend the > book Romanini edited with another dear friend, Eliseo Fernandez, since > passed. > See: Vinicius Romanani and Eliseo Fernández, Editors: *Peirce and > Biosemiotics: A Guess at the Riddle of Life* > https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-007-7732-3 > > However, I had never really explored the notion of an epistemic gap, and > so recently decided that, since it had been mentioned on the List, I might > now take a look into it. Strangely, as I began my research, and although > Pattee's essay is cited not infrequently in the biosemiotic literature, I > couldn't find any reviews of it online, so I began by reading this page > where one can read the Abstract of the essay and several Section snippets: > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0303264701001046 > I haven't yet completed reading the entire paper, but I think I've grasped > enough of a sense of it to make a few comments which might be helpful to > those who are interested in the concept. > > The epistemic cut, as I understand it, is a distinction Pattee makes in > consideration of living organisms, between symbols (which he calls > 'rate-independent', e.g. genetic codes) and dynamics ('rate-dependent', > virtually all physical processes). In Pattee’s framework, rate-independent > processes are symbolic, like DNA sequences, their meaning not depending on > how fast or slow they are 'read' or 'copied'. Rate-dependent processes, on > the other hand, are physical dynamics, like chemical reactions, whose > outcomes depend on timing, rates of change, energy flows, etc. The > epistemic cut separates the aforementioned domains, Pattee arguing that > these must interact for living systems to exist at all. > > The paradigmatic example, indeed the first appearance of the epistemic > split according to Pattee, appears as the genotype/phenotype split, where > DNA sequences (symbols) direct the construction of proteins (matter). In > Pattee's view, evolution itself depends on bridging this gap through > control and coding. Pattee asks, how do living systems express novelty, > memory, and freedom? His answer is that all life requires stored genetic > memory and constraints that allow alternative pathways within physical laws. > > I would note that the epistemic cut, although not an ontological division > in reality, is, according to Pattee, necessary for scientific knowledge. He > argues that to speak of “symbols” in referring to “objects” demands a > functional separation, and this separation is irreducible because physical > laws alone cannot account for the higher-level processes such as coding and > control. > > As I understand him, Pattee holds that all symbols are grounded in > physical bases/substrates, and that biology shows this most clearly. He > argues that bridging the epistemic cut in life depends on specific material > conditions such as genetic coding and what he calls evolutionary 'search' > processes involving physical constraints. The point for 'life' is that what > distinguishes the living from the lifeless is that life entails > symbol/matter complementarity, requiring both physical law and symbolic > constraints. Pettee maintains that to understand life fully, science must > integrate physics, semiotics, and biology, and to recognize the > indispensable role of the epistemic cut. > > Now as to how this might relate to Peirce's semeiotic: First, it seems to > me clear enough that Pattee’s epistemic cut does not represent Cartesian > dualism. Indeed, it could be argued (although I don't know that it has > been) that it is much closer to Peirce’s trichotomic than to dualism. As > noted above, Pattee explicitly says that the cut is not a division in > reality but an “epistemic necessity: Symbols in living beings (DNA, codes, > etc.) are physical structures -- what he calls 'heteropolymers', which > embody the bridge across the epistemic cut. This is to say that their > ordered sequences serve as symbols, while their material structures and > reactions perform physical functions -- so they are clearly not immaterial > “ideas.” > > As I mentioned in an earlier post, to some degree Pettee's views seem to > me to parallel Frederik Stjernfelt's in *Natural Propositions: The > Actuality of Peirce's Doctrine of Dicisigns* (2014) regarding > constraints, both arguing that life works by constraints that connect > symbolic and dynamic domains. However, I should note that Pattee critiques > Deacon for placing 'interpretation' "too early." See: "Symbol Grounding > Precedes Interpretation: Commentary to the target article by Terrence > Deacon" (Biosemiotics, 2021). > > Further connecting these ideas to Peircean semeiotics, it appears to me > that Pattee’s framework implicitly involves three irreducible elements: > Symbols (rate-independent structures), dynamics (rate-dependent processes), > and constraints (mediating laws and habits). I would suggest that his > position is closer to Peirce’s realism and semeiotics than to any form of > dualism because it treats symbols as physical signs embedded in dynamics > such that their meaning and function arise only through relational > processes. Further, Pattee’s epistemic cut is, as I see it, not only not at > all dualistic but closer to a Peircean view in which Pattee's "symbols, > dynamics, and constraints" can be viewed as corresponding to Peirce’s sign, > object, and interpretant. This would further suggest that the epistemic cut > might also be seen as grounded in Peirce's three categories. > > Best, > > Gary R >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]?subject=SIG%20peirce-l";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go to https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
