That makes sense only with an unsensed criteria of an implicit causation in tandem with an explicit one.
For this to occur, or, to imply a causal sequencing, albeit unsensible-not to confuse with insensible, the same near to the Absolutely both to concur,
In simultanity is a sine quo non matter of fact.
That actuality have to run concurrently and conspatially, and if so, that becomes arguable defenitionally , but not conceptually/ structurally, except by the mode demonstrated: vis affected and not effected causal definitions.
That affect demonstrates Your ’ affectance’ as well, by Your comment of “shivers down Your spine”.
Have I followed Your intrinsically shadowed argument as well, for surely a limited return (to Thomism) implicates a totally projected form of naive realism, that may have run it’s course, in need for at least a partially differentiated limit to the reduction.
If agreed progress(ion) to this limit, then on all other basis, I can not but not concur.