What is actually experience?

Perhaps it makes sense for us to look again at one of our examples. Let’s take the example of the person experiencing an incident with a coworker as a threat to their wellbeing.

Let us now paint the picture of what occurred:

One person was in the kitchen. Another person entered. This second person had a smile on their face, both hands in their pockets, then pulled one hand out to wave and said “Good Morning”. The person then walked past the first person – about a meter away – to the fridge and grabbed a snack. They then smiled and waved again as they walked out.

Let us now paint the picture of what the first person experienced.

I was in the kitchen, and this person entered. I’ve always had a bad feeling about this person, and this type of person in general. It always seems like I’m alone in the kitchen. The way that they smiled at me was extremely presumptuous and they started making advances on me unsolicited. I didn’t want to have a conversation. They then got way to close in my personal space as they walked by, and I felt extremely threatened. On the way out, the person smiled at me to rub in what had happened and the mutual understanding that I had no way to protect myself.

Let’s explore the difference between these two descriptions of the same events.

The first description is perceived by the senses. We can see it and hear it. It is verifiable. If there happened to be witnesses, they would be witnessing the same thing. If the incident was recorded, it would play out exactly as described. It is a description of what happened in this physical reality that we all share. It is verifiable; we can watch it back and verify that all of this occurred.

Another thing to notice is that there are no value judgements. There is no interpretation. These things all occurred separate from our judgments about or our interpretations of them.

In the second example, we describe the person and the events with our value judgements. We immediately associate them with ‘bad’. We bring up a fearful feeling of being alone. We interpret their actions based on our feelings about them and our own state of mind.

The first example is a verifiable account of what occurred in our shared physical reality. The second account is a subjective interpretation of this shared physical reality.

So the first claim here is that there is in fact a verifiable shared physical reality. That must be the case, or else how could we build bridges that withstand the thousands of tons of vehicles, or build airplanes that fly tens of thousands of feet in the air? There are rules that govern our physical world regardless of how we interpret them. This is the world we all share together as we move through our lives.

The next claim is then that there is a a separate interpretation of our reality. We create these interpretations.

How is this different than dream?

Though I dare not profess to understand the mystery of Dream, it seems that Dream is pure interpretation.

Dream is not experienced in our shared physical world. Dream is not verifiable. Dream is only experienced by the dreamer, as interpretation is only experienced by the interpreter.

Moral relativism as conclusion.

What we are doing in this essay is asserting that there is a shared physical reality and interpretations of it that are separate from it. There is a space between physical reality and the way we experience, and in this space we create the way in which we experience (this creation is quite often unconscious).

This assertion is made to counter the notion that we should accept as valid the way people experience things because that is the way that they experience them.

If we take our example above from the kitchen and again how it was used in the original essay, we are demonstrating that there is a physical reality that exists without our value judgments. The person walked in the room, waved, said “Good Morning”, went to the fridge, and walked out. This was what occurred in our physical reality and this could be verified by camera or witness.

We then spoke of the experience of the second person, and suggested that it should not be used as the basis of determining, in this case, the guilt of the first person – what is indeed crucial in any examination is what actually occurred in our shared physical reality.

So, if anything, it seems as if the piece actually would more likely being proposing universalism to relativism. Firstly in the sense that we are to make judgments based on what is occurring in one single reality or domain and secondly in that we are suggesting that we should challenge the way people experience reality, which includes their moral value judgements of it as we demonstrated in tackling the first question. Surely a relativist would really hesitate before challenging the moral judgments of another, and would more likely proclaim, as you say, “to each their own”.

How can I observe reality without bias?

We can observe reality without bias by observing our physical reality as presented in the first description above – by removing our value judgments. By holding a space between reality and our interpretation. By understanding that we are the Creators of our interpretation.