Thank you for your response since most will not even attempt to respond to something that does jibe with their set categories.

Just a couple of notes.

1. Your assumptions about what ‘most people’ do and see as normal, I would pose cannot be established experimentally though it is a way of speaking that is habitual. A bit like saying the sun goes around the earth, when actually the opposite happens. This Copernican turn of seeing from the outside, not the inside, can be called narcissism.
2. If you will permit me just an indication. I think you have confused two problems: first, there is the ordinary event of seeing things from the outside (narcissism), then second, there is the delusion which is the out of body experience of a perspective flying across the room. These are not the same: the first, narcissism, is normal, only the second, the ‘out of body experience’, is a delusion.
3. Phenomenologically speaking, if we pose seeing from the outside is primary and normal and you counter by saying, ‘we normally see it from our self-centered perspective behind the eyes’ then I say that is only a way of speaking, for if it were really true, if we truly see from the inside, then we should ‘see’ inside our heads, which we do not and if we did that would be abnormal. In fact, people who do speak of ‘seeing’ and knowing what is going inside their heads are likely to be paranoiac and psychotic. Oddly, for a phenomenologist, a psychologist is already putting him/herself in a psychotic position. You can find my type of reasoning in Bergson or Merleau-Ponty for example, who make the assumption there is no mind/body duality, the mind is embodied from the beginning and sight occurs from from the beginning outside.
4. Which leads to the second confusion: if one maintains that people ‘see’ from the self-centered perspective from behind the eyes, then I agree it may be called ‘normal’, but it is actually secondary and a reactive defense. A bit like hiding behind a wall. Without going into the clinical particulars of why what is often called ‘normal’ is actually a psychotic defense, such a position can induce moments of delusion: a delirium that attempts to break out of this defensive position by projecting vision as “flying across the room” and “out of body experiences”. Admittedly, this is a delusion, but it is attempting to correct the defensive psychotic position by returning to the original and normal phenomenological position of ‘seeing from the outside’.
5. As a consequence, for someone oriented by another discourse, not psychology, but phenomenology and psychoanalysis, there are three propositions different from your conclusions: a) seeing from the outside is primary and normal phenomenologically; b) seeing from the inside is a psychotic defense psychoanalytically; c) seeing from a perspective projected across the room (an out of body experience) is a secondary delusion clinically, but it is an attempt to correct, admittedly through a hallucination, the inadequate reasoning of the psychotic: that vision occurs behind the nose and is inside.
6. Clinically, what is important about this reversal of the psychological assumptions amounts to this: why should we call people and events abnormal, when they are simply trying to say something true?

Just a few more grains of salt … cheers,

S