The Physics of Truth Pt. 3: An Interview with Consciousness Researcher Eric Burlingame

Through the Looking Glass

This is the third and final part of this interview series. If you’d haven’t read the first or second parts, please do!

So far the discussions with consciousness researcher Eric Burlingame have been about looking out into the world and using Coherence Verification to better understand the behavior of others. But what about using this research method to better understand ourselves? Can it be used to identify invisible patterns behind our own behavior, and act as a yardstick to measure our growth?

It seems it’s generally assumed that all humans are more-or-less at the same point in their evolution (unless you’re racist or sexist or harbor some other form of prejudice). In America, we often chalk up pretty radical differences in perspective to simply “that’s just their belief, and it’s as valid as mine.” This is a very important and mature perspective when there isn’t a way to objectively measure the quality of information, but that’s not the world we live in anymore.

In reality, we’re not all operating with equivalently valid perceptions of what we encounter and perceive. We all enter the world at different levels or stages in the evolution of our consciousness, and we continue to be at different points throughout our lives. Some advance, some regress, some stay pretty close to where they were when they joined the world.

The level of consciousness that we’re experiencing life through is a filter that colors everything we perceive. The lower the vibration of consciousness energy being experienced, the more distorting the filter’s effect, and the less apt a person is to recognize truth from falsehoods. As such, the way we see and define some very basic things — like the worth of ourselves and others, what we choose to believe is the meaning of existence, or whose approach to life is the best way to live — are being distilled through some very different filters.

Let me be very clear here: I am not saying “Behold! There’s a new way to declare that some people are inferior to others! Let the age of energetic bigotry begin!” We are not our current level of consciousness. I might really dislike the actions of someone like Donald Trump or Charles Manson, but their objectively destructive choices do not change their essential value as human beings.

The truth is, all humans — regardless of things like color, creed, gender, sexual orientation, beliefs, actions, or ability — are of the same inherent value. Without exception. But some folks, out of ignorance, are operating at extremely unhealthy and destructive levels.

The only person we have control over is ourselves, and if there’s going to be change in the world, we have to be the change we want to see. In this final part of my interview with Eric Burlingame of Inception Publishing, we’re going to look at some fascinating ways that this work provides new perspective on personal growth. I’m going to be very candid in showing some unflattering aspects of my own evolution so far.

But before we get into that, let’s look at where the human species is as a whole.

Ryan: So, what is the collective level of consciousness (LOC) of humanity as of now (i.e., Sunday March 5, 2017 at 4:00pm PST)?

Eric Burlingame: Humanity’s LOC is at 206 as of today.

Ryan: Ok, how can you average something as varied as ~7.4 billion people? There are substantial amounts of people functioning well below the critical point of LOC 200 (where the nature of consciousness energy transitions from harmful to beneficial), and a great many operating above LOC 200.

Eric Burlingame: The answer to that is somewhat technical, but I think I can explain it in a few points.

First, Hawkins’ scale is structured as a logarithm, so the level of energy moves exponentially with each point “up” or ”down” the scale. The reason to structure the scale that way is to account for the full range of human energetic experience — from the lowest level of being (which is the death of the physical body), to the highest levels of energetic experience, or what is often called enlightenment.

Second, the energetic level of humans can be collectively identified partly by virtue of dominant patterns of function (the beginning of courageousness in the case of a 206 LOC), and partly by virtue of each individual’s consciousness level. In other words, the 206 LOC is a mathematical result of what people are doing, and who we are all being.

Third, humans below a 200 LOC can generally be said to be a significant detriment to themselves and humanity as a whole due to the low energy levels, and the fear dominated decisions they are making. From 200–300 LOC, humans are generally beneficial to themselves and others, but not significantly so unless they happen to be consistently striving for valuable states of being. From about 300 and above, humans are functioning with sufficient energy to make effective choices and contribute more than they are any sort of detraction to humanity. So their energetic value is so significant that they help buoy up the rest.

