The general meaning of the term 'realism' is “A tendency to face facts and be practical rather than imaginative or visionary.” (ref) however it is also the name of a particular philosophical movement.

Realism is "in philosophy, the viewpoint which accords to things which are known or perceived an existence or nature which is independent of whether anyone is thinking about or perceiving them." (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/493091/realism)

"The nature and plausibility of realism is one of the most hotly debated issues in contemporary metaphysics, perhaps even the most hotly debated issue in contemporary philosophy. The question of the nature and plausibility of realism arises with respect to a large number of subject matters, including ethics, aesthetics, causation, modality, science, mathematics, semantics, and the everyday world of macroscopic material objects and their properties." (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/)

The aspect being discussed here is that of the "everyday world of macroscopic material objects and their properties" and the idea "that physical objects exist independently of their being perceived." (http://www.answers.com/topic/realism)

In recent conversations and on several videos on the web I have noticed that there is a tendency for minds to confuse the name of the movement with the meaning of the word. This leads them to redefine within their own minds the terms 'real' and 'reality', which leads to enormous confusion in conversations about reality (that which actually exists). For example, they say things such as “Reality doesn't "actually exist"! All Realities are illusions. They are only what we each perceive in our own minds. Realities only exist in our own minds.” This is a common colloquial use of the terms, which is directly contradictory to the standard dictionary and philosophical meanings.

If we cannot coherently work towards an understanding of reality (that which actually exists) so that we can effectively participate in reality then we may soon no longer be a part of that which exists (extinction). For this reason those who wish to converse coherently about reality should clearly distinguish between the name of a movement and the meaning of the word, and should keep to the commonly accepted definitions of 'real' and 'reality'. Arbitrarily changing the meaning of such key words creates confusion that is very harmful to coherent rational discourse.

To assist with this I include below a table with commonly accepted meanings along one dimension and different usage patterns along the other. Then I offer an explanation of why the confusion arises and some alternative ways of communicating with naïve realists. Then I also include a list of quotes from genuine realists (those who are realistic) not nominal realists (those who ascribe to a particular philosophical movement).

In the table below the coherent usage pattern corresponds to all commonly accepted meanings in the appropriate context (orange and green cells). The green cells mark the region where the incoherent usage pattern corresponds to commonly accepted meanings.

In light of the commonly accepted general definitions 'realism' is the practice of being a 'realist', someone who is 'realistic' and therefore in touch with 'reality', i.e that which is 'real'; that which actually exists.

Hence a naïve realist is someone who is unrealistic due to false and unconsidered ideas that they erroneously believe are realistic.

Those who historically called themselves realists^TM (adherents of a particular philosophical belief) were naïve realist in regards to the contents of consciousness because they believed that the objects of perception where real material objects. Their philosophy proposed that these objects are the only things that are real. This is based on materialism.

Those who historically called themselves idealists^TM (adherents of a particular philosophical belief) were naïve realist in regards to the process of consciousness because they believed that the personal experience of mind is a real being (I, me). Their philosophy proposed that these beings are the only things that are real. This is based on egoism.

It is not a matter of which of the two is correct, because the very categorisation that distinguishes them is based on naïve realist assumptions. Both are naïve realist in different ways, because both are unrealistic due to false and unconsidered ideas that are mistaken as being real.

Why does this confusion arise?

People can form very strong personal memory associations with the words that are directly contradictory to the standard meanings.

To illustrate how memory associations form and evolve into this kind of thinking I will give an example. Imagine someone who fervently believes that X is the only thing that is real and that exists, hence they believe that the whole of reality consists of nothing but X. They believe this so fervently that they form a strong memory association between the concepts 'X', 'real', 'reality' and 'exist' to the point that all of these terms mean the same thing in their mind.

However some of them have intellectually overcome naïve realism but are still unconsciously using its language. They have realised that X is not the fundamental substance that they thought it was, but still the memory associations remain. Hence they declare that X-ism is false, real is false, reality is false, existence is false. Due to their memory associations all of these statements mean the same thing in their own mind.

