List
I think it’s important to note that these ideas of the necessary differentiation of Mind/Matter into epistemological and ontological morphological modes is not just the ‘invention’ of one person [ Pattee] though I acknowledge his work in the area. That would be to analyze History through the lens of what is known as The Hero Lens, where any new idea is considered to be an invention of one person which is then copied. Instead, as others have pointed out, the idea emerges within the community ‘when it is time’ so to speak..and we’ll find many referring to the same concerns. Th point is - these are two different modes of morphological reality - and the one cannot be 100% ‘transformed/translated’ into the other. After all, both morphologies/categories, are themselves, dynamic and active. It is not that the ‘reading system’ [ reading’ the symbols’] is imperfect and needs ‘infinite time’ and ‘infinite’ readers. It is that the Mind/Matter content is itself, dynamic and open to deviations. I originally referred to Harald Atmanspacher’s work on epistemological and ontological cuts, enabling different morphologies in each area of the semiosic triad but as others have noted, there’s also Stjernfellt’s indexical propositions..and of course – Peirce and his categories! And we’ve seen how Jack Cody has been explaining Peirce within the symbolic indexical. Essentially, reality is made up of Mind/Matter forming itself into two key categories, the mode of Being of Thirdness, which is expressed in general codification, [ symbolic] and the discrete individual instantiation of this ‘general code’, which is expressed within particular Secondness. Together they form ‘information’ or‘facts about the real world. But again, they cannot be fully transformed from the one to the other… Edwina > On 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
