For those who are not sure of the meaning of my terms see the first post in this thread wherein these terms are defined. Also see the subsequent discussion for some of the larger implications of the value analysis offered in the o.p.
For a fuller understanding of the meaning of Systemic, Extrinsic, and Intrinsic, see Chapter 3 of the booklet, a link to which is offered below.
The terms I defined - such as "essence" and "reality" - are basic and can be found historically in discussions on Epistemology, Metaphysics, and especially Ontology.
Do you happen to have an example or two of something that exists, but is not real? Or real, but does not exist? It would help.
For a better understanding of what I mean by "real" I refer you to Post #109 at the end of page 11 at this link:
Some readers may have overlooked it; others have read it, but it is good to review it now and then.
For example, the destitution and hunger of many folks who live in a refugee shantytown in South Africa exists, but is not real to many Americans. It is not a real concern to them. On the other hand, baseball and/or football is. When you bring that subject up -- Now... you're really talking That's real !!!!!
My definition was no pun.
I have in this thread made a value analysis, defining terms by means of value dimensions. The sense of the word "real" I intended was its role in expressing the degree of concern one has, or how involved one is with the subject that s/he calls "real." The appropriate dimension of value to define it was that which conveys emphasis, for the Intrinsic domain is the emphatic and the empathic. This, in a sense, is above and beyond the everyday, social-economic, material world.
Yes, in your usage, real things first exist. But when I defined "reality" as "Intrinsic Being" it alluded to the intense degree of involvement with, or the sense of unity with, the valuer and what is being valued when the judgment is made, when the word is employed. When I asked "Is it better to be real than merely to exist?" the sense of the term 'real' there was "authentic" since I was referring to a person as being real - rather than being a phony. If you read the chapter, What Is Ethics? (pages 26 ff.) in the booklet - a link to which is offered below - you surely would comprehend why I-Value is the appropriate dimension to talk about persons if one appreciates Ethics, and wants to be ethical.
Now you know what I meant. Now I hope and trust we can find agreement in re those questions listed in Post #58 above.
I just wonder what kind of truth you can discover by spinning it out of your very own definitions.