Vision or reality?

From my paper, the question was asked why I would refer to it as an ecstatic vision rather than a reality. Being a firm believer in having the text at hand whenever possible, so here it is:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%203%20;&version=49;
1Now Moses was pasturing the flock of (A)Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian; and he led the flock to the west side of the wilderness and came to (B)Horeb, the (C)mountain of God.
2(D)The angel of the LORD appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a (E)bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed.
3So Moses said, "(F)I must turn aside now and see this marvelous sight, why the bush is not burned up."
4When the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, (G)God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, "Moses, Moses!" And he said, "Here I am."
5Then He said, "Do not come near here; (H)remove your sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground."

Now, the story continues, but for our purposes we have all the relevant text...and then some. I included it because that is what I would have cited had I completed the paper under the original intent.
A careful reading neither demands nor precludes it being either reality or visionary...but a vision can be reality and reality can be a vision. To the person experiencing the vision, it is reality itself.
Moses sees a bush that, to him, appears to be on fire. That is what is expressed within the text. I actually looked at close to a dozen translations, including the (in my eyes) lesser ones like the NIV and Darbys. In none of them does it explicitly state either that what he saw was real or that it was a vision akin to the one Elijah showed his servant. Therefore, it comes to individual interpretation of the text.
Here it gets a little tricky and perhaps even metaphysical. If it was real in the sense that there was indeed the physical presence of fire but it left no evidence of its presence, that fire has changed its form from natural fire. As such, it can, I do not argue should but instead could, be argued to be a vision of fire rather than fire itself. Fire requires fuel and the consumption of fuel, so a fire that consumes nothing is more phantasmal than substantial. On the other hand, if it was a vision, a reflection in the mind of physical realities, does this concepcion make it any less real? The events still transpire, the evidence remains the same, only the name has changed...or has it?
Calling something a vision does not, or at least should not, indicate the event was not real. Many people throughout Scripture relate visions. When Paul says he was "caught up to the third heaven" does this indicate it was his body or simply his mind? Available evidence would suggest only his mind since his body, if I recall correctly, had been thrown in the dump. Did this make his vision any less real? Being a vision does not preclude it being reality...at times they are one and the same.
But another, seemingly unrelated issue is at work here that possibly is the root of the discussion. Without delving too far into theories of "shared consciousness" or "public memories" I would say that historical events are at work here. During the middle ages when the catholic church was ascendant, despite being steeped in cultic practices themselves they rose up in fear, anger and hatred towards other cultic practices. The witch burnings of the Inquisition come to mind. In fact, it is largely from this time period that the negative connotations of the word "cultic practices" largly come.
Be that as it may, the search to stamp out that which could not be understood changed the perception and understanding of visions. As a result, the religious world came to understand visions post-Biblical period as a mark of Satan or (negative connotation deliberately referenced here) cultic activity. Somehow we simultaneously have come to deny and fear the power of activities of the spiritual realm...seances, tarot cards, dreams, etc....a denial, by the way, not found in Scripture. Quite the contrary. Remember the story of Saul and the woman of Endor where it appears Samuel himself is summoned back from death?
The point, however, is perhaps subtle, perhaps obvious...I don't know. But here it is. Historical aversion to the potential power of visionary experiences causes a reinterpretation of Biblical events that elminates the possibility of visionary activity.
And summing up this longwinded bit of fun, whether he experienced events that left no physical evidence and therefore ACTED as a vision or if he simply experienced sights and sounds in his head that, while leaving no physical evidence had the resonance of actual events, it looked like a real event but acted as a vision. For me, the difference is subtle and unimportant, but for another I can see why it would be important indeed.