Thus when they hear someone say that "Y is real" what they hear is "Y is X" and they argue against it saying no "Y does not exist" which to them means "Y is not X".

The fact that X was once believed to be real and to exist does not mean that realness and existence are intrinsically and permanently bound to X and cannot ever be used to describe Y. It is more the case that they were erroneously ascribed to X and upon further evidence and greater understanding they are now ascribed to Y.

Another complication is that it can be difficult to get them to think about these things rationally. They often spend too much effort in defensive tactics and too little effort in self-reflection on their own thinking. They seem unwilling to think about this, but just keep changing their position in contradictory ways and making excuses. This is because their personality (ego) is in control of their minds and it feels very uncomfortable about being seen to be wrong.

Our memory associations determine the shape of the lens of the mind and thereby determine what meanings we attach to each incoming signal. They determine the meaning of ones entire world-experience. A vital aspect of the inner work of self development is to become aware of them and disentangle them so that the lens provides a clearer view.

Alternative ways of communicating

It is possible to be accurate and still communicate with naive realists, whilst disentangling the knots in their memory associations rather than reinforcing them.

Instead of using the term 'reality' to refer to objects or phenomena that some minds believe to be real we can refer to those objects directly. e.g. avoid referring to the idea of the physical universe as reality, simply call it the physical universe.

I also use the terms "world-experience", "experiential-context" or sometimes "virtual reality", whilst others use phrases such as "phenomenal-manifestation", "experience of reality", "things as they appear to be", "objects of perception", etc...

From various other cultures there are also terms such as:

• maya (opposite Brahman) [Vedic],

• samsara (opposite Nirvana) [Buddhist],

• wanwu (opposite Hundun) [Daoist],

• the ten thousand things and the many creatures (opposite the uncarved block) [Daoist],

• the Land of Israel (opposite the Land of Edom) [Kabbalah],

• Earth (opposite Heaven) [Kabbalah, many others],

• relative reality (opposite absolute reality) [Vedic],

• etc...

what they are all clearly distinguishing is:

• experience of reality (opposite reality)

• phenomena (opposite noumena)

• explicate (opposite implicate)

• virtual reality (opposite computation)

Below are some examples of genuine realism:

From Science

“ “[W]e have to give up the idea of realism to a far greater extent than most physicists believe today." (Anton Zeilinger)... By realism, he means the idea that objects have specific features and properties — that a ball is red, that a book contains the works of Shakespeare, or that an electron has a particular spin... it may make no sense to think of them as having well defined characteristics. Instead, what we see may depend on how we look." (Originally published by Nature but recently deleted! Excerpts can be read at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1820354/posts)

“We have no satisfactory reason for ascribing objective existence to physical quantities as distinguished from the numbers obtained when we make the measurements which we correlate with them. There is no real reason for supposing that a particle has at every moment a definite, but unknown, position which may be revealed by a measurement of the right kind... On the contrary, we get into a maze of contradiction as soon as we inject into quantum mechanics such concepts as carried over from the language and philosophy of our ancestors\ldots It would be more exact if we spoke of `making measurements' of this, that, or the other type instead of saying that we measure this, that, or the other `physical quantity'.” (E. C. Kemble)

“Quantum theory essentially erased the difference between matter and fields, making reality a unit that exhibits the properties of both. This single, unitary stuff gave rise to the fantastically successful algorithm now used by physicists in all calculations involving quantum theory. But nobody knows what this unitary stuff really is. Most quantum physicists, of course, stop short of calling this unitary substance consciousness.” (Norman Friedman)

“Whatever the math does on paper, the quantumstuff does in the outside world.... Quantum theory is a method of representing quantumstuff mathematically: a model of the world executed in symbols.” (N. Herbert, Quantum Reality)

