What makes magnetism attract? What is charge? What is electromagnetism?
None of those questions can be answered. As I stated in my article, we must resort to metaphors in order to discuss those ideas, but we'll never get to the bottom of that lexical well. Can we define "anger" except by using synonyms? If we say, "Anger is a feeling," then the word "feeling" must be defined. Eventually, there's no where to go.
I go by what I read many years ago from Albert Camus (someone else on this site quoted him a couple years ago, although I can't remember who it was):
At the final stage you teach me that this wondrous and multi-colored universe can be reduced to the atom and that the atom itself can be reduced to the electron. All this is good and I wait for you to continue. But you tell me of an invisible planetary system in which electrons gravitate around a nucleus. You explain this world to me with an image. I realize then that you have been reduced to poetry: I shall never know.
Discussions are fun. Since there aren't any answers, I prefer Feyerabend's dictum:
No theory ever agrees with all the facts in its domain, yet it is not always the theory that is to blame. Facts are constituted by older ideologies, and a clash between facts and theories may be proof of progress. It is also a first step in our attempts to find the principles implicit in familiar observational notions.
and..
The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes.
SS