Certain objects can cause other objects to move (i.e. change their position in space) without there being a contact between them (i.e. there is no bumping.)
For example, when magnets interact with metal, either attracting or repelling it, they do so from a distance.
There is no contact between them.
Of course, what you’re going to say is that this is merely an appearance and that what’s going on behind the scenes is that the magnet is indirectly bumping into the metal.
For example, you might say that the magnet only has an effect – a direct effect – on the adjacent particles that are invisible to the naked eye. When affected, these particles propagate the affect to the adjacent particles which then propagate the affect to particles that are adjacent to them and so on. Eventually, the metal becomes affected, moving either towards or away from the magnet.
Which would miss the point.
My point being that we can perceive causality even when there is no evidence for, and even so much as assumption of, the existence of particles that propagate the effect from the magnet to the metal.
In order to perceive causality it’s enough to observe that every time we place a magnet at a certain distance from a piece of metal, the piece of metal changes its position.
No bumping whatsoever.
The magnet does not bump into the piece of metal, and yet, it changes one of its properties, namely, its position in space.
When your desire is too strong it has no choice but to overpower your perception. This is because perception poses a risk to satiating your desire. What if it turns out that you cannot satiate your desire? What if it turns out that your goal is unrealistic? Well, you would have to give up on it then. But when your desire is too strong, you don’t want to allow that. You don’t want to so much as permit that possibility. So the effort to perceive reality as it is is sidelined and a blind conviction is put in its place.
You guys crave power so much that you’d rather pretend you have it or that you will have it rather than admit that you don’t have it and that you will never have it.
In your case – and by you I mean you and Jakoff and Sauwelios and the rest of the VO crew – this manifests as a quest for an all-encompassing model of reality that will allow you to predict pretty much all of reality.
You are not interested in genuine power.
You are interested in the feeling of power.
Genuine power is acquired over a long period of time spanning multiple generations. It’s a very slow and meticulous process. In other words, it’s acquired bit by bit. You have no patience for this – you don’t want to wait for so long – so you simply end up deluding yourself because there is no other option.
Here’s a challenge for you I am sure you will find boring.
Answer these questions:
- What exactly is a thing?
- Is it perhaps a three-dimensional object? If so, what exactly is a three-dimensional object?
- Is it possible for it to be something simpler? such as two- or even one-dimensional object? If so, what exactly is a two- or one-dimensional object?
- What does it mean for a thing to bump into another thing?
- Does it involve the concept of motion? If so, what exactly is motion?
These are questions that require some effort.
And they are modest.
You won’t become a philosopher-king by answering them.
So perhaps, for you, there isn’t much incentive in answering them.
But I do think they are interesting.
And relevant, since they resolve a lot of confusions.
You may as well ask what a being, or even existence, is.
Just to make sure you know what you’re talking about.
But I am pretty sure you won’t.
Too analytical, too boring, too dry, too exhausting . . .
You are no Dionysian.
You are empty inside, you are hollow.
No real feelings.
No sensations.
Only words.
Empty meaningless words.