The highest morality is amoral.

In the past few months we have been reflecting and musing on being awake and being asleep; the measure to which we are awake or asleep being operated by the level of consciousness that we bring to each moment; the level to which we remember who or what we are.

What are we?

I hold that I am Awareness. I am the Witness.

If you make changes to my physical body, I remain. If you take away my livelihood or possessions, I remain. If you judge me, I remain. I am the witness. We are all witnesses.

We can forget that we are the witness. We can instead identify as our physical body, we can identify as our livelihood and physical possessions, we can identify as our reputation.

We can also identify as emotions. In a reactive moment, I can become anger, I can become fear, I can become desire.

When we identify with anything other than what we are, we block ourselves from experiencing reality as it is. We sleep. We live in dream. Our reality is distorted by anger, fear, or desire. We create stories. Then we identify with the stories.

But no, you are the Witness.

You may identify as a Salesperson. You may be struggling. You may begin to feel Fear. Fear that you will not succeed, Fear of what others may think, Fear that you are not enough. Your reality becomes colored as such. You experience life in Fear. Each moment in Fear.

Every ‘no’ that you receive is further validation of your fear, every interaction you are afraid of not living up, of what people will think. You create stories. Maybe this isn’t for you. Maybe you are better suited for something else, somewhere else.

Do you not see that you have just created a new reality? You have fallen asleep. You are in dream – or perhaps nightmare?

Wake up. You are the Witness.

When we remember what we are, we can watch our emotions. We can watch our thoughts.

We can break the chains from our reactions. We are not slave to them. We are the Master. When we react in anger, we remember what we are and we do not let it consume us. Rather then let the anger control us, we Witness the anger and we consciously choose to let it pass. To remember what we are.

We remember that our stories are just that, stories – that we have created. Dreams.

When I remember what I am, I also remember what you are. You are Awareness. You are the Witness. You are not your physical body nor any of its traits, you are not your livelihood nor your possessions, you are not your reputation.

Neither are you your emotions. You are not your Fear, your Anger, nor your Desire. You are not your stories about who you are. You are not my stories about who you are. You are not the world’s stories about who you are.

Just as when we remember what we are we can experience reality as it is, we can also experience each other as we are.

Wake up. And keep waking yourself up. Do not let yourself fall asleep.

So you can analyze others?

You see them clearly?

And Yourself?

There is nothing to be done.

—

When there is nothing to be done, nothing is left undone.

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?

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.”

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.

“Well, that’s their experience.”

What precisely does this mean? What questions does it raise? What are the implications? Let’s explore.

The context in which this phrase is often uttered, and the context in which I am grounding this exploration, is one in which we are trying to bring validity to another person’s interpretation of their experience.

This person might have expressed their interpretation about a particular experience, faced resistance about their interpretation, and this phrase was used to defend their interpretation.

When we say that “this was their experience”, we are holding that because this is how this person experienced something, we should not challenge it. The fact that this person has interpreted something in a particular way and has expressed that interpretation is enough to solidify the validity of their interpretation.

What are the implications? First, what is an interpretation of an experience?

To experience something is to have Been through it. It is to exist through it. When we say, “we have a lot of experience”, we have Been through a lot. When we say “we experienced growth” or “we experienced suffering”, we have been through growth, we have existed through pain. Our being continued through it.

Separate from our experience, is our interpretation of experience. A crucial question here is how do know that these two things are separate? Simply, we know this because two people can experience the exact same circumstances and interpret them very differently. Two 30 year-old pro athletes who are approaching the twilight of their careers can break their ankle; one could see this as a tragedy that is the beginning of the end for their career, another could see this as a sign that they need to re-commit to their body as they enter their twilight and use it as fuel to push on. Both of these athletes could then be the target of sportscasters who dismiss them after their injuries; one can believe the critics and succumb to retirement, the other can use the criticism as fuel and come back better than ever.

