Reality revisited

As my No. 2 Son rightly advises, in reality nobody cares what I think; but when can something be called real

Well, in
http://able2know.org/topic/207906-1
…., Ig states
,
…raising an issue I've long confronted, with however only the most limited success; though somewhat OT and hence this OP

The casual philo supposes a dualism where X is real or existent on one hand but unreal or nonexistent on the other. Now, dualism itself suffers all sorts of contradiction and paradox, sending one running for reassurance in a sort of Unity. But then such a singularity in turn seems to deny "Realities" such as The Self; even Dualism itself; much less God HerSelf

My own take, for what it's worth (not much hereabout, I'll have to concede) is that Reality, Dualism, the Self, even Her, fall into a semantic range of abstraction with the concrete, say a rock, near one end and the transcendental, say She HerSelf, near the other

Thus whether a thing is real depends upon where one draws the line within this range. According to the general principal that nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else, at at least one other participant has pointed out certain abstract qualities of even the cobblestone

Only incidentally, mind you, for the sake of Unity as an apodictical existential pantheist I herewith declare that very term as best describing Her. But to reassure all our irascible athiests, Her very existence can be logically denied by the claim that She lies on the right side of that line (pun unintentional)

….while all the foregoing distinctions eventually will be demonstrated only as semantic issues