But what is the question you are answering? You introduced the idea of satisfaction as an explanation of why Europe conquered Africa, why the 'eruption was foredoomed'. Are you now saying that this eruption was a product of imagination? I just don't think that imagination was the key driver for imperialism. That would be like saying lava has an ego.Thomas Hood wrote:Instead of a will to power, I'd vote for a will to imagination.
A closely related issue, linking the operation of power to the concept of eternal return, is whether we can understand fate operating in history. I think we can, in the terms of your earlier post in the Ending of the Novella thread:
Thomas Hood wrote: we are actors in the Play of History but don't write the script. Considering how unaware we are of ourselves, I don't see how events could have been otherwise.
I fully agree with this comment, but don't see how you can reconcile it with your latest suggestion that history is inspired by a will to imagination. Pursuit of power seems a much more elegant explanation, in line with your observation of the lack of awareness of the cause of events and the implication that most motivation for action is subconscious. I am a big fan of imagination as a key force that can redeem and subdue instinctive passion by expanding the realm of the conscious. This gets to the issue of the relative influence of religion and commerce, with religion in the imaginative corner and commerce in the power/passion corner. Looking at history, I would have to say that will to power has been far more decisive than will to imagination, especially in contexts like Heart of Darkness.