This is not too difficult to imagine in “real life.” For example, let’s say that you work in a small company with twenty-five employees. Five of those employees are well below 200 LOC, and are generally making a mess of things wherever they go. They aren’t pulling their weight due to being tired or sick from low energy states, they are consistently making mistakes due to fear and anger distractions, and they are not functioning with integrity due to pridefulness and fear of being found out in their less than honest interactions. These five people make it difficult for the remaining twenty every day of work, and are probably costing the company in limited productivity, expensive mistakes, and missed days of work.

Now, imagine that fifteen of the other twenty people are between 200–300 LOC. They are getting their jobs done reasonably well, functioning with integrity most of the time, and being generally conscientious human beings. Obviously, these 15 are an asset to the company and their coworkers. They are also likely to be providing the company with consistency and stability. However, they aren’t likely to be the people fully compensating for the detrimental five below 200 LOC.

That’s where the 300+ LOC people come in and balance things out. They are functioning with greater clarity, less distraction, distinctive intention, and a more contextual outlook. With this beneficial group you are likely to see them catching the errors the lower LOC people make, going above and beyond their job descriptions and so compensating for the less efficient workers, and functioning as leaders for all. These five people are making the company successful regardless of the limited, sub 200 LOC folks. Thus, the energy and efficacy of the company as a whole is lifted because of the power of a few.

The entirety of humanity works this way, and consciousness mapping allows us to see that meta phenomenon with distinctive clarity.

Ryan: Ok, so considering that Hawkins’ Map of Consciousness was developed to represent the full spectrum of energy-expression possible within the human experience, and that humanity is currently hovering just above the critical demarcation point of LOC 200 (where energy shifts from harmful to beneficial), that means that we’re still at a fairly low-energetic state collectively. Thinking about that really gives context to all of the conflict and self-interest that we see in the world

So many of our institutions — religions, politics, economics — seem to reflect very fearful states stemming from a “kill or be killed” or “survival of the fittest” mentality. Since there hasn’t been an awareness that truth, falsehood, and the energetic quality of information can be objectively identified, people have incorrectly assumed that cruelty, greed, and conflict are just “human nature.” But they’re actually indications of low-LOC propensities.

Eric Burlingame: You are absolutely correct that viewing humanity from the objective standpoint of chosen energetic states and an awareness of our historical ignorance of the informational infrastructure of the universe completely changes perspective.

You are also correct about the assumptions humans have made regarding the so-called “causes” of mass patterns of behavior. In some belief systems, for example, the cause has been that humans have a sinful nature. In many scientific belief systems the explanation has been that we maintenance an evolutionary “survival of the fittest” drive. Neither of these polarized views truly accounts for breadth of human behavior though, so the question of what drives us has remained. 
These drivers of behavior have been absolute mysteries, and so we have created “reasons” for these in the forms of belief systems, gods, spirits, animal nature, and more recently, biology, psychology, and chemistry. The search is the same though. We keep asking, “Why the heck are we the way we are?” This kind of question has been impossible to answer without an understanding of informational and energetic patterns.

“We could accomplish mass evolution in humanity in a relatively short period of time, just as we have done with electronic technology in the last 50 years.”

The challenge we face as humanity now, is getting this pattern awareness out to everyone. Then the productive among us can discontinue unnecessary fear and psychological pain, and the destructive among us can begin to progress past the “kill or be killed” habits you mentioned. This sounds idealistic and unattainable as a goal, but I don’t really think it is. We could accomplish mass evolution in humanity in a relatively short period of time, just as we have done with electronic technology in the last 50 years. It’s not that crazy.

People like ease and adapt to it quickly given the opportunity. When I was a little kid, we got a set of encyclopedias that was like a magical window to the rest of the world. I think that set took up two big book shelves and probably weighed a hundred pounds all together. Buying a set of physical encyclopedias would be a goofy consideration today, because it’s a million times easier to just look up the information you need on the phone in your pocket. It’s easier to have access to the internet than it is to have a giant set of books, so that’s what we choose.

Choosing truthfulness provides an easier way of life, and choosing mutual cooperation and benefit is an easier way of being in society than the “survival of the fittest” method.

Ryan: So you’re saying that “survival of the fittest” isn’t a true concept?

Eric Burlingame: Well, let me show you what I mean with a couple of verifications.

