Gary F, List, Thanks for your interesting response to my post on the epistemic cut. I'm currently on a two week family vacation in Colorado, so I haven't too much free time to reflect and reply on yours or any posts to the List. But as everyone else in my family is presently taking a nap, I thought I'd attempt a quick reply to your thoughtful post, a response which most likely will need some revision as it's very much 'off the cuff'.
My first thought is that Peirce does not treat types as static 'containers” of tokens; instead, types are habits or laws that only exist insofar as they can be instantiated and interpreted which, in my view, means that the relation is not merely hierarchical (as in genus/species or DNA double-helix/molecules), but dynamic and inferential. In my view, there is an essential continuity of types and tokens through habits of interpretation which undercuts the very sharpness of any 'cut' between symbolic and physical processes. In a word, Peirce treats type/token not as a structural hierarchy but as involved in a triadic, dynamic, and continuous process of semiosis. Terrence Deacon, in *Incomplete Nature*, argues that Peirce’s framework resists strict dualisms by embedding signs within processes of growth and habit-taking. So, from this perspective, Pattee’s distinction between rate-dependent dynamics and rate-independent symbols may be useful as a heuristic, but I am beginning to think that it is less faithful to Peirce than an account that stresses t*he continuity of semiosis across scales*. In Deacon's view, what matters most is the way interpretive processes knit together matter, life, and thought through evolving habits. I would like to hear more about Bateson's proposal for replacing the 'Great Chain of Being' idea with a hierarchy of logical types, seemingly a project showing how ideas, information, and pragmatic and logical processes connect with the external world. I recall your having written about this in *Turning Signs*, but if you could point to some passages for quick reference, that would be helpful. GF: Peirce also made an interesting connection with the *origins* of the word “type” — but I’ll leave that for later in case anybody’s interested. I'd definitely be interested! Best, Gary R On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 9:38 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary R, list, > > Thank you for digging up this concise account of Pattee’s “epistemic cut” > concept. I agree that it’s not as dualistic as the word “cut” makes it > sound. I think the closest analog to it in Peircean semeiotics is the > type/token distinction. > > Applying that distinction across systemic scales leads us to perceive a > *hierarchy* of types, in which the “higher” levels *include* the > relatively lower ones. In biology, for instance, the *genus* typically > includes many *species*, and these too include subdivisions, while the > genus is also included within a higher “type.” The generic double-helix > structure of DNA is also a type, of which every individual DNA molecule is > a token. But at the level of the organism, the molecule is a token of the > genotype; and the genome of the organism includes a token or “replica” of > it in the nucleus of each cell. > > Pattee’s designation of dynamic processes as “rate-dependent” is also > relative rather than absolute: it’s a matter of time-scale. At the > developmental scale, the “stem cell” differentiates into various cell types > as determined by the effects of epigenetic processes on the expression of > the genome tokens. At the evolutionary scale, genotypes likewise produce > variations, and natural selection determines which ones survive and > replicate themselves, but this takes much longer — depending on the rate at > which the organisms reproduce. > > Gregory Bateson in *Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity* pointed out that > *thought* has the same structure: a hierarchy of generality: > > [[ In what is offered in this book, the hierarchical structure of thought, > which Bertrand Russell called logical typing, will take the place of > hierarchical structure of the Great Chain of Being and an attempt will be > made to propose a sacred unity of the biosphere that will contain fewer > epistemological errors than the versions of that sacred unity which the > various religions of history have offered. What is important is that, right > or wrong, the epistemology shall be *explicit*. Equally explicit > criticism will then be possible. > > So the immediate task of this book is to construct a picture of how the > world is joined together in its mental aspects. How do ideas, information, > steps of logical or pragmatic consistency, and the like fit together? How > is logic, the classical procedure for making chains of ideas, related to an > outside world of things and creatures, parts and wholes? ] —Bateson 1979, > 21] > > Bateson affirmed the continuity between mental and physical or “dynamic” > processes. So did the ecologist Howard Odum, with his concept of the > “energy hierarchy”: https://gnusystems.ca/TS/ssc.htm#nrgsms > > Peirce also made an interesting connection with the *origins* of the word > “type” — but I’ll leave that for later in case anybody’s interested. > > > > Love, gary f. > > Coming from the ancestral lands of the Anishinaabeg > > } Eternity is not another order of time, but the atmosphere of time. > [Merleau-Ponty] { > > substack.com/@gnox }{ Turning Signs <https://gnusystems.ca/TS/> > > > > *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> *On > Behalf Of *Gary Richmond > *Sent:* 9-Sep-25 00:05 > *To:* Peirce List <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Howard Pattee's "Epistemic Cut" and Peircean > semeiotics > > > > 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. >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
