If the oneness of the Trinity is it’s relationship, then does that make it’s oneness an abstract quality, and if abstract qualities are real, can they also be reality? Another given involves stories being more real than reality in that they are ordered and reality is in varying stages of order. Therefore real = order = right relationship. If order is established by God and/or humans (determinism, Pelagianism, or synchronism), then that would involve the pre-existence of order in the mind (ideally informed by the heart), and the creative act of assembling order (with the body). In this scheme, things become real when purposed and accomplished by a creator.
Hence, the Legos obtain relationship first with their creator, then the assembler, then with each other, then with observers and those who handle them. The relationship is real, but is it reality? Heretofore reality has been the state of incomplete order (except in Christ). But once an object or person reaches its telos unto itself, does it have a further telos unto others? The involvement of others in its ultimate telos makes the relationship a reality. It is not an independent reality, it is one of interdependence. If one lego is poised for connection with another lego, but that lego is lost or damaged, then the first lego has a damaged, untelotic relationship. This causes psychic pain, if not in the lego itself (which I think is possible), then in the creator. Psychic pain is reality. It is a state of chaos. It is not real, however, except as a stage in a story where happy endings are required. Or some kind of alternate resolution is found. Disresolution is intolerable and chaotic. I do not believe it will stand in the ultimate scheme of things. At least not for the beloveds, those in right relationship with God. Take Lazarus the unrequited sore-laden beggar who ends up comforted in Abraham’s bosom, for example. The rich guy, however, was doomed to unrequited necessity. It became reality, if not something real, for him. How can God stand an incomplete telos in His creation? There are those whom he “casts from his presence”. We anthropomorphize this and see it as placing distance between ourselves and those with whom we have a damaged relationship. We can self-protectively cut off our emotions towards them. But the reality of the relationship is always there, bothering us deep down inside. If God is dispassionate and doesn’t feel pain, and doesn’t “need” a relationship with us, but is love, then the distance he allows is for the broken person’s sake. It is painful to be forced into an ill-fitting relationship. God can handle it, but Legos can’t. If in Pinochio fashion, the Legos become more real, more like God, then they become softer, I suppose, at least when trying to connect to damaged Legos. Not exactly what C.S. Lewis envisioned in The Great Divorce, where people had to become harder to keep from experiencing the painful hardness of grass. Maybe instead, grass would be so soft that if you weren’t light enough, you’d go through it like water. Or maybe like with Non-Newtonian fluid, you have to speed up to keep from sinking into it. Rigid, non-moving things themselves pass through into a lower dimension/existence. Ever moving restful (St. Maximus term) things stay afloat. This can seem like a too detatched analogy because being real involves connection, proper connection through detachment from misdirected attachments, as St. Maximus describes in his 400 Chapters on Love.
Could a creator, God or human, purpose chaos? God may allow a certain degree of it, there is no measurable instance of Absolute Zero, but I don’t think he intends chaos. It is a result of his withdrawal from non-willing people, even if he can work its effects into good for the willing ones. Can people construct chaos? Perhaps only nihilists (Joker in Dark Night) who believe in it can. Most others are trying, misguided though they may be, to make things right.