Using Hawkins’ scale of consciousness, the statement “The energetic quality of the idea that nature is structured on a survival of the fittest system” yields a 76 LOC. That is an extremely damaging level. That is around the level of most terrorism, state-sponsored wars, the New York Stock Exchange, and the current Republican Party in the US. What do we see as a similarity in all of those examples? A win/lose tendency. A habit of taking, stealing, destroying, and gambling with people’s lives and livelihoods.

Now, if we verify the level of consciousness required for mutual human cooperation, we see that it’s in the 275 LOC range on Hawkins’ scale. That is well above where humanity is now, and always produces generally positive results. This is the range of productivity, sharing of resources, mutual benefit, and general wealth creation. The two concepts — “survival of the fittest” vs. mutual human cooperation — are drastically different in quality, and the results that arise from these different states are entirelydifferent in practical terms.

Ryan: Wooooooooow. You just blew my mind a little. Just lumping things together like “the Republican Party” and “terrorism” can sound hyperbolic or like a partisan opinion, but then hearing the inherent qualities of the energy levels that they’re functioning at — win/lose tendencies, a habit of taking/stealing/destroying/gambling — changes it to “Ooooh, ok. Yep, that makes perfect sense” territory.

I really love energetically dissecting human behavior, but so far everything I’ve brought up in this interview involves other people “out there.” Let’s talk about things on a more personal level now.

I couldn’t begin to measure the positive impact your and Hawkins’ work has had on my life. I spent a lot of time earlier in my life stumbling through the dark trying to identify a healthy framework to align myself with, and trying to figure out if objective truth even existed — especially after being so gaslighted by my parents and lied to by Jehovah’s Witnesses. Some of the options I came across that seemed reasonable at the time are in retrospect either flat-out inaccurate, or just really limited in applicability.

There were several instances where I had made leaps and bounds in my level of healthy functioning, and relative to where I had started it felt downright enlightened. But when I started reading Hawkins’ books and then met you years later and had the opportunity to begin verifying that information and various experiences, it was a game-changer.

It also enabled me to look back at some really scary and unhealthy patches in my life and realize that they weren’t indications that I was just cursed, or broken, or crazy. There were very real factors contributing to the expression of “craziness” I was experiencing in myself and witnessing in the people around me.

Eric Burlingame: You are pointing out one of my favorite aspects of consciousness quality verifications. We can literally define exactly where we are at in the totality of our development, and that allows us to see where additional attention can be placed, as well as what the attainments have been.

“This marks a huge potential leap in our learning.”

There really has been no objective gauge of human consciousness progress in human history until the last few years, so this marks a huge potential leap in our learning.

The other great thing is that we can now easily disregard counterproductive thoughts, as we can see that they are mostly ‘extra-personal.’ In other words, the stuff we’ve picked up from others that isn’t truthful can be eliminated more easily when we have no judgments against ourselves based on the belief that “I am bad and broken because of what I’m experiencing.” You can take responsibility for your thought process but eliminate blame for the content of untruthful thoughts.

Ryan: Understood! So, for this interview I asked you to complete a pretty extensive series of verifications for me that show — year by year — the progression and regression of my own energetic states of consciousness during my lifetime. First, thank you so much for putting that together! I know it wasn’t a small task.

Eric Burlingame: You are very welcome. It’s always exciting to me when someone wants to get seriously into understanding consciousness changes over time because that kind of context is always helpful.

Ryan: Totally. So what are we seeing here? How do the two scales referenced here — David R. Hawkins’ Map of Consciousness (i.e., LOC) and your Energetic Quality Level scale (EQL) — differ in what they reveal?

Eric Burlingame: While Hawkins’ Map of Consciousness and my EQL scale look similar and both use a 0–1000 point system (for ease of reference), they are decidedly different. I won’t belabor your readers with every little tiny difference, but there are a few key differences that make the two systems complementary.

“This has been such a fundamental novelty that many still haven’t accepted that it’s possible to do so.”

Hawkins was a pioneer in consciousness studies because he considered the possibility of defining the nature of human energetic experience, thought, and practical activity as a whole and that all these could be defined and measured. This has been such a fundamental novelty that many still haven’t accepted that it’s possible to do so.

