"Transcend" means going beyond the limits of something. Therefore, when you transcend reality, it means that you go beyond the limits of reality. Does this necessarily mean fantasy? or perhaps fiction? In this case, what are the limits of reality? Does it mean something confined within the five senses: listen, see, touch, taste, and smell? Perhaps it would help if the terms "fantasy" and "fiction" are defined. "Fantasy" is about imagining improbable things. "Fiction", on the other hand, means something invented; and therefore, involves things that are considered imaginary. How about delusion? Does the idea of transcending reality involve delusion? How can you transcend reality without having delusions?
How about we apply this to truth. When you search for the truth, will it involve transcending of reality? When you do your search for truth, it demands something from your mind. When you think about reality, your mind is always involved. If reality is something confined to the five senses, and your mind is the one that controls these senses, how can somebody be sure that one is not having fantasies and living in fiction since the same mind is capable of something imaginary?
Is reality a concept that is something relative, relative to the subjects involved, and in turn, relative to the minds involved? If reality is relative to the minds involved, then is it some sort of a social convention, just like in the case of mathematical notations, such that there is the "reality of mathematics"? Maybe reality is meant to be intertwined with imaginary things. When one chooses not to transcend reality, e.g. being staunchly realistic, how can one be so sure that he or she does not imagine things? Can this person be considered a conformist since reality is a relativistic social convention confined within a particular scope of subjects or group of persons for that matter?
Perhaps being perfectly realistic means conforming to a relativistic convention formed by an infinite scope of subjects -- yes, "infinite scope" is the term. Reality is indeed a natural thing since it always involves nature. If reality is a natural thing, and reality is a relativistic convention formed by a scope of natural subjects, is something supernatural still a form of reality? Is reality, as a product of relativistic convention formed by an infinite scope of subjects, which may involve an infinite mind, can be considered supernatural? Does this mean that being supernatural is something ultimately real? Are we all designed to be supernatural since we have a mind that can imagine things?
That would mean that we belong to a family of supers.