“Useful as it is under everyday circumstances to say that the world exists 'out there' independent of us, that view can no longer be upheld.” (John Wheeler)

Regarding quantum physics “it was fair to ask whether apparent separations in space and time ... are fundamentally 'real'; or whether, instead, they are somehow an illusion, masking a deeper reality in which all things are one, ... always connected one to another and to all. This sounds suspiciously like mysticism” (Ross Rhodes)

“materialism is the philosophy of the subject who forgets to take account of himself.” (Schopenhauer)

“Noumena (the ontological reality that underlies our sensory and mental impressions of an external world) do not cause phenomena, but rather phenomena are simply the way by which our minds perceive the noumena... we participate in the reality of an otherwise unachievable world outside the mind... We cannot prove that our mental picture of an outside world corresponds with a reality by reasoning... [however] we can participate in the underlying reality that lies beyond mere phenomena.” (Schopenhauer)

“The process metaphysics elaborated in Process and Reality (Whitehead) proposes that the fundamental elements of the universe are occasions of experience. According to this notion, what people commonly think of as concrete objects are actually successions of occasions of experience. Occasions of experience can be collected into groupings; something complex such as a human being is thus a grouping of many smaller occasions of experience.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy)

From Mysticism

"Normal consciousness is a state of stupor, in which the sensibility to the wholly real and responsiveness to the stimuli of the spirit are reduced. The mystics... endeavour to awake from the drowsiness and apathy and to regain the state of wakefulness for their enchanted souls." (Abraham Heschel)

“Mysticism … is the pursuit of achieving communion or identity with, or conscious awareness of, ultimate reality…through direct experience, intuition, or insight; and the belief that such experience is …an important source of knowledge, understanding, and wisdom.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism)

Reality is “beyond all the elements, and all the letters. There is no commerce with It. It brings all distinctions and developments to end; as such it is utterly unavailing. It is only peace, repose and oneness.” (Mandukya Upanishad 12)

“All exists in awareness and awareness neither dies nor is reborn. It is the changeless reality itself.” (Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj)

“Reality is not a concept, nor the manifestation of a concept. It has nothing to do with concepts [reality is “that which is”, whereas concepts are constructs of the mind that imperfectly reflect reality but ultimately only exist only within the mind]. Concern yourself with your mind, remove its distortions and impurities. Once you have had the taste of your own self, you will find it everywhere and at all times. Therefore it is so important that you should come to it. Once you know it, you will never lose it.” (Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj)

“The seeker is he who is in search of himself. Give up all questions except one: ‘Who am I?’ After all, the only fact that you are sure of is that you are. The ‘I am’ is certain. The ‘I am this’ is not. Struggle to find out what you are in reality. To know what you are, you must first investigate and know what you are not. Discover all that you are not – body, feelings, thoughts, time, space, this or that – nothing concrete or abstract, which you perceive can be you. The very act of perceiving shows that you are not what you perceive. The clearer you understand that on the level of mind you can be described in negative terms only [not this, not that], the quicker you will come to the end of your search and realize that you are the limitless being.” (Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj)

“The real does not die, the unreal never lived. Once you know that death happens to the body and not to you, you just watch your body falling off like a discarded garment. The real you is timeless and beyond birth and death. The body will survive as long as it is needed. It is not important that it should live long.” (Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj)

“When the television set is burned or destroyed, will the people in the movie feel the pain and die? You have no form, no shape...” (Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, Seeds of Consciousness)

“The body appears in your mind, your mind is the content of your consciousness; you are the motionless witness of the river of consciousness, which changes eternally without changing you in any way. Your own changelessness is so obvious that you do not notice it. Have a good look at yourself and all these misapprehensions and misconceptions will dissolve... God is only an idea in your mind. The fact is you. The only thing you know for sure is: ‘here and now I am’. Remove the ‘here and now’, the ‘I am’ remains, unassailable. The world exists in memory, memory comes into consciousness; consciousness exists in awareness and awareness is the reflection of the light on the waters of existence.” (Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, “I am That’, p190)