I’ve learned an enormous amount from his past efforts (he died a few years back unfortunately). As they say, we are are all indebted to those that have come before us.

In my use of CV in conjunction with the reference tool that is Hawkins’ scale, I began to see that I was able to fill in details that he had not fully explored, or at least hadn’t written about extensively. The details can be summed up by saying I wanted to have a clearer sense of precisely where exact mental/emotional states were falling on the scale.

Hawkins defined an excellent general scale, and now it was time to construct a finely grained scale for further clarity. So, I set about constructing a relative scale that was not restricted by logarithmic formula, but was coherent with human experience within a context that was easily understandable. In other words, it is true that hatred has a particular energetic “signature”, but so does the belief that one is a victim of circumstances. With the EQL scale, I can see that both of these energetic signatures are in the 295–300 range, indicating considerable destructive potential. This same effort can be accomplished with Hawkins’ scale, but it is considerably less precise and does not accommodate for some very low energy states.

“Please be clear that Hawkins’ scale is not deficient, just different in kind and purpose.”

Please be clear that Hawkins’ scale is not deficient, just different in kind and purpose. That being said, there are similarities in major demarcation points in human development. On Hawkins’ scale 200 LOC is the point at which humans have the ability to begin to make significant strides forward toward healthful decisions. This same demarcation is seen at the 695–700 level on my EQL scale.

Ryan: The progression of the two lines on my chart look like rollercoaster tracks that follow each other fairly closely, but obviously not exactly. What’s happening there?

Eric Burlingame: The two scales track with each other in your graph because they are basically measuring the same thing: your state of consciousness in a given span of history. Hawkins’ scale allows us to see the broad implications of a particular level. The EQL scale allows us to get into more granular detail.

For example, at age sixteen, the Hawkins’ level of consciousness calibrations has you at LOC 101, while the EQL is 316. With careful reading of Hawkins’ material you can determine that this is a fear and anxiety dominated level with elements of psychological withdrawal. With further study you find he comments extensively on this level, but sometimes what is happening generally in a particular consciousness level does not seem to resonate with personal experience.

I realized that it would be very helpful to know quite specifically where people were getting tripped up mentally and psychologically in particular periods. In other words, I needed greater detail in order to maximize my help to others in my consultation work with clients. The EQL development has allowed me to see that the 316 EQL is a resistance to accepting that humans are in essence spiritual (or at least non-physical) beings. This is also the level of active participation in idolatry, or what can be considered the diminishment of self-value in exchange for the belief in being saved by some more powerful force.

The level of specificity it reveals often shocks my clients because they think I’ve been reading their minds. I haven’t done that (which would be a weird experience anyway), but rather pointed to a particular area that they can immediately address and resolve in order to discontinue assembling the same destructive thoughts, and move towards more effective action.

Does that help clarify the scale differences for you?

Ryan: Totally!

That jump down from EQL 511 to EQL 316 when I was fifteen seems pretty huge, as does the jump up from EQL 272 when I was twenty-six up to EQL 556 when I was twenty-eight. What are your thoughts on those sorts of energetic events?

Eric Burlingame: Those two significant shifts are great opportunities to see how the EQL scale gets into even greater detail. When I verify what the EQL was that precipitated the drop at fifteen, I get a 182–190. For you specifically, this indicates that you had begun to shift into believing there were conspiracies against you; even more specifically, a conspiracy by God to make you suffer. Obviously, if you think that there is a deity that has it out for you, that’s fairly scary stuff.

The jump up at around twenty-seven years old was precipitated by a 465–470 mentality. This is the energy of disdain for others and vindictiveness. These aren’t particularly useful states for the long term, but in the short term these states will provide a boost in energy that eventually catapulted you into self-improvement practices.

Do those descriptions seem resonant with your experience at the time?

Ryan: Toooooootally. That is spot on. That time period when I was fifteen was when I was still really grappling with the Jehovah’s Witness brainwashing, and believed that god was watching, judging, and actively trying to harm and punish me. I remember generally feeling like life/god was perpetually toying with me as if it were all a cruel cosmic joke and I was the butt of that joke.

