Gary R., Stephen, List: I am still catching up here, complying with the limitation of one post per day per thread.
According to Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-aspect_theory>, dual-aspect monism--also called double-aspect theory--"is the view that the mental and the physical are two aspects of, or perspectives on, the same substance." It references the SEP article <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/> on neutral monism as stating, "Neutral monism and the dual-aspect theory share a central claim: there is an underlying reality that is neither mental nor physical." Contrary to Grok's response to Stephen's question, this is very clearly *not *Peirce's view--he *explicitly* rejects neutral monism as "sufficiently condemned by the logical maxim known as Ockham's razor, *i.e.*, that not more independent elements are to be supposed than necessary" (CP 6.24, EP 1:292-3, 1891); and he *explicitly *affirms that the substance underlying reality is mental, not physical nor some third alternative. Wheeler's notion that "physical reality emerges from information through the act of observation" strikes me as potentially inconsistent with the very definition of reality as that which is as it is regardless of what any finite minds think about it. Accordingly, I suggest again that it might be more perspicuous to employ Peirce's metaphysical existence/reality distinction by saying instead that physical *existence* emerges from mental *reality *through the act of embodying an instance of a sign as a token of a type possessing tones. However, this would obviously still be a form of his objective idealism, not dual-aspect monism, since it posits that continuous and triadic semiosis is the mental reality underlying the physical existence of individual things and their dyadic reactions. Moreover, Wheeler seems to be proposing that *any *individual mind *within *the universe can bring things into existence merely by observing them. That might be plausible at the quantum level, where the act of observation presumably includes some kind of *reaction *between the observer and reality, so the resulting existence of something and its properties would not depend on what the observer (or anyone else) *thinks *about it. However, in everyday cases, we are reacting with, perceiving, and cognizing physical things that *already *exist. By whose act of observation could *those *things have come into existence? Moreover, by whose act of observation could the *very first* physical thing have come into existence, when there were obviously no observers *within *the nascent universe at all? As for the "bottom line" being the "tension between the known and the unknown," Peirce describes "the absolutely first antecedent and the absolutely last consequent" as "unattainable limits" with no such tension--the former "is simply the blank ignorance, the *zero *of knowledge," when nothing whatsoever would have been known; the latter "is the very reality itself ... namely, what we should believe if investigation was carried to its furthest limit where no change of belief further was possible," when nothing whatsoever would be unknown (NEM 4:134, 1897-8). I view this as another description of his *hyperbolic *cosmology, especially in conjunction with my hypothesis that the universe is a *semiosic *continuum--it is proceeding from complete ignorance in the infinite past, through a mix of true and false beliefs at any assignable date, toward complete knowledge in the infinite future. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, Aug 16, 2025 at 6:31 AM Stephen Jarosek <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary, List > > > > >”A key, anti-Cartesian point is, as you wrote, that once dualism is > excluded either mind or matter *must* be primordial, and Peirce clearly > maintained that mind is primary, that matter is best understood as a > rigidified form of mind.” > > > > As a dual-aspect monist myself, I felt compelled to ask Grok whether > Peirce was also so inclined. From this dual-aspect perspective, then, I’d > suggest that the most primal duality is not mind vs matter, but the known > versus the unknown. Hence my interest in the quantum void and Sunyata (the > creative void of Hinduism/Buddhism), and the parallels between them. Here’s > Grok’s response to my question: > > Yes, Charles Sanders Peirce can be considered a dual-aspect monist. His > philosophy, particularly his doctrine of synechism, suggests a continuity > between mind and matter, viewing them as two aspects of a single underlying > reality. Peirce's metaphysical framework posits that reality is > fundamentally continuous, with mental and physical phenomena being > different manifestations of the same process, rather than distinct > substances. His emphasis on the interplay of Firstness (quality), > Secondness (reaction), and Thirdness (representation) further supports > this, as these categories bridge the mental and physical without reducing > one to the other. However, Peirce’s views are complex, and some > interpretations might lean toward objective idealism or panpsychism, but > dual-aspect monism aligns closely with his holistic approach to reality. > > > > In his description of a participatory universe, John Archibald Wheeler > coined the metaphor of reality "pulling itself up by its bootstraps". His > notion of "it from bit" suggests that physical reality (the "it") emerges > from information (the "bit") through the act of observation. And of course, > the act of observation requires a body (matter) to enable it. The bootstrap > metaphor as a feedback loop bringing *it-self* into existence suggests a > primal, inextricable relationship, one that is more primal than mind vs > matter. > > > > BOTTOM LINE: What is information if not a "known" defined relative to an > unknown? You cannot have information without a body to engage it and give > it meaning, hence the significance of embodied cognition in dual-aspect > monism. The tension between the known and the unknown is primal to the > “creative void” that is Sunyata. This relates to virtual particles and the > Feynman diagrams. > > > > Perhaps “anti-Cartesianism”, then, requires further nuance. I wonder… > could association (Secondness, relations, interaction, stimulus-response) > be distilled to this tension between the known and the unknown that has its > origins in the primal (creative) void? > > > > Cheers, > > sj > > > > *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> *On > Behalf Of *Gary Richmond > *Sent:* 16 August, 2025 6:03 AM > *To:* [email protected]; Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Planck and Peirce on mind as primary, matter > secondary > > > > Jon, List, > > > > Thanks for this succinct super-summary of Peirce's view that matter is > derivative of mind and for the several short quotes strongly supporting > that understanding. One can disagree that this was his conception, but > you've made it clear, as it has been clear to many Peirce scholars for > decades, that his objective idealism does indeed identify matter as > “effete” mind, mind that has lost the flexibility of learning. . > > > > A key, anti-Cartesian point is, as you wrote, that once dualism is > excluded either mind or matter *must* be primordial, and Peirce clearly > maintained that mind is primary, that matter is best understood as a > rigidified form of mind. > > > > But it remains unclear to me -- although I think I'm getting closer to > understanding your position on this -- how every material thing is itself a > sign (yes, certainly can be *analyzed* as 'a token of a general type') > and that every physical interaction is a degenerate form of semiosis. > > > > 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.
