[MD] "Could have acted differently" v. "the extent to which we perceive DQ"

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Horse]
Wrong! I've got to disagree here as a belief in something that doesn't exist is
a DE-lusion not an IL-lusion.

[Arlo]
I think you have this wrong, Horse. By your reasoning, "mathematics" is a
"DE-lusion", as it "doesn't exist". And I think the error here comes from the
very fact that the question of "exist/doesn't exist" is framed in an S/O
perspective.

What does "exist" mean in a MOQ view? Experiential. And this is the point I've
been making, what possible value derives from claiming my motorcycle, or the
bombs over Nagasaki are/were "illusions"?

"Illusions" are the result of SOM, it is an "illusion" to believe that my
motorcycle has some primary existential reality apart from experience. THAT I
get. THAT is what illusion points to.

But once we ascend into a MOQ perspective, and we leave behind the question of
existential reality and the primacy of subjects and objects, we are dealing
with experientially "real" patterns of value. 

My motorcycle is not an illusion, I can go out and jump on it and know that it
will take me from here to California if I do certain things to maintain it. If
I said, "this motorcycle has an independent, existential existence" and you
said, "Arlo, that is an illusion", I'd say YES! But I am not saying that, I am
saying that patterns of value have very real experiential reality, they have
VALUE, and... VALUE IS NOT AN ILLUSION. 

[Horse]
Static patterns of value are ideas about reality and not the experience of
reality - SQ is our attempt to order reality and order it in a way that makes
sense - or agrees with the senses. 

[Arlo]
Yes, I agree. This is a condemnation of existential reality. Do you see that?
It is SOM that confuses "ideas about reality" with the experiential reality
they describe. THAT is the illusion. SOM is the illusion.

But these "ideas about reality" have very "real"
empirical/pragmatic/experiential value. They ARE value. They effect our
experience. 

Can you please tell me, if you disagree, what possible value comes from saying
that the bombs over Nagasaki and Hiroshima were "illusions"? Were they
illusions to the people who they killed? Are they illusions to the people still
dealing with long-reaching effects of radiation sickness?

[Horse]
So the idea that "Ideas are as real as rocks" is true as long as you remember
that both Ideas and Rocks are both derived from Quality and are not primary.

[Arlo]
Well now you are arguing MY point! :-) Illusions are what form from making
Ideas and Rocks primary. We are past that (well, most of us). We are not
talking about "primary rocks and primary bombs and primary motorcycles". We
are, however, talking about very "real" experiential Quality! We are talking
about very "real" patterns of value.

[Horse]
So thinking of SQ as illusion is, I believe, the correct way to view what is
statically real. 

[Arlo]
Horse, I could not disagree with this any stronger. You want to tell the
victims at Nagasaki that the correct way for them to think about those bombs
are "as illusions"? 

The correct way, I'd say instead, of thinking about SQ is that it is what has
very real empirical/experiential value.