What I mean by made to be unobtainable is that I think this definition of real is a construct too and it's a deliberately impossible construct. I keep these types of ideas you are teaching me about in mind every day, but I don't believe they hold the same significance as you do.

It's like we agree mostly in a subtle way. We're both tremendously affected (I assume in your case) by the idea that perception is not absolute in the sense that the smells and sounds don't exist outside of us. Perception being not what we first assume does not equate to perception being bunk. That in conclusion, none of us is interacting with our "true" selves.

The thing is, we disagree fundamentally really, and yet every time I have this conversation we can never move past the explanations for the basic ideas of perception not being metaphysically king. I believe there could be something different in our attitudes that leads me to not even think of just the surface level, deliberate processes as myself, but as the entire aggregate of my being as my "true self". So how could I be wrong about my identity if I look at, for instance, a bit of anger as just the anger itself, informing me about the greater whole? And as I get older and try to be more and more honest with myself, including the fact that I have nowhere near direct access to the very sub levels that inform the actions I perceive as controlling.

Back to my word "unobtainable". The reason I believe it IS obtainable is because I see "reality" and my "true self" as just being a lot more and full of staggeringly greater nuance than we take for granted, not that it is outside our bubble of interaction. Outside our bubble of interaction is just another metaphysical level with its own limitations on whatever exists there. For "them", there is a "greater" perception they can't reach.

Basically we see hugely different yet parallel implications for the observation and fact that reality is nowhere near what it seems.