Essentially the ontological opposition of reality and illusion is inappropriate for the comprehension of this reflexive relationship. For what we call illusion is reality, if it is used as a premise for further experience and action. It is a second reality. The reality of symbolically represented identities, the reality of the social reduction of complexity, is certainly particularly susceptible to disturbance. In the end, however, every reality can be destroyed. That alone is no reason to call what can be destroyed 'illusion' and what destroys 'reality'.

DEFINE: Re-defines 'illusion' as a 'second reality' that functions as reality when used as a premise for action, rejecting the simple reality/illusion opposition.

Niklas Luhmann, Trust and Power, loc. 254