Doesn’t seem to be posting. > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Howard Pattee's "Epistemic Cut" and Peircean > semeiotics > Date: September 9, 2025 at 10:20:51 AM EDT > To: [email protected], Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > Cc: edwina taborsky <[email protected]> > > 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.
