Observations (associated with Dionysus) are more fundamental than interpretations (associated with Apollo.)
Because of this, we often associate observations with “reality” while associating interpretations with “mind”.
We call the former concrete and the latter abstract.
This isn’t disputed.
If what you mean is that observations and interpretations are “what is observed” then I agree. I prefer the term “experienced” though because the term “observation” is too narrow. But that’s another story.
Understanding what interaction is intuitively is not the same as understanding what interaction is rationally.
For example, I can understand what computers are without understanding how they work.
Or I can understand what it means to move my limbs without understanding the underlying physics.
There’s a massive difference between the two.
What you’re doing here is you are evading defining the concept of interaction with the excuse that there is some kind of conspiracy taking place behind your back where I am intentionally or unintentionally lying to you about not knowing what interaction is.
As if I don’t know what interaction is . . . intuitively or rationally.
You’re being a paranoid retard.
Or maybe you’re just being a retard, I don’t know.
I do, however, sense some degree of paranoia.
Everyone must be conspiring against you.
The slightest suggestion – such as that the concept of reality makes no sense – appears very capable of triggering this fear in you.
I know relatively well what interaction is.
I know what it is intuitively and I know what it is rationally.
The question is: do you know what interaction is? Not intuitively but rationally. Do you? What is the degree of precision with which you understand the phenomenon of interaction? Pretty low, right?
So that’s what you find worrying . . .
The possibility that I am saying that there is a strong, perhaps even absolute, causal relation between what one says and what happens.
In other words, that I expect, or predict, that whenever someone says “I am eating” that they would immediately be fed.
Okay.
Here’s a little exercise for you.
Dig through my posts in this thread and take a note for every paragraph or sentence that makes you think that I am suggesting the above.
Then I am going to explain to you – yes, I am going to hand hold you – that in no way, shape or form am I saying any such thing.
Let’s have fun, okay?
Words are supposed to be connected to observations.
That’s what it means to define a word: to describe the sequence of events (or observations) it refers to.
That’s what I am asking you to do with the word “interaction”.
I want you to tell me what that word means i.e. I want you to describe to me the exact sequence of events it refers to.
Not just tell me “well, I know what it means [intuitively]”.
Lots of people will tell you that “I know what God is [intuitively]”.
Are you a mystic or a rational person?
What are you, AutSider?
My point – even though your attitude does not deserve my explanation – is that the concept of interaction exists only on the higher level of abstraction – on the level of interpretations. On the lowest level of abstraction, on the level of observations, there is no such a thing. There are only observations. There is only a sequence of observations (among them interpretations.)