The dialogos continues.

This exploration started with the consternation of hearing the phrase, “well, that’s their experience.” This was said, and is said, in order to bring validity to someone’s interpretation of experience simply because they experienced in that way. The implication is that we should not challenge this interpretation.

From this starting point we have thus far asserted a few things; first, that our interpretation of objective physical reality is different than objective physical reality. There is a space between the two where we create our interpretations, unconsciously or consciously or somewhere on the spectrum of consciousness. We have demonstrated this through examples of people experiencing the same things but having two completely different interpretations of experience. We have also demonstrated this through examples of one person interpreting minor slights such that they are in misery and another interpreting horrific experiences in ways that strengthen them. Lastly, but not exhaustively, we also demonstrated this through the example of how one could completely change their interpretation of an experience in a single epiphanous moment.

Objective reality exists without our value judgments and stories. Our interpretations are value judgments and stories.

If we cannot challenge an interpretation, we open our arms to psychosis. We act in separation from reality, from evidence. We can send people to prison for crimes they never committed, we can make public health decisions divorced from data, we can build bridges that crumble – we can justify anything based on this psychosis.

When we first ground our interpretations in reality, those not based in reality crumble away and now we are left with another choice. Even when we are grounded in reality, in evidence, there is still that space where we create our interpretation. We get to choose how we interpret reality and move forward together.

Unlike our objective physical reality, in this realm of creation a fundamental truth is that there is no objective right or wrong, good or bad. We create our interpretations. We create morality. Remove humans, there is no morality. Things just are.

This is fundamental. Why? Because if one believes that their interpretation is objectively True or Good or Right, then necessarily those that hold opposing or conflicting views are False or Bad or Wrong. This type of thinking breeds intolerance and hate. The most terrible crimes in history have been committed in the name of what was believed to be objectively True or Good.

There is no objective truth in the realm of interpretation, in the realm of creation. Morality is constructed by humans and it is a constant negotiation. We constantly negotiate what is moral and what is acceptable in society.

The implication on an individual level is that my interpretations are neither true nor false. They are simply interpretations that I have created somewhere along the spectrum of consciousness. This gives me the tremendous power and responsibility of creating the interpretation of my life.

At the same time, I no longer see others’ interpretations as true nor false, but something created along the spectrum of consciousness. None of us are right nor wrong. I become more tolerant. If I become more conscious, I can begin to understand why we create what we do, and how we can change to create more of the things we want. We can together negotiate creation.

When we cannot challenge interpretation, or when we are censored from challenging interpretation, we are not able to negotiate creation. We open ourselves up to a tyranny or oppression of interpretation.

So, in summary again: if we hold that we cannot challenge interpretations merely because someone interpreted in that way, then we open our arms to interpretations that are not grounded in reality – to psychosis. Once we ground our interpretations in reality, there is still the space to create our interpretations. There is no objective right or wrong in the realm of interpretation, rather we negotiate our creation. If we cannot challenge interpretations here, then we cannot negotiate creation and we open ourselves up to a tyranny of interpretation.

From this summary, it becomes clear that though it is paramount to ground interpretations in reality, how we interpret reality is supreme. Even when we ground our interpretations in reality, we can still interpret reality in any way we choose. Interpretation is the ultimate in how we move forward and create in our lives.

Beyond the implications spoken about throughout this dialogue, this is also a fundamental structural realization.

Why?

First let’s determine what is included when we speak of both our objective physical reality and our interpretation of reality.

When we speak of examining and exploring our objective physical reality, we speak of science. We speak of experimentation, of empirical observation, of measurement and of data.

When we speak of examining our interpretations, we speak of consciousness. We speak of philosophy, of meaning, of morality.

Does our world reflect the supremacy of interpretation? Do we hold consciousness, philosophy, meaning, and morality as the most high?

We do not. We have raised Science to the top and relegated matters of consciousness.

Where do you fit in this worldview? Where do humans fit? Where does your morality fit? Where does your sense of meaning fit? Of belonging? Of inspiration? Where does your Essence fit?

Perhaps we are getting to the root of what ails us?