Fundamental reality versus conceptual reality Ok, maybe that was a weak move. Let me try to write it down in a few words.
Conceptual reality is in our minds. It is fragmented, it has a notion of time. It has ideas of things it can expect. It has language. And also, it is sequential, basically we are only aware of a few things simultanously. We can notice that there are strange things in this conceptual reality, for instance that they are organized in levels, from atoms to cookies to letters, but nothing inbetween. We have things like emergent complexity, for instance ants that walk around seemingly randomly yet form living bridges across two branches and we cannot explain how it works. And the brain. We invent or discover things that we didn't know before. So we can clearly see that there are things beyond our knowledge. Also, the world is larger than our skull, so it is obvious that the reality we perceive can never be the full reality, we have to compress it.
For that reason we invent a term, I call it fundamental reality. It is about the things we don't understand. It is perfectly fine to have a term for the collection of things we have no name for, that happens all the time. Just like "future". We can say a few things in general about fundamental reality, in the same way we can have predictions about the future. Still, both the future and fundamental reality are fundamentally unknowable. (that is the only thing these two terms have in common, it is not a full analogy)
One of the things we can say about fundamental reality is that if you know what you are looking for, you can find conformation that it is there. And those conformations regularly do align. So there must be *something* out there, we cannot say everything is just an imagination.
I don't see a contradiction here. If there is one, probably you are misinterpreting a few of my words or introducing concepts that are not mine. Also, I believe what I say is obvious and simple, you can easily verify what I am saying.