Let’s face it. We’ve all come across those types of people who may seem a bit “off” or “flakey” to us. They’re the ones that talk about “surrounding people with pink bubbles of forgiveness” and “sending love and light.” Or, perhaps they talk about the auras they see around you. With breathy voices, they speak of ethereal and intangible things with flowery speech. And you watch with dismay thinking, “This person has got to be totally off her rocker…

Yet, on the other hand, we’ve all come across those types of people who talk about funds and finances and investments and growing their portfolio. They use business terms like “quarterly” and “budgets” and “high risk yield.” They dress in suits and ties or pant-suits and command large offices of minions who do their bidding with strong and efficient speech. We don’t think of them as “off” or “flakey;” instead, we think of them as strong, perhaps models of society, or even someone we want to emulate.

So why do we think of one type of person as “cray-cray” and the other as “grounded?” It all comes down to what we can and cannot see, the basis of what most of us use for determining “reality.” And that’s what had me thinking the other day. What, exactly, is reality?

Some would argue it’s the Housewives of New York, but I digress.

Still, others pose that “reality” is something we can see with our own eyes, or hear with our own ears, or touch, or smell, or taste. If it’s not tangible – if it’s not something that can be experienced with our senses – then it’s not a reality. And there are those who will use this excuse to poo-poo any form of spirituality. But there’s so much reality around us every day that we can’t experience with the senses – unless “awareness” could be considered the “sixth sense.”

But even those senses we talk about as being tangible are just as unreal as those pink bubbles of forgiveness when you realize that they all rely on electrical connections that happen in the brain. When we see something with our own eyes, it’s nothing more than the brain’s interpretation of what it is viewing through a lens (the eye). When we touch or handle something with our own hands, it’s nothing more than the brain’s interpretation of how it should feel through electrical connections from the fingertips to the brain. Any impediment through those connections would result in the brain interpreting the touch as something different. And the same happens with taste, and sound, and smell. They all rely on the brain’s interpretation of the experience.

Now imagine someone who is blind. Their brain cannot interpret the person standing in front of them. Does that mean that person isn’t a reality? If someone loses their sense of taste, does that mean the reality of food is tastelessness? It falls along the same lines as that old question: “If a tree falls in the middle of the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?” And taking this query to the next level: just because we might not be able to see angels, love, energy, and pink bubbles of forgiveness, does that mean they aren’t a reality?

Should we not, then, further define reality as anything around which we can wrap our brains? After all, something feels real to us if we can think about it – like waking up angry from a dream in which your spouse cheated on you. It didn’t really happen, but it felt real. Yet even that doesn’t truly define reality, because even our brain relies on something else for its existence. It’s called the soul – in Latin, anima; the same root as the word animate. It’s what animates and gives life to the body. The “life-force” some may say; others the “breath of God.”

Then again, doesn’t that just bring us full-circle to the “realities of which we cannot see…?”