There's a difference (at least in Lacanian theory) between 'reality' as experienced in daily life and the Real. Reality is just a term for our process of making sense of the world by putting it in symbolic terms. The Real stands for the leftover that can never be fully accounted for in any one positive depiction of reality. This resistance of the Real to any symbolic enclosure is, in the radical Lacanian view, what opens the space for things like art, politics and, ultimately, subjectivity itself.
The two basic registers the ego has for relating to the Real are the symbolic (language, reason, ascribing meaning to things, all that jazz) and the imaginary (which, as it sounds, is the space of images, pre-symbolic visual experiences and memories). This basic psychoanalytic triad Symbolic-Imaginary-Real mirrors the classic Freudian id-ego-superego, as well as the Oedipal triad mother-father-child and serves as a useful tool for beginning to make sense of the psychedelic experience. Ultimately, in my view, it is an event in the Real that evokes a cascade of atypical symbolic and imaginary processes which can be useful both to uncover repressed material for individuals or to better understand the structures at work in our own minds. I would argue that, while the first revelation of most psychedelic users is that their pre-existing conceptions of reality are wrong, the second, more important one is that even the weirdest extremes of psychedelic space still follow some structural 'rules' - when even the most basic ontological barriers become blurred, the Symbolic still follows its rigid order, and the imaginary content of most trips is a prime candidate for the psychoanalytic methods of imaginary analysis.
Here's another made up rule of psychedelics for you: writing about psychedelics while on psychedelics leads to long, probably only partially coherent posts like this one.
