The relation between the real and the abstract ought to be interesting for rational thinking, since it sets the limit for rational thinking (ie, decides whether rational thinking can reach a single truth, like a “tree of life” and a physical “standard model”, or not).
So, what is the relation between them? Well, paradoxically contradictory, I would say. The paradox is that there is no clear-cut (unambiguous) boundary between them, but that they still are not the same. The relation between them IS the boundary between them itself. It means that if we consider them as different, we have to be ambiguous, and if we consider them the same, we have to be paradoxically contradictory. The rational idea of “a single truth” is thus hidden beyond this double lock.
This double lock may be comprehended as only an abstract semantic problem (ie, a consequence of our specific conceptualization), but the fact that time is relative to speed in space proves that it is also real. It actually exists as a reality.
So, what does this fact mean? Well, it means that all change in this world is doomed to rotate around an empty middle forever; both our rational thinking’s search for a single truth about reality and reality’s own search for a steady state. Nothing can ever stop, because there is no stop.
So, how do we best handle this situation? Well, we do the best we can to to make sense of our situation and create a meaning in our short lives. The situation does, however, mean that this meaning ought not be a search for a rational truth (like a “tree of life” or a “standard model”, but instead ought to acknowledge that reality is incomprehensible. An exception is mathematics. It can understand reality without us understanding how it does.
Another contribution to understanding of conceptualization http://menvall.wordpress.com/