REALITY - OBJECTIVE OR SUBJECTIVE?
http://beyondtheblog.wordpress.com/2007/04/22/reality-objective-or-subjective/

REALITY - OBJECTIVE OR SUBJECTIVE?
Posted by anthonynorth 

We have various labels for paranormal phenomena: ghosts,
premonition, etc. but can we better understand the paranormal by
using a new definition? To me the subject can best be seen as the
interplay between mind and environment.
The mind is, of course, subjective, whilst the environment about us
would seem to be an objective fact. We know this because science says
so, but to what extend does the subjective mind impinge upon this
objective reality?

It is a subject that has fascinated philosophers for centuries, but it
is an area of research so often missed by parapsychologists and
psychical researchers. So I ask a question: Is objective reality simply
a bare canvas to be filled by our subjective thoughts?

THE NIGHT I SAW MY UFO
An anecdote to explain what I mean. One night as I was going to bed a
blast of wind rattled the window. I wasn't in a particularly
good mood. I pulled back the curtain to see how bad the wind was and
became suddenly transfixed.
In the garden next door, about two feet above the ground, was a cascade
of golden lights. I have since called it my angel, or UFO, and it was so
beautiful that my mood disappeared. After watching for quite a while, I
went to bed and slept peacefully for the first time in ages.
The next morning I investigated. There was a pile of bricks in the
garden, and trapped on it was the cause of my vision. An empty packet of
crisps with its reflective insides showing had reflected an orange
street light as it blew in the wind.

TOWARDS A COLLECTIVE REALITY
I have offered just one very visible example. Yet the interplay between
objective reality and the subjective mind can be seen as a continual
process. Jung offered his theory of archetypes within
a collective unconscious. We can now look at this in a new way.
An objective reality would be the same to all people. At the root of
sensory experience would be a shared impression,  a
collective experience, as it were. This collective
experience would provide objective archetypal
impressions in the unconscious.
We can see this in action in the discipline of Semiotics, where
signs and symbols provide collective meaning and
direction. A red traffic light, for instance, is a collective
instruction to stop. A dark cloud is universally precognitive of rain.

WE LIVE IN TWO WORLDS
Such archetypal imagery would also mix with the
collective aspects of the mind. Certain mind traits,
for instance, are shared, whether through our genes or repetitive
behaviour.
This interplay between shared mind and environment offers a credible
existence to Jung's collective unconscious. Indeed, myth itself
can be seen as a shared psychology writ large, filled with archetypal
personality types and human dilemmas.
This reality of a physical, objective world and a shared psychological
world has been expressed in religion throughout human existence. Since
earliest times we have lived in two worlds: the physical world
and a parallel spirit world. We can now, perhaps, see what this concept
means.

INVADING THE OBJECTIVE
If a skeptic had researched my UFO he would have
worked out what caused the vision, offered a wry smile and declared
case closed. But this is an error. No matter how
mundane the cause was, it had an effect in my mind.
In fact, it transformed my mind. It turned my mood, provided relaxation
and disclosed a vital key in my theorizing. And it prompts a vital
question: If a subjective interpretation of objective reality changes
the person, does it gain a degree of objective reality in itself?
Consider the implications. Imagine lots of people witnessing a similarly
mundane thing, and similarly misinterpreting it. They think it is a god,
and their actions from then on are as though this god exists. In
changing objective reality through their future actions, the
god invades objective reality by proxy. So in some
sense, this god must exist.

DESTINY AND THE QUEST
What the above suggests is that, whilst objective reality is a constant,
a shared psychology is not. A misinterpretation of a mundane thing can
cause a subjective change to the interpretation of reality by the
person. And his actions from then on can similarly change others
interpretation of objective reality, to the point where objective
reality may appear to change itself.
We can add another dimension to this. Objective reality constantly
bombards the mind with sensory input. We cannot cope with this so we
have a filter which presents us with only the sensory
input of relevance to our present requirements.
If we can impinge our subjective mind upon objective reality, does this
change the nature of our sensory input to only receive those signs and
symbols that we want? It is a given of coincidence that thinking of one
thing can cause similar things to be perceived. This suggests that
objective reality can bend to our personal, or communal, subjective
values.

RATIONALISING THE PARANORMAL
The interplay between objective reality and shared, or communal,
subjective reality can possibly explain much of the paranormal.
Repetition of archetypal symbolism could automatically
predispose the mind to see ghosts at locations steeped
in supernatural culture.
Mundane prompters in the environment could become precognitive, or even
provide perceived telepathic communication, because they are perceived
by others, prompting similar behaviour or shared thoughts.
For instance, a mundane item of news unconsciously reminds two people of
a shared experience. One thinks, I must phone him, whilst the other
already is and the phone rings.

IN CONCLUSION
The relationship between objective reality and subjective mind can best
be seen at the mundane level that most people do not consciously
experience. But nonetheless it provides meaning, and possibly a whole
host of phenomena.
The subjective mind can constantly tamper with this mundane objectivity,
providing a different imterpretation of the objective to suit the
person's subjectivity. Indeed, at some communal levels, such as
a household, I can even see the interplay providing the necessary shared
psychodrama for a perceived poltergeist infestation.

Of course, the implications go further than the mere paranormal, for if
the subjective invades the objective to this extent this could also be
the process of religious experience;  even fundamental political
stances.
I am becoming convinced that we do not truly understand the human
condition because we do not relate paranormality to the mundane. Here,
of course, I am offering but a theory. Yet, in light of the above, it
prompts the question: if this idea became accepted, would it become a
fact?
If so, the world is changed by a packet of crisps.