@rick I would say the word ‘actual’ denotes ground reality as it is experienced in the absence of feelings or self to obscure it. Whereas ‘physical’ is a term that has long been used to describe objects that have a material reality in contrast to non-physical things such as mathematical concepts, fairies, thoughts and feelings - at least as far as we buy some sort of Cartesian dualism that separates these out. It sounds like you are proposing a kind of monism, where thoughts, feelings, images and abstractions are on an equal footing with physical objects in the world which they seem to be a part of - at least in some sense.
But aren’t mental images intangible? Aren’t abstract concepts insubstantial? Yet imagination and abstract conceptualization exist in the actual world. How can one say that feelings are exempt from being categorized as physical? How could that which is non-physical be experienced in this physically boundless world?
This is the age old ontological problem. The way I think about it now, even as an actualist it doesn’t matter whether you are a philosophical monist or a dualist. The fact remains that in life you intuitively treat images, concepts and feelings quite differently from physical objects e.g. reacting to being actually shot at with a gun vs. reacting to a child making a ‘gun’ with his hand and saying he will ‘shoot’ you. I wonder if - in another way - you are also asking here how consciousness can come about from dead physical matter? Ah but matter is not dead. Far from it.
I am imagining a unicorn. The image of the unicorn actually exists. It is a physical manifestation that required physical processes to take on its form. If I am deluded, I might mistake that internal image as not merely existing in my physical head but outside where it can be sensately perceived by others. I might say, look, there’s a unicorn, when there is no form for others to see. The assertion that unicorns exist outside my mind would more accurately be classified as perhaps an error of reasoning, or even a pathology that leads one to assert that they exist in a manner sensately observable to others. But in any case, if I imagine the unicorn then it must actually, physically exist, if only as an image produced by the physical processes of this brain.
Again a monist might make this case. But to me regardless of whether you give the unicorn in your imagination agency or not, it doesn’t actually exist. And if wishes were horses, many children will be riding a pony. Your imaginary unicorn can’t be ridden, doesn’t eat, copulate etc. Its existential status vs. the actually existing brain of yours that produced it is just not comparable.
The fact that this physical universe is infinite and eternal means that it is a mistake to draw a line between the physical world and the imaginary world, between the sensate tangible realm and the affective emotional realm. There cannot be anything which is not physical. Therefore feelings must be physical. And if it is physical, then it is factual. If factual, then actual.
To drive the point: there is nothing, absolutely nothing that is not physical and thus actual. If I experience desire, then that desire is physical i.e. actual.
Of course, if one stops experiencing feelings, it would be correct to say that feelings are not actual, not physically existent. They are simply not there. But to say a feeling, despite experiencing it, is less a fact than the mental image of the ‘number 4’, strikes me as a misapprehension or an error of reasoning.
Ok so have it your way. Be a monist lumper that sees everything as a manifestation of the physical. But as someone seeking to be actually free the question then becomes what makes you want to even seek an actual freedom from the human condition in your undifferentiated world? One answer could be that you are tired of negative emotions and simply want to be happy - and that doesn’t depend on what you think of the status of unicorns 
. But that by itself isn’t enough, you still have to be able to separate ‘reality’ from actual in order to make the right choice. The risk with your philosophy is that the line gets so blurry, the right choice would never be apparent. Gods and unicorns then are on a somewhat equal footing with apples and trees. So would feeling beings and flesh and blood bodies. One way out of this (and this is why I think ontological agnosticism about the nature of reality isn’t necessarily a problem) is to maybe realise that your philosophical position doesn’t in any way change how you experience the world. So when you choose actual freedom when the time comes, you recognise that in some way that the actual you, this flesh and blood body is gloriously substantive in a way that feeling being fictional ‘you’ never can be. After-all one can be absorbed in a novel and still recognise that it is not actual or substantial when we put it down, get up, stretch and walk to the refrigerator to get something to eat.