Perception is reality.

Reality exists purely at an individual level. Your perception is your reality, yet at the same time, your perception is not MY reality. My perception is my reality. And so, two worlds can never truly collide. Our paths may cross, and we may share experience, but our realities are still very much our own.

Objective reality is merely a consensus by the majority... a shared perception. It is by no means all encompassing and in no way guaranteed accurate.

One says that the form in front of me is there whether I perceive it to be there or not. In reality, the form in front of me cannot be accurately defined or separated from the space that surrounds it without first perceiving and interpreting that which stands before them. The interpretation of what is form, and what is surrounding space is defined by the perspective far before one must decide if that which is there is truly there. For to define if something is truly there then that something must first be identified before it can be questioned.

Objective reality says that fire is not wet. Well, if this is true, one must first perceive an understanding of what makes up fire, and what is space around it. One must also decide notions of what is identified as fire, and what is the byproduct of fire. Is smoke fire, or is it a byproduct of it? Secondly, is fire hot, and what is hot? Is it in contrast to wet? I can't really answer that unless I first formulate a definition of both hot and wet. In order to do this I reflect on past perceptions and interactions with matter and the properties I assigned to the various forms of matter I have encountered. Then, through past perception, I can perceive my expected perception, or potential perception of fire and the consequences of interaction with it. Then, if assurance is required, I could interact with fire and deduce the validity of my potential perceptions.

Truly, potential perception is merely possibility. Possibilities are like potential energy in that the potential to become a part of my reality is there, and it has certain qualities and bearing on my perception, but it is not experience. Experience on the other hand, is perception in action. It is much like possibility in that it plays a role in making up my overall consciousness, though it is not so easily denied as it had moved past the realm of possibility and it was acted upon.

We are only capable of perceiving within our realm of understanding and therefore all our perceptions are based on "laws." We give these laws nicknames such as the law of nature or physics. Using these laws, agreed upon by a majority, we allow them to help us interpret our surroundings. We do this in order to formulate personal definitions for these things we take in, the data we perceive through our five senses and sometimes our spiritual consciousness or intuition. These laws help us to better align our perceptions with that of the majority.

What society defines insanity is merely perception that exists outside the boundaries set aside by the shared perception of the majority. A more enlightened individual could theoretically have understandings beyond the dimensions we as a majority understand and structure our interpretations around. While this individual could theoretically be labeled insane because his perception differs from the majority, he could in fact have a higher level of understanding than the majority. Perhaps he understands that time is just a linear measurement we as human beings have created within our minds to understand things in motion. He would then essentially be using a different set of laws to assist him in defining his perception. Perhaps this understanding would obstruct his interaction within these three dimensions, or the majority's laws of perception, but allow him access to the higher levels of existence that we, the others do not comprehend.

It's wholly possible… but one can never really know. Either way, I hope you perceive me.