Let’s look at another example. Two people can experience someone abusing them – yelling at them from the top of their lungs. One person might feel compassion for the person doing the yelling because they believe that this anger and abuse harms the abuser more than it could ever harm them. They believe that anger and hate are not contagious and the person on the receiving end of the abuse is confident in the sovereignty of their mind and soul. The other person might choose to believe the things that the person is saying about them are true and carry this with them through their life.

In another type of example, we can look at how someone can live through unfathomable miseries like concentration camps and interpret their experiences in a way that strengthens them while another can dwell on a break-up with a college partner for an entire life of misery.

And in one last example, we can all reflect on how we might have interpreted an experience one way, and then completely altered our interpretation of the same experience. This can happen gradually over time, but it can also happen in a revelatory or epiphanous moment .

These examples all show that experiences and their interpretations are separate, but they also begin to show what interpretations of experiences are. So, what are they?

An interpretation of an experience begins in a particular experience as the lens through which we experience and culminates in the story we tell ourselves about it. (Though the word culminates is used here, as in the example above of changed interpretations, this interpretation can change in any moment over time).

What is this lens? This lens is the sum of all of our interpretations of experience. Our lens colours not only the way that we choose to interpret the experience after it occurs and throughout our lives, but it also can colour the way that we interpret something as it is happening. In the example above of the person yelling abuse, one person might have had a violent upbringing and had interpreted this upbringing such that when they faced this type of abuse, they saw it as a threat to attack and became aggressive as the abuse was hurled at them. Another person might have also had a violent upbringing, but had interpreted this upbringing such that when they faced this type of abuse, their response was to be fearful and to run. One sees the aggressor in anger, and the other sees the aggressor in terror.

Let’s continue on with this. How would this lens then also colour the ongoing interpretation of the experience? The first person might have actually fought the aggressor and left him injured. They might interpret this experience as a triumph over a fool who dared to insult them. After running in terror, the second person might have interpreted this experience as just another example of a world trying to devour them. These are the stories that we tell ourselves about our experience and they are separate from the initial reality of an aggressor yelling at them.

Why are these stories – these interpretations – important?

As we can see in these examples, these interpretations firstly colour the lens through which we experience reality. This lens then colours how we respond to experiences as we experience them. Finally, the interpretations colour how we move forward and continue to interpret experiences as we move through our lives.

At Time N, all of our interpretations up until time N colour how we experience what happens at time N. How we experience what happens at time N then colours how we interpret what we experience at time N. We then take this interpretation forward to time N+1. And so on. These interpretations colour the way we interpret the world and thus the way that we act in it.

Again, these interpretations colour the way we interpret the world and thus the way we act in it.

Let’s now bring this back to the phrase that started this exploration, “well that’s their experience,” and its implication that because someone interpreted experience in the way that they did that it is valid and cannot be challenged. A couple more examples.

A young person who experiences extreme anxiety about their physical appearance. They believe that they are ugly and that they are fat, and that everyone thinks so. They refuse to eat and hurt themselves.

Do we give validity to their experience because it is their experience? Do we forbid ourselves from challenging their interpretations because they are their interpretations?

What about someone that has extreme paranoia and doesn’t trust anyone? They cannot have any relationships and become violent to protect themselves from people out to get them.

Again, do we give validity to their experience because it is their experience? Do we forbid ourselves from challenging their interpretations because they are their interpretations?

No, we do not. We do not because they do not have basis in reality, and because these false interpretations are leading them to hurt themselves and others.

If we were to give validity to their experience and not challenge it – if we were to go along with them – we would be encouraging and a party to a young person hurting themselves, or paranoid acts of violence against innocents.

There are consequences of the way that we interpret experience because people act on these interpretations of experience.

Again, there are consequences of the way that we interpret experience because people act on these interpretations of experience.

Another example. Someone says something to a coworker in the workplace. The coworker interprets what was said to them in a way that was threatening their wellbeing. They report the incident. Here, if we hold valid the experience because that is the way they experienced it, we would have no choice but to terminate the employment of the offending coworker.

There was very little detail given in the example above. Perhaps we are all here wondering, “what actually happened?” What if the person had only said, “Good Morning” and really meant it – should we terminate the person because of how the person on the receiving end of this morning pleasantry experienced it?

