We have been writing and speaking of late of, loosely, the separation of reality and our interpretation of reality. In this exploration, we have posited 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. We held that it is important to challenge interpretations of experience because we act on these interpretations of experience.

The question was asked; to what end?

Let us now try to answer this question. To begin, I will do so simply:

“That is up to us to decide.”

When it was suggested as answer that perhaps the end to which we should challenge is to determine Truth, the subsequent questions of “what is Truth?” and “who is the arbiter of this Truth?” were immediately posed.

First, what is Truth? Though this question is posed simply, it is obviously not a simple question.

In our previous examinations, we have thus far agreed that there are objective truths of our physical reality. This is a reality that can be confirmed by a third party, as in the case of video recording. It can also be confirmed through experimentation, as in the laws of physics that allow for an airplane to a fly or a bridge to stand. It exists separate from our value judgments and interpretations.

These truths need to constantly be verified and proved by the power of logic. They need to be held to challenge or else we can begin to make choices that are out of touch with reality, that are in delusion. These truths are all well and good, and they are vital, but where do our interpretations sit in this objective, physical reality? And as has been posed, who can be the arbiter of these interpretations to determine a “true” interpretation?

As it has been posited, these interpretations sit outside of the objective physical reality and this is evidenced and has been demonstrated by two people having different interpretations of the same objective physical reality. In this space between the two there is a creative component of interpretation. We can choose how to respond to our reality.

If there is a creative component of interpretation, if there is a measure of choice, if this is a story that we tell ourselves about our experience of our physical reality, then how can there be “truth” in this realm of interpretation?

There cannot.

This is a fundamental realization.

What are the implications?

I think it might perhaps be prudent to first examine the implications of this claim’s opposite – the proposition that there is an objective truth in the realm of interpretation.

If there is objective truth in the realm of interpretation, then one person’s interpretation can be objectively untrue, and another‘s interpretation can be objectively true. One can be objectively Right and one objectively Wrong. But how can we arbit this Truth? Who can claim to know it?

Can you? If so, how has this knowledge – this discernment – of Right and Wrong, been conferred upon you alone and not others?

You are not alone, you claim? There are others who also know the Truth? And you are Right? The collective makes you Right? I ask you simply again, how has this knowledge of Right and Wrong been conferred upon your collective and not others? How do you know your interpretation to be True?

Our interpretations are important because we act on our interpretations. As social beings, sharing our interpretations begets shared interpretations. The impacts of these shared interpretations can have enormous consequences relative to the extent to which they are shared and the nature of the interpretation.

We have used the example of a political party who holds that a certain group is the cause of our ills. Are you a member of this party? If so, and you are the arbiter of Truth, you would feel justified in persecuting or oppressing or exterminating the group in question.

What of a less extreme example? Take any issue that is become contentious in the media – there are many. If we hold that our interpretation and opinion on the issue is the Truth and is Right – if we hold this, we must also hold that any other interpretation is untrue and wrong.

If this is an issue to which we can relate or through which we can implicate the health or wellbeing of humans, or our planet, or any thing we hold dear to us (and here we are speaking of most issues in one way or another), then we can hold that other interpretations that we know to be untrue and wrong are a threat to or a detriment to these things.

If we hold this, then when we encounter those with untrue interpretations we would try to change their mind – to bring them over to Truth. If we cannot, then we should try to discredit them so that we can protect these things that we hold dear in the name of the greater good. If they continue on Wrongly, perhaps it would make sense to censor them? We know the Truth and we need to protect the collective. How are they so hateful? They are a danger. We should imprison them or maybe it is time we are rid of them once and for all.

So much for a less extreme example.

When we hold that there is objective truth in the realm of interpretation the implication is that on any matter of interpretation, someone is objectively wrong and another is objectively right. Someone is objectively speaking truly and another untruly.

If we believe ourselves endowed to be the arbiter of this truth, or that the arbiter has certified our interpretation as true, we breed intolerance. We know the Truth and we know what is Right. Those with other interpretations are the untrue, wrong, and a threat to what I know to be unequivocally right.

Now, let us examine the implications of our initial and opposite assertion; that there cannot be objective truth in the realm of interpretation as there is in the objective physical reality.

When we assert this, on an individual level it is implied that any interpretation we hold is neither true nor false. It is simply an interpretation that we have created, consciously or unconsciously. This implication gives us the tremendous power – but also responsibility – of creating the interpretations of our lives.

At the same time, this is also the case of the interpretations of others. We no longer see another’s interpretation as true or false but something created, again unconsciously or consciously. In this way we can become tolerant and understanding of the way that we all create our interpretations. None of us are objectively right or wrong. If we become more conscious, we can understand why we create what we do, and make different choices based on what it is we want to create. We can become curious of the way others interpret the world and why or how they do so. We might find things in others that we also want to create and learn from their interpretations. We might find also things that we want to avoid.

What of our shared interpretations? Of our shared morality and politics and society? We create them all. There is no and can be no arbiter of objective truth in this realm. We collectively create these shared interpretations. It is a constant negotiation of creation.

And the implications of this? We are in every moment creating our lives. We have the power in every moment to craft how we move forward in the world.

Back to the question: to what end do we challenge?

We must challenge firstly if we want to make our decisions and create our interpretations based on the grounding of what is occurring in our shared physical reality. If we divorce ourselves from this reality, we operate in delusion and psychosis. We can psychotically justify any act.

Then, we come to our interpretations of this evidence-based reality. If we hold that we create these interpretations and there is no objective truth nor arbiter of truth, then we realize that we have tremendous power and responsibility. Every interpretation defines how we move through our lives as individuals and as groups.

The end is then whatever we decide the end to be.

With the knowledge that there is no objective truth in this interpretive realm, we can together decide what we want our story to be. I can share my interpretation of the world, and you can share yours. We can take the bits of our interpretations that we both want to move forward with (either consciously or unconsciously) and create together a shared interpretation.

Perhaps you might not agree with some aspects of my interpretation, and you somehow come to think that only your interpretation is True. Firstly, you must remember that this realm is creation – there is no objective Truth. Then you must remember that once you falsely believe yourself to be objectively Right, then others must be objectively Wrong, and this inevitably leads to intolerance.

If we cannot or do not challenge our interpretations of experience, then we are not able to create the way we move forward in our lives. We cannot participate in this creation. We become passive actors. We must accept the interpretation.

And what does it mean to be unable to challenge? One may feel unable challenge when they are discredited or shamed for their challenging. When their challenging is censored. When they are punished for their challenging.

Well, not all of us. Because, again, someone has initially created this interpretation that cannot be challenged. And somehow or another if challenge to this interpretation has been suppressed, this interpretation has most certainly become a shared interpretation. And those who share this interpretation believe their interpretation to be the True interpretation, and those with other interpretations to be False. And the group that is False is dangerous and must be discredited, or shamed, or censored, or eliminated for their challenging. Belief in objectively true interpretation leads to intolerance.

If we cannot challenge, we cannot create. When we challenge, we negotiate creation.

Now what do we want to create?

“That is up to us to decide.”