The existence of a thing is not dependent upon the consensus perception of the thing.
The only things that do exist, and are provable of existence, are those things that are impressions upon your consciousness; whether it be an impression made by the senses or one of the consciousness itself.
Really, all things exist strictly within 'your' reality - that is the only one there is because you do not have other people perceiving the world for you. What of consensus reality? It exists, I perceive it everyday of my life interacting with other people, but I still cannot absolutely prove that what I see as green is what someone else sees as green, I can however explicitly prove to myself that what I am seeing is what I would call green because I am seeing it. If I were able to perceive the color green for the both of us together we could then say that it is explicitly proven to the both of us - but that would strip us of our individuality; which takes us right to the topic of this discussion.
The interesting thought, now that I think about it, is if identity were fluid (which implies it is capable of universal identity) consensus reality is then less about the agreements you are making with other people on things perceived, and more focused on the agreements you make within yourself on things perceived.
|