2 approaches to consensual reality and the potential pathologies
Layers of the Real.
We all control the environment.
“Out of sight, out of mind” and “If you look hard enough…”
Person A takes the approach of “if you ignore it, it will go away eventually” and prioritizes what will be given attention by A’s individual motivation. A will deny things to set up boundaries. A will draw clear boxes and lines in regards to the self and others; A is comfortable within these self-made boxes so long as it is made by the self and no one else. Person A finds control in the reality by denial, by separation and detachment. A does not seek to control others reality but seeks to control only their own personal reality, and A becomes very upset and defiant when A feels that others have imposed their views on A. A will recognize consensual reality and admit to undeniables in the consensus upon manifestation. However, A is, by nature, a skeptic, and can perceive the difference between an object (or event, etc) that 1. is already a part of the consensual reality 2. naturally develops or evolves within the consensual reality 3. is immediately changed or influenced by an external source, “C” or 4. develops in the consensual reality by virtue of a participant already within the reality that exerts influence to modify the consensus.
Person B takes the approach that “if you look hard enough, you’ll see what I mean…” and that everything must be dealt with immediately upon its recognition, prioritizing the perceived “problem.” B will not just accept the existence of a “problem” immediately, but will push for others to see it as well. B will name things, categorize and explain things to give them shape to the self and others. Person B finds control in reality by acceptance, by imposition and attachment. B needs consensus in a reality and thereby seeks to hone any personal realities to one vision. Since B only has intimate access to their personal reality, naturally the consensual reality that they try to foster generally aligns with the reality B perceives with or without input from other sources. B believes that B has perceived and accepted the consensual reality before all others involved, and B feels that it is B’s duty or mission to make others believe/see. B, by nature, is a producer and can perceive the difference in an object (or event etc) that 1. is currently unrecognized by others in the consensual reality 2. needs to be amplified, prioritized, exaggerated or needs to be repressed, de-emphasized 3. is changed or influenced by a source that is not B. Number 4 is that B knows who is disrupting the consensus.
We all act as A and B at different times. These descriptions are not judgment calls on “right” or “wrong;” neither is inherently any better or worse than the other. Pathologies of one or the other are a problem, and those pathologies WILL change the reality of all involved.
Pathology of A: Person A will ignore all that A finds unfit, unsavory or not conducive to their current view, even if it is part of the consensual reality of all others involved and has physical manifestations in A’s life supporting that certain things “exist” and are exerting influence. A will defy solely to defy rather than take disruptive action based on perseving or exercising higher principles. If defiance is paired with unchecked anger, this can lead to violence (a rabid dog chained). A will isolate the self from others by building a personal reality in A’s own language and constructs such that others cannot reach A on an emotional, intellectual or spiritual level. A’s interpersonal relationships will suffer as others feel they cannot reach A behind The Wall A has built, and so they withdraw to find more fulfilling relationships.
Pathology of B: Person B will push all that B believes onto any B comes in contact with, regardless of what others do or say or the consensual reality shared by many others. B becomes blind to any consensual reality but the one they wish to foster; the push becomes prioritized above all else, including the safety of the self or others, which can amount to violence “for a cause.” If this is paired with ruthless ambition, the scale of violence can increase (fanatic turned tyrant). Person B will seek to midigate or exterminate other “things” (i.e. objects, events, people, ideas) that do not coincide with B’s perception. B becomes isolated as “the purpose” becomes the only thing that matters to B. “The purpose” dictates all B’s actions, causing interpersonal relationships to die and people to withdraw from B for self-preservation.
In conclusion, Person A starts as a strong individual, upholding the virtue of personal realities, encouraging individual thinking and the voice of the individual. Person B starts as a potential community-builder, seeking to merge personal realities to one consensual one, encouraging group thinking and the joining of voices into one. Pathologies can lead Person A down several roads where A may the self as the perceived victim, the violent rebel, the schizophrenic whereas B may find the self as the perceived victim, the violent dictator, the sociopath. They can become some of what they dislike the most by allowing their pathologies to grab hld and form the reality rather than their Higher Selves.