I don't think you're seeing my point. Firstly, I'm doing the very opposite of omitting reality: I'm untangling it from our ideas and language.
I am trying to untangle logic and reason from our ideas and language. In my view, there is a rational universe out there that does follow what we would consider to be logic and reason. How perfectly or imperfectly we communicate this logic and reason has nothing to do with the existence of that rational universe that follows logic and reason.
And when we try to discover what is true, we can't always indulge in a pragmatic view of things.
I see no other way to find truth. If we can't even get past Descartian Dilemma (i.e. are we dreaming or not) then there is no way we can discover truth. At some point we have to take a pragmatic view that what we observe is real and rational. If we get bogged down in the philosophical quicksand of how to define truth we will never spend time actually looking for it.
To be frank, when it comes to finding truth philosophy has helped very little. I tend to agree with Steven Weinberg who stated in his book "Dreams of a Final Theory" that (paraphrasing) the only positive thing that philosophy has done is point out bad philosophies. When it comes to figuring out how the world around us works philosophy has had little to do with new discoveries. What has worked is a pragmatic acceptance of a rational universe, leaving epistemologies to be argued over by guys who smoke pipes and wear sport coats instead of lab coats (just a little interdisciplinary ribbing, don't take it personal

).
As I've seen it stated elsewhere, this is confusing the map for the geography.
False. All that is being said is that there is a geography that is conducive to mapping even if maps or cartographers do not exist. I think it is absurd to suggest that geography only exists because we make maps.
I say I "might" see where you're coming from because you seem to not at all be seeing where I'm coming from. From what you've said about logic and reason, it could similarly be concluded that the word "dog" is a dog, instead of a word that refers to a real object.
It is this sort of pedantry that makes philosophy nearly irrelevant to discovering the truth. While philosophers discuss the meaning of "dog" there are people in the real world figuring out what makes a dog work and how it relates to the rest of biology.
I don't wish to continue with the conversation in the manner I began with, because it is much too confusing (I'm not the best at making my points clear, so maybe it would only be me causing myself confusion ), but I have no problem with continuing in the manner of this post, nor with continuing to discuss those topics relevant to the thread and goldrush's questions, in general.
I have enjoyed our discussion so far. If you think I am wrong about something please let me know, and why you think so.