PEIRCE ON CAUSES BEYOND BIOLOGY

CP 1.267   In the first place, final causality, which is the object of psychical science, appears in three guises; first, quite detached from any biological organism; second, in biological individuals as vehicles; third, in societies, ranging from the family to that public which includes our indefinite "posterity." These distinctions, when we thus consider them together, impress us with a certain grandeur. It may be that this explains what, at any rate, is a fact, that the question has often pressed itself upon me whether they ought not to form the basis of the first division of the class of psychical sciences. But this would be merely, or mainly, a division according to the nature of the objects of study. We ought to classify the sciences according to their own natures; and not according to the nature of their objects in the least, except so far as this affects the nature of the studies of these objects.†P1 But before taking anything of that sort into account, we ought to look for a division based on the differences of the intellectual factor in the work of science, such as has been found to constitute the three orders of physiognosy; to wit, the nomological, the classificatory, and the descriptive. These orders appear more and more clear, the further the subject is examined. Mind has its universal laws, operative wherever it is manifested, although these may be modified according to the mode of its incarnation or other manifestation. In studying the universal properties of mind, the student will, no doubt, have occasion to remark some of the peculiarities of different modes of manifestation of mind. It may easily happen to a young student that this study of special kinds of productions of mind comes to fascinate and absorb him far more than the thinner and abstracter science of mind's universal truths. It may happen to another student that while he makes elaborate studies of a special form of psychical fruit, he will never cease to pursue those studies with a view to their affording some clue to the general secrets of mind. Just so, a man may study the systems [of] crystals for the sake of their teachings concerning the nature of elasticity, as Rankine did, or in hopes of learning from them something about light, as Brewster did; or on the other hand, being interested in crystals and their classes, with a view to gaining a better comprehension of them, he may make studies of their cohesion, as Haüy did; and with either of these motives, he may produce a memoir which, in itself considered, might very well be classed either as a contribution to nomological physics or to crystallography. Take a larger view of his work, and there will be no possible doubt that Brewster and Rankine were physicists, while Haüy was a botanist turned crystallographer. END

Without delving into speculation about the broad meaning of  this passage, it seems obvious that Peirce is giving credence to a world where things that have no physical basis are in truth real. This point of view is accurate. It is entirely possible that the entire universe will prove to have the same basis that we have, that it is one.