Yes, you: the reader of this article; no one else.

Subjective reality posits that consciousness is everything, that all exists within consciousness. Your consciousness alone.

I had thought of reality in a similar manner to the subjective reality model before I was aware there was a term for this concept. By way of All Japanese All the Time, I came to Steve Pavlina's renowned productivity blog. While browsing through the vast archives, I found this eye(mind?)-opening pair of articles: Subjective Reality Q&A and Subjective Reality Simplified, absolutely essential reading to better understand this (perceived) mode of existence. Two lines from the former article sum it up well: "Objective Reality is the perspective that you're the character in the dream world, and the dream world is solid, real, and objective...Subjective Reality...is the perspective that your true identity is the dreaming having the dream".

Are the majority of people milling about planet earth living somewhat like characters in a book or movie, the world being a backdrop for their continuing storyline? I would hope not, though it certainly does seem that way: this is the objective reality model. Religion and philosophy attempt to explain our purpose for being here, how we ought to interact with each others, and the nature of life, but aren't these questions largely truly unanswerable? The answers often offered are difficult to prove, though of course this is subject to personal experience. While both objective reality and subjective reality are not provable, they are not easily proven wrong either. The appealing bit about the subjective variation is that it places consciousness (i.e. YOU) as having a greater understanding of and further capabilities in life, and thus an advantage over those without that control.

Pavlina goes on to mention solipsism, which is a more pessimistic version of subjective reality: it posits that anything outside the mind, including the minds of other people, may not actually exist. Philosophers often throw this one to the gutter, since it tends to promote an antisocial viewpoint, and does not maximize one's place in reality in the way that subjective reality has the potential to.

Of course, if the ideas of subjective reality don't mesh with your current view on consciousness and life in general, the shift to a different perspective could be a potentially confusing experience: one that requires deep thought and consideration. Have you ever questioned along the lines of "why me, as this person, here, in this spot, now, at this moment", because of an especially positive or negative experience? If you have been brought up in a belief system that attempts to answer such dilemmas, and especially if you have challenged those beliefs or your own, it can lead to a great deal of 'soul-searching', possibly leading to an adaptation of one's own theories on life.

Subjective reality is not necessarily counter-intuitive to pre-existing personal views on what reality is, even if religious in nature. Rather, it can be awe-inspiring to make the realization that you are pure consciousness, and that all else is a manifestation of that same consciousness. New-age nonsense? Wrap you head around this: it is a normal, all-pervasive conception to believe that every living being on earth 'has' consciousness, but within the subjective reality model, there is only one consciousness. Yours. You may have a physical body, but that is merely a vehicle for which you can interact in the physical realm.

The "why am I here?" is not exactly answered within subjective reality, but "what can I accomplish while I'm here?" can be. This is the belief that consciousness and you are the same, that is to say, you are 'one with the universe'. How much more would you accomplish if you believed you were pure consciousness, that the world could adapt to be a reflection of yourself?

This is where the idea gets fuzzy. If you are a relatively peaceful, good-natured person, how could that explain all of the earth's atrocities? Horrible events that occur in your personal life and on a larger scale, the world, that came about through no personal thoughts or actions of your own, are certainly not a reflection of you. This is the very issue that I had with Roberta Byrne's The Secret-I'd recommend checking out the article 'Is the Law of Attraction a Con?' over at the Discomfort Zone for more on this. Under subjective reality, while you and consciousness are the same, and all people fall under that umbrella of consciousness, they are not "under your control" (Subjective Reality Q&A). But, now, here is the bit where I take issue with Pavlina, on the subject of world peace: "Within this framework there is a lack of world peace because there is a lack of peace within your consciousness." Oh dear. The Secret-esque maladies become apparent.

Not to say that acquiring inner peace would not improve your state of mind and those around you- of course it would! But, alter the world? Secret-fiends would try to tell you that it is because "you don't believe that it will happen, so it won't". Then again, it is often the problem of evil that will stick a pin in any philosophical system. For many people, this is where the religious portion comes in. I'm the sort that is always searching for truths, about these matters, that resonate with me. No ready-made religion (or subjective reality, for that matter) is enough for me to simply accept. Buddhism has come the closest to making sense for me, but there are still murky points I have with certain teachings. Being more of a realist/skeptic, subjective reality also gels with me, though there may still many questions and ponderings I have over it.

So- what's your take on subjective reality?

• Molecules wrote ...

• at 22:07, Thursday 14 May 2009

"I'm 'gnostically curious' and believe a higher objective world view will be necessary on a huge scale to propagate humanity's intellectual evolution ('objective' in the sense of accounting outside one's selfish desires, values that are NOT popular in our current environment)...

I'm slightly confused by your sub/obj distinction but I think the definitions are based on the theories you cited? Surely Buddhism for example would be a coming together of objective/subjective world views, wider/personal contexts? This article definitely got me thinking again. I know what you mean about Buddhism - it's touted as a way of life rather than a religion but their is clear deification there... although within the context of Buddha there's not a hierarchy of fear.

There's so much accumulated thought on this it all gets overwhelming... in the many decades since the popularization of Eastern philosophies in the West you'd THINK our society could have absorbed something into the education system, just imagine the ramifications? Of course this would run counter to the status quo and affect bank balances, and we couldn't allow that could we?
"

• Marilyn Roxie wrote ...

• at 22:36, Thursday 14 May 2009

"Within the model of subjective reality, it isn't promoting selfishness- rather, because all other entities are an extension of one's own consciousness, which perhaps enables greater compassion than the objective model, in which others are..."others". It is hard to say whether sub. and obj. could co-exist within the same perspective, though Pavlina said in his article: "OR simply describes the dream world properties, while SR is the perspective that knows it’s just a dream. These two perspectives can coexist without contradicting each other. This is much like playing a video game. You can identify yourself as the player outside the simulation or as the character within it. You might even be the person who programmed it too. All these perspectives are valid without contradicting each other.""

• Aloof McSpoof wrote ...

• at 13:04, Tuesday 19 May 2009

"It's all relative. "