It is claimed that only external, "physical" events are objective and that internal events (thoughts, feelings, sensations) are subjective. It is also claimed that somehow outer events are more "real" or "reliable" than inner events.
But I say that anything that is experienced is real and therefore objective.
In fact, it could be said that only the experience, itself, as experienced "in" or "by" the consciousness, is truly OBJECTIVE, and that everything else is an intellectual abstraction.
A thought, a feeling, a sensation- all are real events and therefore objective, but only the person experiencing these things will experience their objective nature. Even so-called "delusions" are objective if they are experienced by the self.
What may or may not be true is our description or interpretation of events. And from a certain view all descriptions are false because they are descriptions of something and not the thing itself.
So I would differentiate between what is experienced and what is described, rather than labeling inner events as "subjective" and outer events as "objective" and thinking this means one is more "real" that the other.
What is more real is experience, and what is less real is the description or interpretation of an experience that comes later, and our language should reflect this!
SHARKA TODD