Even if you only care about your map, you still care about your map as a part of the territory,

...a "territory" that exists only in your brain, since you cannot directly perceive or operate upon the real territory.

otherwise you make the next step and declare that you don't care about state of your brain either, you only care about caring itself, at which point you disappear in a "puff!" of metaphysical confusion.

...and note too, that all of this modeling is taking place in a brain. When you point to something and label it "reality", you are pointing to a portion of your map. It is not, and cannot be the actual territory. It doesn't matter how many times you try to say, "but no, I mean real reality", because the only thing you have to represent that idea with is your brain.

It is still the idea of reality, a model of reality, that exists in your map.

Yes, the map is represented physically within the territory. The map "runs on" a platform made of territory, just as "you" run on a platform made of map. All I am saying is, "you" cannot access the territory directly, because your platform is made of map, just as the map's platform is made of territory. Everything we perceive or think or imagine is therefore map... including the portion of the map we refer to as the territory.

We want our preferences to point to the territory, but they cannot do so in actual reality. We have the illusion that they can, because we have the same representative freedom as an artist drawing a picture of hands drawing each other - we can easily represent paradoxical and unreal things within the surface of the map.

(I remember reading at one point a tutorial in General Semantics that illustrated this point much better than I am doing, but sadly I cannot seem to find it at the moment.)

The comments about people's differences in not-being-deceived were just making the point that that preference is more about consensus reality than reality reaity [sic].

I'm afraid I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. It seems to me like you're just repeating your conclusion over and over again using different words, which unfortunately doesn't constitute an argument. Maybe to you it seems like we're doing the same thing, I don't know.

Alternatively, maybe we're still talking past each other for the reasons suggested here (which everyone seemed to agree with at the time.) In which case, I wonder why we're still having this conversation at all, and apologise for my part in pointlessly extending it. ;)

You could still write a meta-reply, taking that problem into account. The root of the disagreement can be stated in one line, and a succinct statement of at the moment unresolvable disagreement is resolution of an argument.