By Peter Spurrier

 This is a philosophical argument, which deals with the issue of whether anything can be unreal.  The argument appears to be rigorously logical.  It shows a paradox.  It shows that there is a contradiction if anything is unreal....but also unless some things are unreal.       
  
  Below are links to two documents, which explain two different versions of this philosophical argument.  One of the documents is easier to read, because it is shorter, simpler and in the form of a dialogue.      
  
  The issue, of whether anything can be unreal, has been addressed before by others, such as Bertrand Russell.   According to the argument, which is explained in these documents, Russell's theory is incorrect.   

  
  The documents reach a point at which it has been shown that any idea about anything is contradictory    ( bizarre though this sounds ).    The meaning of this conclusion is not something which can be intellectually understood, but it may be possible to experience it in a different way.      

  No specialist knowledge is required to understand these documents.  

   
  Responses to the argument and requests for hard copies are welcome.  Please email them to me at peter.spurrier@aim.com  

  It is recommended that the short dialogue, 'The Logical Paradox of Unreal Things', is read first.  To download that, click on the first link below.  To download the longer version, 'Logical Mysticism', click on the other link below.