Animals have preferences, loyalty, love and even altruism, but they do not have values, or valuations as we know them, These are more than biologic, perhaps more than linguistically mediated, but are expressions of a 'simulation of God', that is, they contain, more of less latent, a pointing to a supreme value, which is an evasion of fundamental ontology which has been built to last.

The mind's function is always twofold, to solve its immediate task and to ensure its own continuance; these functions being at odds with each other it always seeks to put them in balance - ego here is the accountant. Thus, to mediate values while the value of valuation is unmediated, or to question and create interest while the interest of interest is above question.

The volatilisation of all matters as operations and contents could be named 'effective idealism' and is the most efficient tool for enforcing oblivion of being, especially where ought to be the thinnest, as in art. This starkly illustrates the impotence of dialectic.

The boundaries of the senses, of thought, of feeling and will both with respect to consciousness and each other are hidden or non-existent. Perhaps such boundaries cannot in principle be found, and this is the very same truth of appearance as that consciousness is ontological, that is is one with being itself, while at the same time is separate from sensation, thought etc. This blurring is central to the sense of bondage, to being bound.

The dream of life is that what you are you are by defiance of gravity, that all is resistance r the intermittence of resistance. This basic friction of living, its subtle grinding quality, of heaviness and the urge for oblivion, is suffering in the Buddhist sense, and the love of the drama which it engenders.

If doership is an illusion, then who is 'doing' the belief in that illusion? The same could be asked about any characteristic of the way that things seem to be. Hence no error can be involved in the distinction between illusion and reality, in fact there can be no such distinction, or better, no common plane in which both could be compared or put side by side. You can distinguish dreaming from waking, but you cannot do so from within the dream, but waking up within the dream can take place.

If you are standing on the bank of a river, the river appears to flow by, while if you are floating down the river the bank slides past, It is not like this with time since there is no place of perceiving that is not equally in time, so your impression of the flow of duration can only be imagined, from imagining and identifying with a place of permanence within time, this is not to be disputed, but only by acknowledging that the imagination itself is in time, or better, is time itself. The phenomenon is not divided into parts which 'move' at different rates.