This is perhaps the simplest way I can explain the perspective of subjective

reality at present and why Im such a strong advocate of it.

First some definitions:

Objective Reality (OR) is the perspective that youre the character in the dream
world, and the dream world is solid, real, and objective. An OR person wouldnt
normally think of the physical world as a dream at all they accept the (socially
conditioned) notion that the dream world is reality itself. The objective world
itself is seen as the basis for knowledge. Note that there can be no proof
whatsoever that this is how reality actually works; its one giant unprovable
assumption. Its also not falsifiable.

Solipsism is the perspective that youre the character in the dream, and the dream
world is either a projection of you, some other kind of illusion, or simply
unknowable. Other people are not real in the same way you are. Your own mind is the
basis for knowledge. Even though its impossible to prove it wrong because
solipsism is not objectively falsifiable, many philosophers dislike solipsism
because they see it as a philosophical dead end. I tend to agree. If you want to
learn more about solipsism, the Wikipedia entry on it is quite thorough.

Subjective Reality (SR), as I describe it, is the perspective that your true
identity is the dreamer having the dream, so you are the conscious container in
which the entire dream world takes place. Your body-mind is your avatar in the
dream world, the character that gives you a first-person perspective as you
interact with the contents of your own consciousness. But that avatar is no more
you than any other character in the dream world. This perspective is also not
objectively falsifiable, so it cannot be proven wrong. However, I find it a very
rich and empowering way to interact with the dream world of reality on multiple
levels.

Do OR and SR contradict each other?

This depends on your perspective.

If you begin from an OR perspective, then you would say they cannot both coexist.
If OR is correct, then SR must be false. At best youre able to adopt the mindset
of solipsism within the larger context of OR, but you cannot fit the perspective of
SR within an OR framework. To me, this is one of the major limitations of the OR
model. OR rejects SR but can never disprove it, so OR inherently rejects a
potentially valid perspective. Its like saying, Im right and youre wrong just
because Im me and youre not. This is a major failure of the OR model. If a model
does not have a place for all potentially valid perspectives, its not a good
model. Consequently, we can never fully trust this model because it could very well
be completely wrong. If we base our decisions on this model, we could be making one
inaccurate decision after another, but wed never know it. Its just too narrow for
our purposes, like going through life with one arm tied behind your back.

The main exception where OR allows us to integrate a subset of SR is during our

nighttime dreams. In this manner you would say your nighttime dreams are contained
within the larger scope of OR, so youre still a physical being sleeping on a bed
having that internal mental experience when you dream at night. Anyone whos
experienced a lucid dream knows this perspective quite well. However, notice that
when you arent fully lucid, youre tricked into thinking that your subjective
dream world is actually another OR world. You blindly accept that youre the
character in the dream, totally unaware that youre actually the dreamer, and the
whole world is contained within your consciousness. But of course youre wrong, and
youll never realize that until (1) you wake up, or (2) you become lucid within
your dream. So how do you know you arent making this same mistaken assumption
right now? Have you ever been lucid while awake?

Although OR can accept the subjective nature of nighttime dreams, it completely

fails to account for the perspective of SR at the level of waking physical reality.
If you subscribe to the model, it basically compels you to conclude that people who
believe in SR are either mistaken or delusional that is the nature of belief
systems that reject other potentially valid perspectives. Hence you can expect
that Ill continue receiving those youre a nutter emails from OR subscribers,
even though not a single one of them has attempted to prove SR wrong. Again, that
would be impossible because SR isnt falsifiable.

Now lets consider OR from the perspective of SR.

An intelligent model of reality should account for all potentially valid

perspectives, and SR does this very well. It does not reject OR out of hand. It
simply puts OR at a different level. The objective world is the dream world, which
is basically a simulation running within the larger consciousness that is you. By
shifting to your first-person perspective and interacting with the simulation from
the inside which is admittedly a very seductive perspective to adopt you can
experience the perspective of OR within the larger SR context. If youve seen The
Matrix movies, when the characters go into the Matrix and interact with it, theyre
in the OR world of the simulation. Setting aside their enhanced physical abilities
and the outside help they receive, their bodies are still otherwise subject to the
laws of the simulation, just as your body is subject to the laws of this OR
simulation.

From an SR perspective, OR simply describes the dream world properties, while SR is

the perspective that knows its 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.

Neither OR nor SR are falsifiable, so you cant prove either of them wrong in an
objective sense. However, in a subjective sense, the experience of SR from the
inside and the way it accounts for OR seems much more logical to me than ORs
outright rejection of SR. SR allows for the potentially valid perspective of
solipsism as well. Consequently, I find the larger context of SR to be more
accurate.

Would you agree that it makes sense for a reasonable model of reality to account
for all potentially valid sub-models that are not falsifiable? After all, if we
cannot disprove something, then our model should account for the possibility that
it is true (without blindly assuming its true either). Otherwise we can never
trust our model, just as we can never trust OR.

So this is why Im such an advocate of Subjective Reality. I realize its not an

easy model to understand or adopt if youre currently enmeshed within the
perspective of OR. But if you do manage to get there, I think youll find it makes
much more sense than OR and allows you to make more accurate decisions. You lose
none of the strengths of the OR model because OR is fully contained within SR, but
you add an outer container that allows you to integrate and accept many other
perspectives as well.

Of course if you do make the shift to SR, good luck explaining it to other OR
addicts! ??