quest for the meaning of the word "real"

At first I arrived at the conclusion that the naming of it is a very strange attribute to reality. Then I got very confused and wrote this:

“What does real mean, except something which could also not be called real? Why would you even say it if it weren’t in question? What is in question? Certainly not - reality - ? But that is exactly what the word “real” does put into question! How could anything not be real? This is illusion, and it’s called conceptuality.”

Then I came to other sense and wrote so:

“Animals don’t have the word “real” They don’t create, they only procreate, everything they create is real, you could say. We can also create illusions. Such as the word real. Right? Or is the word real the word through which one escapes from the bounds of language and identifies something that doesn’t require words to be understood?”

But then without counting the word real itself, nothing could be called real except the strongest illusion, the most convincing word-sequence. "

Then I thought let’s try a dialogue.

This is really real!
Really?
Yeah, look!
What???
Something changed!

This was revealing!

“Real” refers here to a revolutionary act, a break in the world. The axe that breaks into the mansion of our world, a threatening question-mark to the status quo.

The constant breaching of the boundaries of security. Is that not always part of anything deserving of the name reality? If so … is it wise to seek out the limits? What if there are no limits, and the universe becomes more dangerous every step of the way on the search for safety?

Since ontology cannot really (lol) be separated from epistemology, the question of reality is always incomplete, leading to a spiraling inward of interpretation, meaning, perception… only man sees his own faculties of seeing, so only man is able to understand that perception necessarily implies limitation. We are finite beings, our knowledge is always likewise finite and imperfect/incomplete. So we might then raise the question, if we are so inclined, in what realm ought we be able to derive the greatest possible degree of truth/accuracy/real? Sense perception of external objects? Abstract metaphysical inquiries? Via advanced scientific instrumentation? Employment of logic/math? Meditation and deep reflective introspection?

I agree everything is real, the only thing in question is perhaps extent e.g. if you hallucinate something then its only real in your mind [unless others are experiencing it too], and that’s the extent of its reality [as far as we know].

I’d argue that everything we see are hallucinations or that the two belong to ‘seeing’ equally but in differing ways ~ probably to do with sources.

There are lots of threads about “real” and “reality” in ILP. It’s interesting to read some of them. At least, we can see that we are interested in this topic, a lot.
mini.dreamhosters.com/TheReality.html

Personally, I think whatever that capture our attention appears as “real”, at perception and/or emotional level.
And then, in our mind, we may start to think about the distinction between “real” and “unreal”, making theories and constructing beliefs about it. These theories and beliefs may, in turn, capture our attention and produce the impression of “reality”, to certain degree.

Basically, anything can be felt “real”, including physical matters and any notions, delusions, etc, as long as it captures our attention or it matches the theory or belief one holds.
So, it’s relative to each person although many humans tend to share some degree of sensory and imaginary interpretation of “real”.

Shouldn’t ‘real’ be what an individual sees, experiences, feels, believes to be valid and non-changing? If I wake up every morning and see the same tree in my non-changed front yard, can’t I believe that tree and that front yard are real? If other people see the ‘same’ tree in the ‘same’ front yard, doesn’t that contribute to its ‘reality?’

Wouldn’t it be just as real if I woke up and saw no tree and a littered front yard and then discovered that’s what everyone else saw, as well?

I think what’s real involves multiple points of view that depend on individual definitions of what’s experienced to which most people agree. Does that make sense?

Most people would agree that a tree is a tree, a front yard is a front yard, a clean front yard is a yard without litter. So, does a general acceptance–agreement–on word meanings contribute to what we see as ‘real?’

Thank you all for your responses. They have been helpful, but I may need more help to get to a new, “real” understanding of this concept.

I think that deep reflective introspection best prepares us for reality, whatever it may present itself to us as, regardless of the methods we use for perception. Our means of interpretation will be more aligned, ready, aware of themselves. Great thinkers, whether they be scientists, philosophers, poets, military strategists, are reflective types who know the value of their mind and expend effort to maintain this value.

A mind does not benefit from careless use - it can easily be compromised if taken for granted.

When everything is real, are there perhaps different levels of reality? Can we say: this is more real than that?

A very large source! It will take me some time to do it justice. What exactly is this ‘ILP Wiki’?

That is what I was thinking.
Hence the simplification real=change.

Aha, yes I see. But that presents us indeed with two different levels of reality.
The direct perception of change as the first, most imminent one, and the intellectual construction of “a reality” as a secondary one. Would you agree to such ranking?

Indeed, our bodies are “realities allowing for an impression of reality”. Confusing.

Why would a reality have to be unchanging? I would say that everything that is real changes, so “changing” is per definition a property of “real”.

Hmmm. I would say it suffices to think of them as “my front yard” and “the tree in my front yard”. No intervention of the word “real” is necessary here. The contrary would be the case if there was also a plastic tree, which then could be identified as the object next to the “real tree”. But also the pastic tree would be real, a “real plastic tree”.

How would you discover a thing like that? It seems impossible.
But yes, such a realization (!) of change is what appears to me to be the kind of experience that causes one to actually use the word “real”. This is what I’m interested in - what the word is good for, in which situations it is helpful that we have it.

I have been noticing that in all situations except where they come to mind spontaneously, as an outcry, words much sooner obfuscate than clarify.

We are talking about an indirect real-ness then. A consensus about what’s real. Experience tells me however that what is agreed upon in a consensus is sometimes only a tiny facet of what can be identified.

I actually think that I disagree here. I can’t really explain why, but I have the feeling that such a consensus only hides reality, and that it is almost begging to be shattered by an impression of a more vivid realness.