We would hope not, because the key thing to determine before making a life-altering decision here is whether the person in reality did indeed threaten the wellbeing of the employee reporting it.

We do not only interpret reality as individuals, as in the above examples. As social beings we share our interpretations, which begets shared interpretations.

We develop shared belief systems, values, politics. These are all shared interpretations and shared lenses through which we experience the world. These can be shared in units as small as families, to groups of friends, to political parties, to entire governments, to sweeping social or ideological movements.

On an individual level, we have seen examples of the impacts of our interpretations, both positive and negative. These impacts are only amplified in magnitude when we look at these different examples of shared interpretations.

Perhaps we have groups of friends who interpret reality such that it’s beauty needs to be captured and uplifted, and they become a group of painters bringing inspiring art to the world. Or perhaps there is a political party built on the interpretation that certain groups of people are a threat, and use this threat to unite people behind their cause in fear and hatred. Or maybe we have a social movement that interprets all the division in the world as a cause to unite under the common banner of humanity and consciousness.

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. Is it one that incites fear and hatred and division, or love and understanding and unity? Is it shared by only a few people or by millions?

Regardless of the nature or scale of the shared interpretation, just like in our examples of individuals above, there are consequences to shared interpretations of experience because we act on these shared interpretations of experience. If our shared interpretation of experience is one in which a certain group is the cause of our ills and must be eradicated, then we could move to exterminate said group. If our shared interpretation of experience is one in which we view the world’s division as cause to unite, we could expand the consciousness of humanity.

Let’s ground this again. Interpretations of experience are separate from experience. Let’s take the example in which we interpret our experience such that a certain group is the cause of all of our ills and must be eradicated. Like the example of the terminated coworker, should the first question not be, “are they actually the cause of all of our ills?” Should we not verify whether or not this is indeed true before our crusade of extermination? Should we not confirm whether this accusation has basis in reality?

To do that, do we not have to challenge the interpretation of experience of this group? Just as we challenged the interpretations of experience of our coworker, and our anxious young person, and our person with extreme paranoia?

Next, should we not also challenge the conclusions of the interpretation? The lens that these interpretations create? Here, our lens is destructive and murderous. Regardless if the group is the cause of our ills or not, should we not also challenge the conclusion of this shared interpretation? Perhaps we could instead respond with love and look for ways to build bridges with the group.

There is the reality of our experience – what actually occurred or is occurring. Then there is our interpretation of it – the lens through which we experience it and the story we tell ourselves about it.

If we ignore reality and focus only on our interpretations of it, we operate in delusion, like our anxious young person and our person with extreme paranoia. When we separate ourselves from reality, we can justify anything based on our interpretations, like the extermination of an entire group. Truth is no longer part of the equation.

Regardless of and separate from the basis in reality, is our interpretation (potentially leading to shared interpretations) of our experience. These interpretations have consequences because people act on them. These interpretations can lead one positively or negatively, or somewhere in between, through life. They can lift us up or tear us down. They can lead us to Love or Fear. They are also creative – they allow us to create and craft the story of our lives.

If we do not challenge our interpretations of experience, we indulge delusion and open our arms to psychosis. If we do not challenge the conclusions of these interpretations, we allow them to take hold and consequently for people to act on them. Again, this could be on a personal level, but also at a larger scale or even policy level.

When we challenge our interpretations of experience, we first need to understand reality. Reality is separate from our interpretation. When trying to establish what has occurred or is occurring, we need evidence. If we establish a reality without or contrary to evidence, this is again only delusion and interpretation and we can justify anything based on this psychosis.

Once we establish an evidence-based reality, interpretations that are not grounded in reality crumble away without a premise. Then, we can challenge the remaining interpretations and create.

What type of life are we trying to create for ourselves? What would we hope for or promote in our fellow people? In our world? What are we trying to build?

As we utter or hear the phrase “well that’s their experience”, we should ask ourselves these questions.

When you take responsibility for everything in your Life

You become all-powerful.

so you’re a Victim?

Are you so sure?