Gary R, list,
I guess we are assuming that what Planck called “consciousness” is essentially
what Peirce called “mind.” But Peirce was very clear that there is much more to
mind than consciousness — and that consciousness seems limited to embodied and
living beings. For instance, he wrote that “Since God, in His essential
character of Ens necessarium, is a disembodied spirit, and since there is
strong reason to hold that what we call consciousness is either merely the
general sensation of the brain or some part of it, or at all events some
visceral or bodily sensation, God probably has no consciousness. Most of us are
in the habit of thinking that consciousness and psychic life are the same thing
and otherwise greatly to overrate the functions of consciousness” (CP 6.489
<https://gnusystems.ca/CSPgod.htm#gncx> ). This is fully compatible with
Gregory Bateson’s Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity (1979) and with the usage
of “consciousness” in the sciences of our time that deal with the subject.
Peirce does use the terms “Mind” and “Thought” as synonyms, for the most part,
and since Thirdness is predominant in both, clearly Mind has the power to
determine what happens in both the psychical and the physical worlds (which are
of course not entirely separate). As implied by Peirce’s reference Thirdness as
that which “brings about a Secondness,” and his definition of the verb
“determine” (“to limit by adding differences”), determination is that aspect of
causality which imposes limits on which possibilities can be actualized in the
flow of time (and thus be real possibilities?). It seems to me that in the
physical world, there are three ontological requirements for anything to
happen, to change, or to be determined: time, energy and matter. I find it
difficult to imagine that any of them can be more primordial than the other
two. This doesn’t seem compatible with Peirce’s cosmology of the 1890s.
Love, gary f.
Coming from the ancestral lands of the Anishinaabeg
} The revelation of the Divine Reality hath everlastingly been identical with
its concealment and its concealment identical with its revelation. [The Bab] {
<https://substack.com/@gnox> substack.com/@gnox }{
<https://gnusystems.ca/TS/> Turning Signs
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of
Gary Richmond
Sent: 12-Aug-25 20:26
To: Peirce List <[email protected]>
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Planck and Peirce on mind as primary, matter secondary
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.
