Thanks for the thought-provoking post!

Time is real for us because it's part of us.

Yeah, I think time is real in a relative sense. We definitely use it to interact well and with the world around us. And, I do agree it's a part of us. I would also say, however, that there are parts of our subjective experience that (to me at least) seem to transcend time. For example, dreams and specifically the Jungian form of active-imagination don't seem bound by its rules.

In other words for it to be real it has to be perceived or capable of being perceived.

I'd love to hear more about your thoughts on this. Defining reality is something I've always struggled with and what I've come up with is not satisfying. Maybe I can convey in a series of statements.

• The Objective world (perceived or unperceived) is real. Like trees.

• Subjective contents are real. Like dreams.

• Objective reality can be validated via shared observation, Subjectively reality probably cannot.

• The Objective world, however, is only seen subjectively and is still relative to the observer. Even if we build tools (like a microscope) they data we retrieve is relative to the tools we build. Therefore the objective world might be both within us and outside of us simultaneously, or a projection of what is within (or maybe not, could very well just be a land we are discovering through our partial and incomplete senses/perceptions and the experiences simply exist subjectively and independently of the objective world.

I suppose, in that last statement, one thought favors non-dualism and the other favors scientific materialism. I, personally, find a lot of value in both.

Thanks again!