Consensus Reality and the Idealistic Approach

Consensus reality is the generally agreed reality, based on a consensus view rather than on the strict truth. It is similar to a dream shared by many, becoming stable if enough people think something is true and then it takes on a life of its own. Like morphic fields it can be reinforced by processes which involves repetition and it is stabilized by similar fields via morphic resonance. Regardless how stable a consensus reality is, if it is not based on truth it will dissolve sooner or later.

What a group or culture chooses to believe is the consensus reality. It may bear little or no relationship to any “true reality,” and, indeed, challenges the notion of “true reality.”

Children have sometimes been described or viewed as “inexperience[d] with consensus reality,” although with the expectation that they will come into line with it as they mature.

However, the answer is more diverse as regards such people as have been characterised as eccentrics, mentally ill, enlightened or divinely inspired, or evil or demonic in nature. Alternatively, differing viewpoints may simply be put to some kind of “objective” (though the nature of “objectivity” goes to the heart of the relevant questions) test. Cognitive liberty is the freedom to be the individual’s own director of the individual’s own consciousness and is fundamentally opposed to enforcement of the culturally accepted reality upon non-conforming individuals. Effects of low cognitive liberty vary from indifference to forced-medication and from social alienation to incarceration to death.

What shall we make of those who do not agree with consensus realities of others, or of the society they live in?

Realist vs Idealistic Approach

In considering the nature of reality, two broad approaches exist: the realist approach, in which there is a single objective overall space-time reality believed to exist irrespective of the perceptions of any given individual, and the idealistic approach, in which it is considered that an individual can verify nothing except their own experience of the world, and can never directly know the truth of the world independent of that.

The idealistic approach is aware of the fact that implicit order is involved in the creation of reality.

In contrast the materialist does not accept a relation between the observer and the observed state, ignoring so the scientific evidence deriving from quantum mechanics. Materialists has the tendency to isolate themselves from the whole.

But idealists recognize that the whole is also incorporated in the part. This is known as a holographic worldview.

By the way, there is a huge difference between truth and reality. Truth is eternal, it cannot be altered or changed and it is unaffected by time. In contrast a reality has a king (‘re‘ means king in latin) and it can be altered, changed, tuned, modified and defined, even destroyed. And here is the difference between the two approaches:

  1. the materialist denies a absolute truth and as a consequence also eternity or a dimension out of time. So there is only “reality” which can be defined as the elite wish to do and the so called “objective reality” aka space-time and matter. Everything else does not exist. As a result they are the creators and the only kings in their little world.

  2. the idealist recognize an absolute truth and an eternal king who created time, space and matter as a framework for communication. So the consensus reality is just a total agreement of all participants, but it can be radically changed by an higher order or even be destroyed and replaced by one which is closer to the truth (or one which is based on the truth).

See also: