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

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Horse]
I think that this is why we agree on so many things - because we are  thinking
in a very similar way and there is not a lot of difference between what we do
think or believe.

[Arlo]
Agree, so let me backtrack over what I think is common ground, because I think
that your disagreement with me (in a large part) is that I am not explaining
myself well.

First, when we use words like "real" and "illusion" we are pointing back to the
very SOM issues that the MOQ argues against. It is SOM that proposes that there
are existential objects, "things-in-themselves" if you will, that exist primary
to direct experience. The MOQ would say that the "object" as an independent
existant is an illusion. 

So, yes, if I say from an SOM perspective "my motorcycle has pre-experiential
primacy, it 'exists' independent of experience" and you say "no, Arlo, that
'object' you think exists is an illusion created by S/O logic", I'd say YES!

Up to this point, I think, we are using the words "real" and "illusion" in the
same way. When I say, from the SOM-perspective, that something is "real", what
I am saying is that it has primary existential reality apart from experience.

To contrast this to what the MOQ points to as real (experience), I use two
terms; "existential reality" and "experiential reality". To say something is
"real" in the MOQ is NOT to say it has primary existential reality, it is to
say it has some real, immediate impact on experience. 

When I say "patterns of value are real" I am not using "real" to point to an
independent existential reality. We are above that, beyond it, and we are
talking about "real" as a function of pragmatic, empirical experience (is that
redundantly redundant?)

>From here, I reject that there are two choices; existential "reals" and
illusions. And because the MOQ says there are no "existential things" then
everything MUST be an illusion. This is a MOQ that is stuck in SOM thinking.

Patterns of value are NOT illusions, and they are NOT existential, independent,
pre-experiential "things", they ARE real, pragmatic, experience. I believe the
MOQ gives us this third thing, that is precisely its explanatory power OVER SOM.

[Horse]
However, having said that, I would say that "real" cannot be anything other
than DQ + SQ - this is the MoQ definition of Reality after all.

[Arlo]
Exactly, and since EVERYTHING is DQ/SQ than there is NO illusion in a MOQ!
Illusion is the result of SOM, NOT part of a MOQ.

[Horse]
SQ without DQ can never be anything but illusion - the map is a representation,
nothing more.

[Arlo]
What is "SQ without DQ"? Since I've seen "DQ is the fundamental nature of SQ"
posted on this forum a jillion times, then how on earth can there be "SQ
without DQ"?