Gary R, List I disagree that Peirce saw Mind as primary and matter as secondary. That would be idealism - and Peirce promoted ‘objective idealism’ [6.25]. ..where ‘inveterate habits ‘[ of matter] become physical laws’
My understanding of Peirce - and I refer to his outlines of the origin of the universe [1.412, and 6.217] is that there is no primordial force; there is just ’Nothing’..until the emergence immediately of the Three categories, in order of Firstness [ feeling/consciousness..but not self-consciousness[ Secondness or instantiations of matter and Thirdness orMind, the associated habits of organization of this matter… My understanding of Peirce’s Mind-and-Matter is that the two are corollaries; neither is primary and both are necessary for the existence of each. See his outline in 6.277, where the ‘recognized law of mind’ is the ‘law of association ‘..where “matter would be nothing but mind that had such indurated habit its as to cause it to act with a peculiarly high degree of mechanical regularity or routine’. ..but this is not mechanical but via that ‘law of association’, which is to say, Thirdness or the taking of habits. See his outline in 6.279-83 of protoplasm, which feels [ Firstness, material consciousness but not self-consciousness] and takes habits. As he notes, 5.436, ’the third category - the category of thought, representation, triadic relation, mediation, genuine thirdness, thirdness as such..is an essential ingredient of reality yet does not by itself constitute reality, since this category [ which in that cosmology appears as the element of habit] can have no concrete being without action..” Peirce denies that this Third category, [Mind’] ’suffices to make the world or is even so much as self-sufficient’. Given this format - of the integration of Mind and Matter, with neither as primary, I view Peirce’s outlines of this close interaction of Mind and Matter as conducive to the exploration of our universe as operating in a state of ‘far-from-equilibrium’ systems [ Prigogine] which are open systems of continuous patterns of organization that are dynamic, open, exchanging energy/matter with their environment such that their habits [created by Mind] change [see 6.21] - leading to changes in their material instantiations. [ These are CAS, or complex adaptive systems]. See Peirce’s outline 6.57-60, where he outlines how ‘diversification, the specification, has been continually taking place’..everywhere, the main fact is growth and increasing complexity…”by thus admitting pure spontaneity or life as a character of he universe, acting always and everywhere though restrained within narrow bounds by law, producing infinitesimal departures from law continually, and great ones with infinite infrequency… That is, the two - the Mind processes and the material processes, are corollaries that are changing and affecting each other. Habits change; matter changes. That’s how I understand ‘objective idealism- which to me, fits in exactly with modern thermodynamic theories of CAS. . Edwina > On Aug 12, 2025, at 8:26 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > > List, > Since my youth I've been interested in what was once called the 'new > physics', especially cosmology and quantum theory, from an amateur's > standpoint, perhaps beginning in middle school when my older brother, > Richard, gave me a book, The Boy Scientist (A Popular Mechanics Book) by John > Bryan Lewellen (1955). In my reading concerning quantum theory, every once in > a while I come across this quotation by Max Planck. > > “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from > consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk > about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” > (The Observer, January 25, 1931) > > Planck expanded on this idea in the course of his work. For example, in a > 1944 lecture): > > “There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue > of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this > most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this > force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind -- this mind is the > matrix of all matter.” (“The Nature of Matter” (Das Wesen der Materie), > Florence, 1944) > > Of course each time I read such quotations I can't help but think of this > famous Peirce quotation. > > "The one intelligible theory of the universe is that of objective idealism, > that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws." CP 6.25 > > It would appear that both thinkers saw Mind as the ultimate foundation of > Reality including, of course, our experience of it, and that matter only > makes sense within that framework. In short, both argue that the existence > of matter presupposes mind, ". . . the matrix of all matter” as Planck put it. > > So it would appear that Planck, the so-called 'father of quantum theory', and > Peirce, the 'founder of philosophical pragmatism' (and 'founder of > semeiotics' -- at least the triadic form of it) both advanced this idea, yet > from somewhat different standpoints: Planck from investigations at the > forefront of the physics of his time, Peirce from the forefront of > investigations into logic as semeiotic. > > Peirce developed his position via a comprehensive philosophical 'system', > incomplete as it may be in certain regards. For him, mind and matter are not > separate 'substances' (which is dualism) but, rather, proceed along a > continuum, matter appearing as the more fixed, habitual form of mind’s > activity, mind being more 'fluid' (while his semiosic synchecism allows for > the evolution of both and together). > > To me, Peirce’s view on the matter seems more 'naturalistic' than Planck's as > he places the primacy of mind within an evolutionary cosmology, while Planck > attributes it to a singular conscious source. As is well known, they both > characterized themselves as theists, although it can be argued (and I do mean > both pro and con) that each saw God/Mind as a unifying, rational, ordering > principle of the cosmos and less the anthropomorphic deity of traditional > theology. And both emphasized that science and religion needn't be in > conflict, for Planck because he considered that they deal with different > aspects of reality: famously, science with the how of things, religion with > the why of them. I'm not sure at the moment how I'd characterize Peirce's > position on this matter. Any thoughts there? > > > As I see it, and in a nutshell, for Planck mind/consciousness is an > irreducible point d'origin that underlies all physical existence. For Peirce > it is the ongoing, universal, continuous, semiosic process from which matter > forms. Planck’s vision is more reflective, leaning towards personal > metaphysical assertions; Peirce’s vision is semiotically structured, mind > seen within a more fully developed, detailed, and considerably more > systematized account of cosmic development. > > As always, I'd be interested in what forum members think about any of this > matter of Planck and Peirce seeing mind as primary, matter secondary > > 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.
