The natural counter to the assertion that the 'objective' and 'mental' phenomena are the same is that we don't have total psychic control over the physical environment

This is true, but consider this reversal: we can physically manipulate objects within limits, but the average person is almost purely at the whim of rogue thoughts and feelings

The insult we feel in beholding someone we dislike is the impotent rage of encountering within our perception something over which we have no control, and which flaunts our impotence by its contrariness to our own likes

Now you can either use your hands to violently 'manipulate' this person out of Direct Experience- or you can allow them to merge back into that part of the Objective World presumed to persist outside of Direct Experience i.e. the Unconscious

Ah, we don't want to do this, because the Unconscious is where our 'drives' steer and command us beyond our conscious control- the disliked person may take advantage of being 'outside our Direct Experience' to go and alter the universe unfavourably

They are a 'rogue thought' sunk bank into the opaque body of our perception. Who knows what they might do? Better try and keep them within our Direct Experience as much as possible. The birth of surveillance

The alternative is to abstract from this nuisance person the thought of which they are a representative to see what you can learn from it, and assume that this person came into your perception so that this learning could occur

Do this enough and you will develop an internal ecology of character types and representatives, which you will then recognise out in the world. Literature (by which I include philosophy, poetry etc) is a vast resource of these character types

By 'accepting' a thought, you become the 'body' of that thought- if a certain level of mental discipline is reached, you can now 'direct' that thought, steer it away from erroneous conclusions or give it the power of introspection