Interestingly enough, you would have had to have handled the real world in order to meaningfully call this one fake. A distinction only makes sense when you’ve been aquainted with both ends.
For example, if everything was a shade of red, what sense would it make to say that this stuff is all a shade different than blue?
Reality obtains of degrees. There is no “one reality”, nor one “true” and one “more or less true” reality. Within each subject there exist multilayered perspectives, paradigms, realms of tiers of subjectivity going deeper and deeper. When one level of comprehension, affect, being generates too much psychological friction one then ascends up to the next, more removed level, in his never ending drive to escape the states of suffering/need with which he is always faced.
And one can and does will away that which one has yet to encounter. As Deleuze wrote, this willing away is in fact a means of calling into existence, as it were - one initially wills away that which cannot be encountered at present, thereby generating the sufficient conditions by which the ‘cannot be encountered’ is rendered actual from the virtual.
Humanity is far deeper of its capacities for sensation, perception, intuition, consciousness, affect than can be accounted for by any philosophical viewpoint that subscribes to an essentially linear view of reality/realities…
If you can’t trust that the world is real, how can you trust that the world is unreal? What anchors the comparison? To say it a third way, what is real so that you know unreal?
How can one call this an “unreal world” when this is the only world one has expierenced?
By unreal world did you mean that people seem to live so passively these days, consumed and distracted by the high-rise buildings, the new iphone, the next best model of well, everything and the sparkly tiffany diamonds in the jewelly shop front window…that people forget to be, to live. We forget to be and just live. Our world becomes centered around all these things, stuff.
A fear i have is that when i’m dying, or on my death bed that i’ll think to myself…That was it, that was life. Shit! And i’ll feel like i missed it. That said i have many moments, some few and far between, and some which i have shared with a loved one, that i feel like i am just being naturally with out any of the trivial external things of the “unreal world”, and i’m sure every one does.
I’m not sure, but i feel slightly that i have misunderstood what was meant by the “unreal world”.
Your revised comments leave you guilty of a similar confusion as the one before, when you thought you could understand a distinction by knowing only one horn of it. It makes little sense to say that “we can’t handle the real world” because “there is no ‘one reality’”. --If that’s what you thought initially, then the appropriate question should have been, “What ‘reality’?”. It also makes no sense to say that “reality obtains of degrees”, and then say, “there is no ‘one reality’”----since then the degrees that reality obtains in are degrees of something that doesn’t exist. You need to calm yourself, and then if you want to expound some sort of perspectivalism, proceed carefully and without the swashbuckling. If this is the path you want to take, I’d advice rejecting the entire distinction outright. If there’s no ‘real’, there’s no ‘unreal’—is what you should want to say.