How would life be in a subjective reality?

How would we shape our societies and lives if every individual projected their own unique vision of reality?

What issues would occur? What would be better or worse in such a existence?

If everyone saw what they wanted to see, would reality even matter anymore? Wouldn't everyone be living in bliss like that?

I need some feedback on this for a novel I'm writing.

We are already living in a reality as subjective* as the unique fingerprints that each one has.
Many (not all) would want to project their own version of reality, but I don't think it can be done alone. It is not possible for any individual to realize what they wanted to see. Somehow, due to inherent human nature, individuals will gravitate toward some common view within group. Those who has very unique views of reality are probably the schizo and mental cases.
Thus projections of views are always done in group-based ideologies, i.e. Nazism (failed), communism (almost gone), democracy, socialism, Christianity, Islam, etc. Whatever the current issues that had arisen in the past and arising in the present, are the issues of groups imposing their version of subjective reality.

* btw, within the ultimate perspective, there is no fixed reality per-se waiting to be perceived or taken for granted in the common sense perspective.

How would we shape our societies and lives if every individual projected their own unique vision of reality?

What issues would occur? What would be better or worse in such a existence?

If everyone saw what they wanted to see, would reality even matter anymore? Wouldn't everyone be living in bliss like that?

I need some feedback on this for a novel I'm writing.

Man's views don't shape reality. It's metaphysically given. This proposition stems from the fallacious premise which is primacy of consciousness

[Scott]

If there is an objective reality in which multiple people exist, and each of those multiple people lives in delusion or otherwise false beliefs, I don't see how that would lead to bliss. One can believe the fire won't burn as much as they want, but when they fall into the flame they will scream in pain not in bliss; and then die. No, I'd say ignorance doesn't usually lead to bliss.

True, a denial of reality cannot lead to bliss and this is the reason why our world in such a sore state of affairs.

[Scott]

Assuming there is a real reality to deny, that is, which I do.

Are we also assuming that our human perception of reality is a true representation of ultimate reality, but is that the case? What we perceive through our senses is as good as it gets for us humans and so that is our reality, but not necessarily the ultimate reality, what is really happening. After all, what we perceive as solid matter is made up predominantly of empty space, so who knows. Maybe technology will unravel some of the ultimate mystery of life, the universe and everything (I know, it's 42).

Paul

The validity of senses is undeniable. They represent the true reality. If you deny this, then there is nothing left to discuss. But the point is that man unlike an animal acts not on perceptual but on conceptual level. On this level he's able to integrate his percepts into concepts in the non-contradictory, logical way and to understand his world in full.

"The validity of senses is undeniable"

I'm not so sure about that. Even if we accept that senses are an accurate reflection of reality, they are only an accurate reflection of a past reality, not a current reality, simply by way of the fact that sense perception requires transmission of information and interpretation of that information. Of course the brain will often fill in gaps in memory, in vision and in other ways in order to make more sense of "reality" for the perceiver. When this occurs, your senses might be relaying a reflection of reality to your brain but your brain is making that reality into something else. This often happens to individuals in stress situations and is not uncommon for example in police investigations when interviewing witnesses and victims.

I might be stretching things here, but you can get to something close to subjective reality in scifi by imagining that, in the future, most everyone retreats into their own cyberspace worlds. In each perceived cyberspace world, the reality of that world might be different, and if you wanted to look at things a different way, you could.

Trees in a character's world would really only be cybertrees, but to people growing up in cyberspace, it might mean as much to them as real trees do to us. Neighbors in a cyberworld might have their viewpoints customized differently; to this person, trees are green, but for that person, trees are red. This allows for full subjectivity on every aspect that keeps the relationships between objects consistent.

If you wish to change your subjective viewpoint on issues that change relations between objects, you can always do the equivalent of moving to a new server, where trees float instead of remaining rooted to the ground. This means that you can have full and complete subjectivity of reality -- at least, the reality of each person's cyberspace world they inhabit.

