The use of the term reality in philosophy to denote universals makes it logically impossible to state, as Triadic Philosophy emphatically does, that everything is real, that reality is everything known and unknown, and that Reality is a logical first in the triad Reality Ethics and Aesthetics. When I first encountered this problem, I quite easily grouped universals under the category of things that are ontological, that have universality, that participate in being itself. Related terms. beyond universal, would be reason, will, love etc. One reason for conceiving things thus may have been due to a misunderstanding of Peirce. It seemed clear to me that the vague beginnings of thought that Peirce called signs, the source of all thought I was given to understand, were "real". I had no trouble accepting that, given my own presupposition. But it seemed to me that to distinguish such "reals" from everything else was creating a confusion that need not be. So I held and hold that reality is all. And that what is universal within reality is ontological. This relates in my view to ethics because it would seem to me that we wish being to be the locus of those things which values represent. But that gets beyond the subject of how the word real is used in philosophy. I am sure it is correct that real is used to denote universality. I just happen to think that that creates a confusion and a reduction of what reality in fact is.