Aye and as @rick only recently discovered that ‘actual’ has a special-usage meaning in actualism, I thought it would be good to illustrate this distinction of real vs actual with an example (@rick this is to further aid with your reflective and fascinating contemplative thought).
As a starting point let’s take ‘real’ and ‘actual’ to be synonymous, i.e. standard dictionary definitions. And we’ll take the example of God.
When people say that God exists, what they mean is that there is a truly, actually, really existing (metaphysical) entity that really truly in a completely standard sense of the word exists. That there is something beyond the laws of physics and nature, and that in this other realm God exists / or God is that other realm or something of the sort.
Now everyone here knows that there is nothing outside of the physical universe - nothing metaphysical truly exists. So we would say that God does not exist.
“But wait,” the Objector says. “God clearly exists. So many people experience God’s presence and divine energy. How can you deny their experience?”
“Well,” sayeth the Elucidator. “People might have an experience of God existing. But this does not mean that God exists. The experience is misleading and misinformative.”
“But isn’t it not accurate then to say God doesn’t exist? Doesn’t he ‘exist’ in the sense that he exists in people’s minds? Isn’t the occurrence of the experience of the perception of God something that exists and is happening in this physical universe?” retorts the Objector.
The Elucidator thinks for a while and then answers. “When people say God exists what they mean is that he doesn’t exist only in people’s minds, but that he truly exists ‘out there’. However I see your point and in the sense he ‘exists’ in people’s minds (which are physical and whose experience is physically occurring), maybe it isn’t enough to make the distinction of simply existing or not. So let’s instead say that God is ‘real’ but not ‘actual’. He is ‘real’ in that he is felt to exist in the minds of billions of people on the planet. But he is not ‘actual’ because he doesn’t actually exist in the true meaning of the word.”
Thus the distinction of ‘real’ but not ‘actual’ is born, and now we can readily explain all manner of phenomena. For example, Santa Claus is ‘real’ - he is felt to exist by many children across the globe - but he is not actual - there isn’t actually a man in a red suit at the North Pole making lists.
‘Angels’ are real - many a person has had experiences of angels, many children have a guardian angel, etc - but they are not actual - there aren’t actually-existing (metaphysical) entities coming to the planet to protect our children.
And now this is the key point - ‘Rick’, ‘Claudiu’, and ‘Solvann’ the feeling-beings are ‘real’ - they are each felt to exist by their respective ‘selves’ along with the people they interact with - but they do not actually exist - the feeling-being ‘Rick’ and ‘Claudiu’ and ‘Solvann’ aren’t actually-existing entities.
When people would assert that, for example, ‘Claudiu’ actually exists, what they would mean is that there is a truly, actually, really existing physical (although some would say metaphysical but let’s go with physical) entity that really truly in a completely standard sense of the word exists. That there is a true, substantial, really existing ‘Claudiu’. And the Objector chimes in: “‘Claudiu’ clearly exists. ‘Claudiu’ clearly and undeniably experiences himself as existing. How can you deny his experience?”
The Elucidator has a ready answer now. “‘Claudiu’ and the people he interacts with might have an experience of ‘Claudiu’ existing. But this does not mean that ‘Claudiu’ exists, in a true, substantial, really existing way. The experience is misleading and misinformative. We can say that ‘Claudiu’ is ‘real’ but not actual.”
And the Elucidator continues. “However the actual flesh and blood body named Claudiu, along with its consciousness, is a truly, actually, really existing physical entity that really truly in a completely standard sense of the word exists. There is a true, substantial, really existing flesh and blood body called Claudiu. This flesh and blood body is not ‘real’ but rather is actual, in our special-usage sense of the word.”
Thus the thing to reflect and ponder with great fascination is (using the special-usage terminology now):
- There is no ‘outside’ to the physical universe. There is nothing besides the physical universe. Only that which is physical actually exists.
- There is an actually existing flesh and blood body Rick with an actually existing consciousness, that actually exists (as in, it is actual).
- There is a ‘really’ existing feeling-being ‘Rick’ with a feeling of ‘consciousness’ that ‘really’ exists, however this feeling-being does not actually exist, in a physical way or otherwise, despite the experience of ‘Rick’ that indicates otherwise… In other words, feeling-being ‘Rick’ is ‘real’ but not actual.
- And all feeling-being ‘Rick’ has to do is consider this with great thoroughness, letting it sit and reflect in his mind, until actuality can get an “edge” in and ‘Rick’ decides all-of-a-sudden to allow ‘himself’ to go into abeyance, upon which ‘Rick’ will temporarily cease to be via a “handing-off” of consciousness to actual Rick, who will have been having the ongoing experience of himself to be actually existing this whole time and will likely wonder what all the fuss was about with that feeling-being ‘Rick’ insisting he actually exists when ‘he’ doesn’t
.
Cheers,
Claudiu