Neurolinguistics seems to have an influence on someone's recognition of reality. The choice of words can alter someone's view of what they think is real.
The problem of reality is that it's up for semantic grabs. Is what a person experiences really real? Is what we visualize in our imagination reality? Is there an objective reality?
Philosophers talk about phenomenology. The metaphysics folks say that only what we see is reality and that is all we can hope for in identifying it.
Consciousness can change on a dime. Perceived reality can only be tested by a variety of experiential imput by others. I see reality as a scientific construct to be measured and tested. It is a relative reality and not an absolute. I think that human consciousness is a process and not fixed but fluid. I see reality as being relatively verifiable, not absolute.
I think there may be more than one kind of reality. Experiential reality may not be readilly tested or observable.
In the use of identifying reality for therapeutic purposes, experiential reality must be tested by verifiable reality. It's interesting how language plays such an important role in how we view reality. A sense of self is often slanted by the words we use to describe ourselves. In attempting to communicate what we think of as "self", we may alter that definition many times. The sense of "self" then changes and is fluid. It's like cellular growth, it may not be the same one minute to the next.
I wonder, in the metaphor of The Golden Compass, if the sense of self is like dust.