We see ourselves perceiving the world on the basis of things ‘as they are’, ‘out there’, ‘in existence’, but there is a problem with this ‘world view’ because perception, in common with everything else, involves the coming-to-be of things that were not – and this raises a question of change which we cannot resolve ‘at source’ either by looking for a first cause or by attributing the form of the effect to its cause.
In addition, knowledge and explanation contrast radically with an external reality of objective facts now drawn into the realms of observation – but we believe that the logic and language of proof can iron out the difference. Indeed, the grammar of explanation begs the question of a ‘deep structure’, holding everything in place, whereby all ensuing differences are seen to evolve as a result of secondary shaping influences.
However, even though causes are seen to underlie effects, those effects are not merely embedded in their causes like sculptures waiting to be released from blocks of stone. So there is more to change than the nature of the underlying preconditions, just as there is more to the shaping influences than pure chance. That is not to say that chance doesn’t have a part to play, but it means that evolution by chance is not the explanation.
Accordingly, whilst it may be said that everything happens by co-incidence, there is more to co-incidence than blind chance. And whilst we rightly remain wary of accident, we know that all eventualities are contained within prevailing boundaries of possibility – anything cannot happen at any time. In fact, no cause explains those prevailing boundaries even though we come to explain outcomes as effects belonging to causes operating within them.
Consequently, perception maps the world with contours of its making whilst perceiving itself as the effect of an objective reality. But the very presence of perception shows that reality is subject to change – with effects arising as modified causes. And despite our aspirations to explain change causally, causality remains subsidiary to the changing boundaries of possibility. Then who can say that we too are not instrumental in ‘the shape of things to come’ – beginning with ourselves as mere causes on the threshold of change.