I have no doubt that the world of reality is something other than it appears. Historically, this view stems from Plato, and is, via Descartes’ new suspicion of reality, brought out as a perceptual idealism by Berkeley. Kant put forward a transcendental idealism which in turn led Hegel to the third idealist route — absolutism. This found its form finally in Bradley’s monistic idealism and the conclusions of Collingwood and Greene. Late nineteenth century British idealism was expounded (amongst others) by McTaggart (who most influences my own thought) and Whitehead, and vociferously refuted by G. E. Moore and Russell. My own view is that: (1) What I experience is mostly wrong in that it is misleadingly portrayed in what we call the world of appearance, or that, as a sensory being, I get it wrong irrespective of what the world portrays to me. I have, as yet, found no reason to alter my view on this. I believe reality exists. (2) Because reality exists, knowledge of it, at some point in time, in some way, must at least be possible. I am not altogether sure that this is possible in the span of a single life or even that the living act of being allows such knowledge to be possible to living beings. (3) There is something of this reality which may be accessible, but in our perception of it, it may not reflect the nature of reality in any genuine way, and may be more to do with a more fundamental or real sense of being in life (which may or may not be real) than with a greater realty. (4) That which may be accessible in life, though, is probably very great, indeed, we may find that what is accessible in life is more than we could ever expect, although it may be small compared to what is accessible beyond a life span or beyond the nature of being in life. (5) This compares to my 'three-fold way' — more three different views, or perspectives, all of which are available to us and possibly confused together in our experience. They are: ‘one-ness’ — the ultimate realisation, being in a state of complete knowledge of reality; ‘me-ness’ — the world according to me which is in some way part of the real world the nature of which remains mostly or entirely inaccessible. This is the world I can affect by my actions. This world is created by my existence and will not exist in my absence (A sort of 'sub-level' of both these can be invoked to be in respect of others: ‘one-ness with others’ and their reality (encompassing their world as they encompass mine), ‘me-ness with others’ (where they only form part of the world of my creation but they remain partitioned from me and my creative being); ‘alone-ness’ — isolation of being which makes no contact with others or (and which may be partly the same thing) something of that which is real. In this state I do nothing to meaningfully affect my world. I am not creative or reflective about the nature of the misleading world of appearance, and I do not account in my world for others and their existence. Me-ness is both my experience and the world of my experience — I am both it and am reliant on it, and there is nothing separate from it. One-ness is a world in which I exist (whether I know the reality of it or not) and within which I hope, or imagine, I can be at different levels of harmony - that I can, however, seems to me unlikely. In me-ness there is no question that there is at least the potential of additional harmony for this world is necessarily a world of harmony. The 'objective' world of one-ness remains, in the world of me-ness, the inaccessible world of reality. Only one-ness at the sub-level is available to me in the world of me-ness. (6). The greatest opportunity for change can be found in enhanced freedom within the 'sub-level'. It may be that change here can afford glimpses of reality but I feel constrained by my belief that reality would still be unknowable. In our world of me-ness we can experience various levels of ‘me’, some which are apparently practical, some transcendental (we could call these ‘sub-level-me-one’, ‘sub-level-me-two etc.).