The real is interpreted. It cannot be defined in absolute postulations when it concerns mental perceivement.

It can only be describe when it concerns physical truths like that of gravity but never with mental sentimentalisms such as beliefs.

Mental perceivement is somthing completely seperated from physical objects that it cannot itself be objectified.

Only physical truths can be objectified.

i define real as something that is there that you can feel or something like the truth,also it is the opposite of fantasy.

The idea that animals don’t create but procreate seems both logical incorrect and literally incorrect… Perhaps they do not create with tools that they created…rather they use the tools they already have alone…

If everything is an illusion then the illusion is reality. even false thoughts are of reality and are themselves real. Real would seem to signify anything that is considered at any level.
Thus assuming objectivity (I would say probably not really imply certainty but…) we have false things that are Real, and True things that are Real. And the idea of that which is “not real” is a false thing that is real.
Real is basically then synonymous with the word “thing” it would seem…

It’s (Unofficial) wiki of ILP I made recently.
We may see the official one, hopefully soon.

We can use wiki to show different opinions/views on reality, for example.
There is Wikipedia and other resources, but it’s nice to have something we can edit and put things by ourselves, according to the rule or guideline set by the ILP community, instead of Wikipedia.

As we have very strong tendency to get used to the signal of same amplitude, change can be an important factor.
However, repetition of certain signal may capture our attention, too.
So, I’m a little reluctant to equate “real” with “change”.

I think we can see in many different models.
I often prefer to see in physical-emotional-logical mind structure model, so to speak.
In this perspective, what one feels “real” depends of the center of density/gravity of the awareness. it can be different for each person and for each moment.
For example. if someone’s awareness is well centered on sensory information, the person would feel more reality with physical material world via sensory inputs.
Someone with emotional orientation may feel more reality with emotional interpretation and like/dislike, love/hate, and so on.
Logically oriented person may feel more reality with theories and analysis.

And the center of gravity of given person may move around these three structure and giving different impression of reality at each moment.
Sometime (or often), it will the the mixture of all three in different proportion.

So, the ranking may vary depending on the current state of one’s awareness, as well as the impressions left in the memory, I’d say.

Our awareness flattens and mixes different information from different structure/source, side by side, horizontally.
This allows us to examine different matters without going through complex structure, but it can be very confusing because the information concerning the originating dimension or structure of the information can be difficult to retrieve.
So, we tend to mix up and confuse ourselves with apples and oranges.

I also thought about the emotional undertone of “real”.
I think that there is a hint of hope associated with this word.
I mean, it’s a kind of hope that there is something reliable, and it’s not going to betray us. It’s dependable and solid (like rock).
And in turn, it’s showing our underlying fear for the intangible, uncertain, unknown things, most probably.

So, to me, “real” is more of an indicator of the person’s state than something we all should share and agree, although I do understand some of us may prefer to see it as something that comes out of (and/or strengthened by) agreements.

We can from our perspective, but I think if we could see with a universal eye, then all things would surely be equally real? Or that beyond our descriptions reality has to be entire and one.

Though I do wonder if there are levels of resolution within that, like a modern computer can display far higher detail than an old one. Perhaps its relative as like time, it can be seen in the universal as ‘all-time’ but also in the particular relativistic time. So maybe realism has resolution particular to e.g. our perspective or an animals or to each entity of existence [density etc]?

An ‘epiphany’ can be considered as a break in the world - or a break that pushes through our perception. So something ‘real’ can be like a happening that washes over us where things become clearer. So one might actually say that in the quest for the real - the ‘real’ is the quest itself. Convoluting?

So one could look at reality as an ongoing battle to smash through the defender’s defenses to obtain a firm hold on the castle (truth) and within that castle there are many rooms to be sought out and explored. And as we enter them, they already have begun to change.

Yes, it is. What is real or part of the quest for the real is always changing since our perceptions are at best always incomplete and unclear and hopefully they are always changing within that knowledge. But we must first presuppose and acknowledge the unreality of what we deem to be real…and go on from there. In our ‘certainty’, we build up weeds to be thrashed through in the quest for what is ‘real’.

The limits are within one’s own perception just as the word ‘dangerous’ is within one’s own perception.
By limits, do you mean obstacles or simply our inability to perceive as far as our naked eye or mind can take us?
There is no such thing as safety or security. The only sure way out of it is to enjoy the adventure of being pulled here and there, to and fro. When we wrap ourselves up within our own little coccoons, we limit what illusion of safety there is, even based on our perception of what is ‘real’.

How can anybody say anything about a state of not knowing? We have necessarily to use words. Can we use words without indulging in abstract concepts? I say we can. But I do not, at the same time, mean that it is a non-verbal conceptualization. That is a funny thing – there is no such thing as non-verbal conceptualization at all. But, perhaps, a few words like that might enable one to understand that the methods of thought prevent understanding the limitations of thought as a means to directly experience life and its movements.

We probably come to make a distinction between reality and non-reality after experiencing certain schisms between what seems real at some point and then finding out it wasn’t real after all (ex. dreaming). Then our minds create these two categories: the real and the unreal.

I think you’re right that it all funnels down to conceptuality. The way our conceptual faculties work is by categorization. We love to categorize things. When it comes to the ultimate category into which everything falls, we name that category too (namely, “reality”) such that we can conceive and name its antithesis: “unreality” (or “fantasy” or “illusion” etc.). In other words, conceptuality attempts to reach beyond reality and create new inventions.

Why do words need to refer to the real in order to be understood?

I lost you here. What does the word ‘real’ have to do with safety?