reality is...
 

answer

that which we percieve.

that is not limited to the contents of this universe, it is literally, all that which you interpret through your senses.

(imho)

if you've seen Bubba Ho-Tep, you know what reality is. Bruce Campbell playing an aging Elvis along side a black guy who thinks he's JFK fighting to rid a rest home of an Egyptian soul-sucker.

reality is accepting these ridiculous human ideas and wondering if they mean anything at all.

reality is
reality is not

i; derunk, thatr' a realityu

reality is
reality is hot

Reality is my goodies

Reality is my Aslan: it's coming to the silver screen December, 2005

How could reality be conceived of as anything but 'all that is'?
The next step is to determine what categories of things 'exist'.

Integral approach:

There are three categories of things which exist. These three categories are represented in every human language by the three main personal pronouns:

"I" exist - meaning everything internal to subjective consciousness and experience. So for instance, if you hold an incorrect opinion that is 'out of touch with reality', it still exists as PART of reality. It cannot be conceived to NOT exist, even if it does not correspond to the objective world.

"We' exist - everything shared between subjective individuals. We lived in a shared world, which has qualities as being intersubjective. When I place my hand on your hand, it is not reducible to two separate, isolated entities of sensation existing in each subjective world (though it does exist in each subjective world), but rather one singular entity which is shared between me and you. 'Shared' is roughly analogous to 'cultural'.

"It" exists - the objective world 'out there' which is commonly considered 'reality'. It's the solid universe which exists independently of somebody perceiving it. So if a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound? Well no, since no one is there to perceive it, but it sure does create sound waves which impact upon the surrounding environment.

However, once we understand all the theings which reality is, we may conclude that reality is not, or is 'anatta', 'empty of form', as the buddhists say.

such an emo topic

There's specific problems with describing it as merely what we percieve or what our senses intake. The common criticism of this is if you have to wear glasses, and take those glasses off, an object may appear fuzzy or blurry ... Does that mean that the essence of that object is it's fuzziness? Your other senses, those of touch, and whatever the basic senses are, will tell you something completely different than your sense of sight. Your senses would be in contradiction, therefor, reality would be a contradiction... something that by the very definition of reality, cannot be true.

Absolutely true mike, which is why it is crucial to include the existence of both within our definition of reality. While yes, the object is not objectively fuzzy, how is it even sane to exclude the experience of its fuzziness from our definition of reality? The objective fact of the object has substance, and the subjective fact of our experience of the object as being fuzzy has substance.

In philosophy, this is the distinction between primary and secondary qualities. Primary qualities are things such as shape and movement, which exist without our experience of them. Secondary qualities, however, require a percpetual system to interact with things such as light and sound waves and produce visual and auditory experience. Subjective experience lies within the realm of existence and it is absolute insanity (no matter how widespread) to argue otherwise.

Of course, once we add theology to the mix (which i would love to do) we have to ask about levels of reality and distinguish a hierarchy of more or less real levels of being.