Well what the hell did it mean?
Reality is what you experience, not what others agree on and then tell you what is or is not real. Consensus reality is what the group thinks is real, and while that is valid for the group, that does not mean an individual non-conforming experience is not also just as real.
We are okay when we are talking acceptable unknowns - like what's on the other side of the mountain or ocean. But when it comes to psycho-spiritual matters things turn ugly. It seems anything existential has to be collective, for the most part - and if we exclude or expel a person from the collective psyche we can violate or even brutalise their physical being.
Columbus was financed on a voyage of discovery in a physical sense. Those who went after him had papal sanction to cause havoc against others who were not existential equals.
In the most mundane sense we are friendly to people who share our physical space unless they violate some trigger sense of being not an existential peer - wrong colour, mad, wrong faith, too primitive. The difference that triggers our adverse reaction is qualitative - as if the presence of difference is a real threat. And so it is to those who set their identity by group. They have no proper sense of being a particular person, an 'individual' - even though they use the language of individualism, and invoke the idea, when it suits them.
You are an individual, I am an individual, we all are individuals. Except that (crazy/black/xxxx believing etc etc) so and so over there. He/she cannot belong to 'our' community of individuals because (insert excuse).
Reality is big enough to accommodate us all. We are the ones who are too small to accommodate the depth diversity of experiences of reality.
You are right. I could have been clearer.