“Is there a world outside your knowledge? Can you go beyond what you know? You may postulate a world beyond the mind, but it will remain a concept, unproven and unprovable. Your experience is your proof, and it is valid for you only. Who else can have your experience, when the other person is only as real as he appears in your experience?” (Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj)

“What is it that had birth? Whom do you call a human being? If, instead of seeking explanations for birth, death and after-death, the question is raised as to who and how you are now, these questions will not arise... The body is born again and again. We wrongly identify ourselves with the body, and hence imagine we are reincarnated constantly. No. We must identify ourselves with the true Self. The realised one enjoys unbroken consciousness, never broken by birth or death - how can he die? Only those who think 'I am the body' talk of reincarnation. To those who know 'I am the Self' there is no rebirth. Reincarnations only exist so long as there is ignorance. There is no incarnation, either now, before or hereafter. This is the truth.” (Sri Ramana Maharshi)

[Mahamudra involves] meditation to develop mental quiescence (samatha) and penetrative insight (vipasyana). The former is the achievement of single-minded concentration in which you reach the mind's basic or natural level of blissful, clear, bare awareness, free from mental dullness, agitation and wandering. Penetrative insight is into Voidness or the true, transparent-like nature of reality in terms of this pure, mirror-like mind. With the joint achievement of both, you eliminate the darkness of ignorance that had been obscuring your realisation of what had been the case all along. By familiarising yourself with your innate, pure, pristine awareness of reality, coupled with an Enlightened Motive, you eventually become a totally awakened being, a Buddha with the full ability to help others." (Alexander Berzin)

“To Sankara the world is only relatively real (Vyavaharika Satta). He advocated Vivarta-Vada or the theory of appearance or superimposition (Adhyasa). Just as snake is superimposed on the rope in twilight [when one mistakes a rope for a snake], this world and body are superimposed on Brahman or the Supreme Self . If you get knowledge of the rope, the illusion of snake in the rope will vanish. Even so, if you get knowledge of Brahman or the Imperishable, the illusion of body and world will disappear. In Vivarta-Vada, the cause produces the effect without undergoing any change in itself. Snake is only an appearance on the rope. The rope has not transformed itself into a snake, like milk into curd. Brahman is immutable and eternal. Therefore, It cannot change Itself into the world. Brahman becomes the cause of the world through Maya, which is Its inscrutable mysterious power or Sakti.” (http://www.shankaracharya.org/advaita_philosophy.php)

“To Sankara, the Jiva or the individual soul is only relatively real [exists only in the world of appearance]. Its individuality lasts only so long as it is subject to unreal Upadhis or limiting conditions due to Avidya [ignorance]. The Jiva identifies itself with the body, mind and the senses, when it is deluded by Avidya or ignorance. It thinks, it acts and enjoys, on account of Avidya. In reality it is not different from Brahman or the Absolute [transcendent reality]. The Upanishads declare emphatically: ‘Tat Tvam Asi—That Thou Art.’…the Jiva or the empirical self becomes one with Brahman when it gets knowledge of Brahman. When knowledge dawns in it through annihilation of Avidya, it is freed from its individuality and finitude and realises its essential Satchidananda nature. It merges itself in the ocean of bliss. The river of life joins the ocean of existence. This is the Truth.