Things with my parents were also particularly bad at that point. It really marks a period where things went from terrible to worse.

To refresh my memory of what was going on then I looked through the photo album my mother sent me that covers that time period. There are no photos of me because I was living with my father, which, sadly, was also when he was molesting the child he later went to prison for.

Very dark times.

It’s interesting to me because I know through reading Hawkins’ work that it’s fairly uncommon for someone to traverse such an immense expanse of consciousness levels like I have during my life. It’s not that I’m magical or anything, but I’ve really worked my ass off to undo a lot of damage, let go of a lot of negativity and destructive behavior, and to learn to recognize and then consistently choose truth-based information to base my choices on and structure my life around.

Looking at my LOC and EQL at birth and then watching the calibrations reveal how much my parents’ crazy choices and behavior harmed me has been a pretty bitter pill to swallow, but, you know… it is what it is.

Looking at the part of the chart that begins to reflect some of the gains from that hard work (from ages thirty to thirty-six), my LOC stabilized in the 400’s while continuing to creep higher, but there’s a bit of a yo-yo effect happening with my EQL.

What’s going on there? What is the difference in the 662 and 550–580 EQL ranges?

Eric Burlingame: The short answer to your question goes back to what I was saying about Hawkins’ Map of Consciousness being an excellent general gauge of consciousness activity, while my EQL scale is hyper specific. This results in only minor changes in LOC in a given period of time, but potentially considerable highs and lows in EQL over the same period. Neither is better or worse of a gauge, the two systems simply are macro versus micro viewpoints.

To put the difference into different terminology, you can think about it as two different tools for measuring the same thing. Let’s say I’m an entomologist (bug scientist) studying a grasshopper. I would want to watch and record general behaviors with my eyes, and maybe a camera as well. I would see eating, mating, and flying behaviors, and learn quite a bit. However, I’d have to get a magnifying device to study those same activities up close, like how the jaws work during eating, or how the grasshopper’s eyes function, for example. Same grasshopper, same behaviors, two different view points. This difference in view points allows me to explain specific behaviors, within a larger context when dealing with human issues.

Ryan: Rad! That makes perfect sense.

Eric Burlingame: This brings me to your question about your LOC stability, versus your EQL “yo-yo.” In the 400 LOC range we can all learn to approach life with reason, with thoughtfulness, and with greater objectivity. Careful planning and effective trouble shooting become common practice. Reducing fear-based emotional reactions and increasing context oriented, truthful considerations is consistently learned and practiced. Plainly stated, this all great stuff and takes some time to habituate, so LOC tends to rise slowly in the 400’s with consistent effort.

However, that doesn’t mean that we don’t have a difficult few days or even a month where our general level of consciousness is still in the 400s, but the quality of the specific dominant thoughts of those few days might be fear-based. In that case, one’s EQL might drop considerably, but probably only temporarily as you learn to release those fears and resolve practical challenges. Once the resolution has been accomplished and the fears are released, EQL pops back up to the highest chosen state of intention, or to the next area of available learning and development.

In your particular case, the 550–580 EQL range was a period of dealing with concerns about income, frustrations that arose in conjunction with that, some dissatisfaction with the way you had been doing certain things, and resolving old patterns of expectation in relationships. As you handled these issues you moved to a greater sense of sympathy for yourself and others (the EQL 660s), and thus a greater sense of connection with others. This opened the door for further resolution of the past fears about monetary survival and relationship-building.

This set of resolutions is now functioning as a foundation for your current progress.

Ryan: Whoooooooa.

That current jump up to LOC 460 and EQL 712 looks fun. What’s that about?

Eric Burlingame: The movement into the 460–490 LOC range generally is facilitated by a deeper understanding of how our behavior effects others and the world at large. The 710–720 EQL range is where one begins to fully appreciate the consequences of their actions, where they start to fully understand the value of consistently held morals and ethical behavior, and when objectivity is a primary concern. Additionally, most people in this range will begin to examine themselves more closely and potentially question decadent behaviors, vices, antagonistic attitudes, and wastefulness.

