[cornelis]

If the "substance" of a reality has to do with a certain degree of coherence among its aspects, then the reality I perceive does not need to be the reality in order for it to be the more substantial one. It only needs to be the more coherent one.

A system of coherence is practically necessary. But we live in a world of pluralities. There is more than one system of coherence. And the mistake of second-reality thinking is to raise one system to a privileged position of being, as stultis noticed.

Indeed politics will always have to put up with the consequences defying the divinity-of-things-as-they-are, as Derbyshire puts it, and make fools of us. But we should be continually surprised to find that things are not what they are, that is, that any given system of coherence has limited application.

The concept of limit in intentionality is entirely different from the meaning of illusion.

[cornelis]

I think the only way to break through the difficulty of the subject here is to first understand what it means to have free will. If agency is not really a choice, the game is over and the reality of human nature is an illusion.

But the fact of choice changes the matter entirely.

And with choice, we need a system of coherence to choose rightly. So systems are practically necessary, because we are free agents. If we are free, we are free from the system of nature. I learned from Richard Weaver that art is our conscious effort to keep from slipping into the illusion that we are not in any way free from nature, but a mere automaton of things as they are. It is interesting to note that this same idea pops up in other venues: we are puppets of some divinity.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for all your insights!

But we should be continually surprised to find that things are not what they are, that is, that any given system of coherence has limited application. The concept of limit in intentionality is entirely different from the meaning of illusion.

An illusion is an “erroneous mental representation”. Here I think of the metaphor of the blind men describing the elephant.

Are we on the same page with the meaning of illusion?

[Bouilhet]

...we should be continually surprised to find that things are not what they are, that is, that any given system of coherence has limited application.

I could not agree more.

The concept of limit in intentionality is entirely different from the meaning of illusion.

Another good point that we would do well to keep in mind.