The release from Samsara [dwelling in the world of appearances] means, according to Sankara, the absolute merging of the individual soul in Brahman due to dismissal of the erroneous notion that the soul is distinct from Brahman. According to Sankara, Karma and Bhakti are means to Jnana which is Moksha [liberation].” (http://www.shankaracharya.org/advaita_philosophy.php)

“The main purpose of jnana meditation [yoga of Supreme Knowledge] is to withdraw the mind and emotions from perceiving life and oneself in a deluded way so that one may behold and live in attunement with Reality, or Spirit.” (http://www.yogaworld.org /jnana.htm)

“Brahman [absolute reality] is not an object, as It is Adrisya, beyond the reach of the eyes. Hence the Upanishads declare: “Neti Neti—not this, not this....” This does not mean that Brahman is a negative concept, or a metaphysical abstraction, or a nonentity, or a void. It is not another. It is all-full, infinite, changeless, self-existent, self-delight, self-knowledge and self-bliss. It is Svarupa, essence. It is the essence of the knower. It is the Seer (Drashta), Transcendent (Turiya) and Silent Witness (Sakshi)...

The world is relatively real (Vyavaharika Satta), while Brahman is absolutely real (Paramarthika Satta). The world is the product of Maya [appearances] or Avidya [ignorance]. The unchanging Brahman appears as the changing world through Maya. Maya is a mysterious indescribable power of the Lord which hides the real and manifests itself as the unreal [appearance flows through awareness creating observable forms]: Maya is not real, because it vanishes when you attain knowledge of the Eternal [the underlying reality]. It is not unreal also, because it exists till knowledge dawns in you. The superimposition of the world on Brahman is due to Avidya or ignorance.” ( http://www.shankaracharya.org/advaita_philosophy.php)

“Sankara’s Supreme Brahman [Absolute Reality] is impersonal, Nirguna (without Gunas or attributes), Nirakara (formless), Nirvisesha (without special characteristics), immutable, eternal and Akarta (non-agent). It is above all needs and desires. It is always the Witnessing Subject [pure awareness]. It can never become an object as It is beyond the reach of the senses [there are no objects other than appearances within awareness interpreted via the idea ‘object’]. Brahman is non-dual, one without a second. It has no other beside It. It is destitute of difference, either external or internal. Brahman [transcendent reality] cannot be described, because description implies distinction [that takes us into the world illusion]. Brahman cannot be distinguished from any other than It. In Brahman, there is not the distinction of substance and attribute. Sat-Chit-Ananda [existence - consciousness - bliss] constitute the very essence or Svarupa of Brahman, and not just Its attributes.” ( http://www.shankaracharya.org/advaita_philosophy.php)

“That in whom reside all beings and who resides in all beings, who is the giver of grace to all, the Supreme Soul of the universe, the limitless being – I am That.” (Amritbindu Upanishad)

“Shankaracharya exclusively advocates that the real, experiential knowledge of the Brahman/Atman identity [you are the Self and the Self is the Absolute Reality] is sufficient to get enlightened, and that as far as spiritual seekers are ready to sacrifice everything to obtain this supreme wisdom, they need neither rituals nor meditation as spiritual exercise.” (http://www.creativity.co.uk/creativity/guhen/shankara.htm)

“If you have mistaken a rope for a snake and are afraid of it, then “When you come to know that it is only a rope, your fear disappears. You do not run away from it. Even so, when you realise the eternal immutable Brahman, you are not affected by the phenomena or the names and forms of this world. When Avidya or the veil of ignorance is destroyed through knowledge of the Eternal, when Mithya Jnana or false knowledge is removed by real knowledge of the Imperishable or the living Reality, you shine in your true, pristine, divine splendour and glory.” (http://www.shankaracharya.org/advaita_philosophy.php)

"Every second he's bowing into a mirror. If he could see for just a second one molecule of what's there without fantasizing about it, he'd explode.
His imagination and he himself, would vanish, with all his knowledge, obliterated into a new birth, a perfectly clear view, a voice that says, I am God.
That same voice told the angels to bow to Adam, because they were identical with Adam.
It's the voice that first said, There is no reality but God. There is only God." (Jelaluddin Balkhi aka Rumi)

“Your real nature is as the one perfect, free, and actionless consciousness, the all-pervading witness -- unattached to anything, desireless and at peace. It is from illusion that you seem to be involved in samsara [world illusion].” (Ashtavakra Gita)