Anyway, maybe this is not what you are looking for, since it keeps objective reality intact, and only introduces subjectivity to cyberspace. But I thought it might be useful anyway, since you mentioned in the original post that you asked the question for a novel you are writing.

As I already mentioned, senses are valid but we operate on conceptual, not perceptual level. The fact is, as you pointed out, that our mind corrects the time gap. Even if this gap constitutes millions of light years, we are aware of it and treat this input accordingly. In our daily life the gap is negligible-what you see is that what you have. if this weren't a case, you wouldn't be able to engage in any most simple activity-like walking.

To me it is self-evident that we all do live in our own subjective reality. Have you talked to Christians, staunch political supporters, or even sports fanatics? Each of us creates our own reality with the help of our sub-conscious, and then we all enjoy whatever success or failure it brings us. Of course we do alter our reality when our failing is not terminal. Although there a real reality out there, the best we can do is to live in the reality we can see, which is our constructed reality. Unlike the external 'true' reality, the reality we live with has to include our emotions, desires, concepts, plans, and dare I say it - gods/spirits.

You mean that if sport fanatics wish the victory to their club or political supporters to their party, or Christians wish the Second Coming, then this becomes reality? If so how do you know the difference between reality , wishful thinking and a pure fantasy?

I think the only way to differentiate is to look at all the evidence. However the search for real reality has been never ending. We are at present up to a weird quantum field theory which no-one understands, but which can be largely described by some mighty complex mathematics which I have failed to master; the Large Hadron Collider has disappointingly not found a gravitron yet. But wishful thinking and pure fantasy are integral to our brain which is built to provide survival benefits in the macro-layer of reality 'infested' by us.

Hello DaVince,

I found myself drawn to your post, because I enjoy questions that seem concise and small at first but actually open up a whole box of mental frogs.

To my mind subjective reality defines a subcategory of reality as a whole. However, the term can potentially mean two distinct things.

It could either refer to the part of reality that is inhabited and shaped by the subject/person in question (i.e. me), or to the part of reality that can only be perceived and experienced by the subject/individual.

(And it may possibly refer to both at the same time all the same.)

As much as the first is concerned, I would say that many would mistake it for objective reality. I think of objective reality as ‘things as they are’, whereas subjective reality of the aforementioned first category is the experiential quality of my environment.

Example would be my reality now, sitting in front of the screen, typing these words to you into my word processor. While several miles away and across the ocean New York is just as real a place as any other on earth, it’s not part of my subjective reality back here in the UK. New York is objective reality, but has no effective potential towards my experiential environment at this moment in time, in this location on earth.

But within this ‘external’ subjective reality, I have the ability to share & shape reality with other individuals if I so desire. We can share a coffee in the same room, enjoy a conversation, build a house, etc.

The second category of subjective reality would be my thoughts, emotions, dreams and how I qualify and judge external stimuli.

The mind is a marvellously busy and restless animal, and everything that comes its way is processed, judged, some quality or other is constantly being added towards things we see, hear, smell, etc...

The trick is, not to confuse that subjective reality with the other two. A stone in front of me will always be a stone, not a pretty or ugly or round or smooth one. The stone will just be the stone that it is, without any attributes. Once attributes are attached, the stone becomes subjectively more then it was objectively before. And if then a group of people start passing the stone around in a circle, making a game of throwing it towards each other, or decided that it’s very precious, it becomes the subjective reality of a shared, environmental reality.

To come back to your question though, which I think referred to a blurred line between the two subjective categories, the possibility of misunderstanding would be reduced. Because my internal mental attributes would instantly be known by others, clearly visible:

‘I think the stone is pretty, the other person sees it’s pretty too, because it turns pretty.’

One problem would arise though: would both see the same stone? Would both have the exact same definition of beauty?

And what would happen to individuality? If I’m weak and can’t lift the stone, I think it’s very heavy.

Would it be very heavy for everyone else too?