An illusion is something believed to be something it is not. Thus, it is how something is perceived and assumed to exist rather than whether or not it exists that is the point; to argue whether or not a thing exists is, in the end, an exercise in futility. It is a matter of misdirection—the distinction made above is at the core of the confusion.
Most people think of an illusion as something that doesn’t really exist, that if the illusion is broken, that like a wisp of fog, it will no longer exist, inherently assuming that an illusion is “out there,” in the world, that the mirage is out there, on the road. But this is to misunderstand what an illusion really is. An illusion is a misunderstanding of what a thing is; it is not whether or not the thing seen is really there, but rather how it is seen. In this way we shift the focus from the object to the subject, and acknowledge how much the perceiver has to do with how a thing is perceived.
If it is to be discussed in an ontological fashion—that is, that what exists is of more value than that which does not exist—it is still an issue of how it exists, in that the ontological perspective insists that a thing exists as a basis, or as truth. To argue that nothing exists has essentially the same practical quality as saying that everything exists—neither really says anything significant. It is better to start with the given that everything exists, and that it is how things exist that is worthy of discussion.
To argue that one thing exists and that another does not will always be problematic and easily countered, for one must appeal to a definition of “existence” which will eventually either spiral into nonsense, or reveal itself to depend on itself for its own definition. For example, the oft-used argument that comes down to saying that only those things exist which can be perceived by the senses is so easily refuted that it does not even warrant discussion.
Things exist. If they did not, then you wouldn’t even have an idea of them to be arguing about. That which does not exist, at least in some fashion, is unable to be known by anyone, by definition. If it is known, then it is, and thus exists.
What does it mean for something to exist? That it is. In fact, there is much more that exists than we know about, for we do not decide what exists by whether or not we know about it. It is simply to wallow in arrogance and ignorance to think that existence is dependent upon our human knowledge of it. It is rather that the things we know exist for us in a certain way, according to our perspective and interpretation. The fact that there is an it for us to know about at all is itself is enough to show us that what is is, and we either know about it or not.
It is, then, how we perceive things to exist that is of importance to our lives, to our ethics, politics, inter-personal relations, etc., to everything, really.
.
From my personal notes, 12/30/99
