"What is consistent is what is true in __our__ world". We can all agree on the map we use, we can fill it out together, but let us not mistake the map for the territory.

I think were converging on something, but the schizm we've encountered lies in how your definition of "objective truth" is my definition of "workable truth", the accessibility of "The One Reality", and perhaps on the usefulness (or dare I say integral aspect) of intepretation and representation of observation.

We are firmly planted in our labels for this concept, but that's okay. I'm not going to ask you to use my language, but at least I know where the divide is.

The person who sees a flying spaghetti monster behind the sun is no more valid than the scientists that use their special lenses to conclude that there is no spaghetti monster, one just happens to be more useful in the long run.

There's another term that is used when many individuals report consistent experiences. Mass psychogenic illness. The difference however lies in its usefulness.