No Peace In Flandry

A Stone In Heaven, XI.

pp. 141-143 are narrated exclusively from Dominic Flandry's pov (point of view), e.g.:

"There was no peace in Flandry." (p. 141)

Walking aft, he feels every step and how he must strain to remain erect.

Three italicized passages convey his inner thoughts:

"Can't get drunk..." (p. 142)

"...getting moral, am I?" (p. 143)

"I sometimes think..." (ibid.)

When we are told that lines were drawn in his face and that his fingers moved while he piloted, these observations could have been made by a third party. However, the quoted passages make it clear that here is Flandry's pov and no one else's.

Here, in my opinion, is the central question both for an author of prose fiction and for a philosopher. Novelists have learned that, usually at least, they should recount either an entire story, or at least each discrete narrative passage of a story, as its successive events are experienced by a single character, in this case Flandry, not Chives, although both are present in the spaceship, Hooligan. (Incidentally, we never do read Chives' pov except when he recounts his experiences to another character.)

And this is what puzzles a philosopher. A physicist would be able to present an objective account of every event that occurs inside Hooligan, including the motions of living bodies: the male human being's legs move as he walks aft etc. However, subjectively, there is something that it is like to be Flandry. Only he directly experiences his peacelessness. Only he feels his steps and the strain that he is under. Only he directly experiences those thoughts about his need to remain sober etc. We understand Anderson's account of Flandry's experiences because we know what it is like for us ourselves to lack peace, to feel our steps, to feel stress and to reflect on our situation. But, nevertheless, each of us directly experiences only our own stress etc, not anyone else's. In Hooligan, there is one objective situation but there are two subjective situations: Flandry's and Chives'. How come? How does the objective generate the subjective?