There are potential pitfalls in this range too. For example, as we get concerned with how we interact with the world, there’s a temptation to judge others, and just decide that our actions don’t matter in the big picture. That can lead some to value animals over people, while others may respond with a “screw it all” kind of attitude and regress into indulgent and self-pleasuring behaviors. This is a misunderstanding, of course, but a very common one that happens in the 700–750 EQL range.

Ryan: Wow.

Ok, so how is it that we’re able to “look back into the past” and calibrate things that happened a long time ago? That’s always fascinated me.

“Contained within every second of every day is the entire history of everything that has ever been”

Eric Burlingame: The ability to verify events and information from the past is a very tricky physics discussion, but I think I can represent it briefly. Contained within every second of every day is the entire history of everything that has ever been, and all the information that has ever been, including all the information that makes up the physical portions of the universe. The Universe effectively builds on itself constantly with each moment being the building block for the next. All information exists as a predicate for the unfolding of the next.

Imagine for a moment you could take a picture of absolutely everything — including all the events and information — and you’ll have a small idea of what I’m saying. Anything you wanted to discover could be found in that picture, because everything was contained in the picture. This isn’t particularly fanciful, but it is very strange to imagine. Now, if you wanted to find something, let’s say what was done by a particular person on a particular day, you’d have to go to the portion of the picture that “contained” the events of that day, then find the person in question, and then review the actions until you discovered what you were interested in. It’s all there in the picture, you just have to find it.

Coherence Verification functions (not just the musculature reflex, but the entire properly rendered process) as a method of quickly finding what you are looking for within the picture. Stated differently, there is no actual past you are searching, there is only the picture right now that contains all of the events that have been.

Ryan: Whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooa… What a fantastic description! So, is it possible to calibrate future events?

“I hate to be a buzz kill for the fans of time travel stories, but…”

Eric Burlingame: I hate to be a buzz kill for the fans of time-travel stories, but there is no future. That is a mental construct humans have invented for the purpose of making and discussing plans. Just because we can imagine a thing, doesn’t mean it exists.

So, since there isn’t a future, there’s nothing there to verify with CV. That being said, there is a way to use CV for the calculation of probabilities. With extremely precise verification statements, you can construct a type of situational model and define the likelihood of general outcomes. It’s a difficult business, and the results aren’t accurate for very long because circumstances change rapidly, thus the entire model (or variables in the equation, if you will) changes constantly.

I have played with this process quite a bit, and it’s sketchy at best. I do have a bit of a caveat to that though: the more static, or slow changing a thing is, the easier it is to calculate probable outcomes. It is also easier to come up with accurate predictions in tightly closed systems that have few variables, like in the case of stable elements or simple organisms. Needless to say, humans aren’t very static and are one constant variable, although the choices of those at lower energy levels are somewhat generally predictable.

Ryan: Huh! Interesting what you say about “those at lower energy levels are somewhat generally predictable.” That reminds me of this Tolstoy quote:

“Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” — Leo Tolstoy

Illustration from my post about a Leo Tolstoy quote where he implies that happiness is boring

Tolstoy seemed to believe that pain and unhappiness are what make people unique and interesting, but it sounds like you’re saying that people functioning at lower states of consciousness (like depression or anger or fear) are actually morepredictable than higher states!

Eric Burlingame: You are correct on all counts. Tolstoy only managed a 176 LOC over the course of his life, and thus he needed to believe that the psychological suffering he mistakenly created for himself, through his fearfulness, made him interesting and special. His belief was a self-validation effort. I suspect it helped his book marketing too. Anyway, moving along.

There is no question that humans functioning at counterproductive consciousness levels are drastically more predictable because their motivations are restricted to their fear responses and reactions, and because at those lower levels true creativity and intention are non-existent. With higher levels of energy, thought, and function, intentions are more personally and mutually beneficial, and held for longer periods. With this development, creativity expands and more possibility is seen and pursued. Then, more energy is available for more action. It’s an upward spiral of intention, creativity, and action.

Ryan: Wow. Man, such incredibly fascinating stuff. Thank you so much for taking the time out of your busy schedule to throw down some crazy awesome learnin’ for Hug the Universe readers! Before we wrap this up, where can people go to learn more about your work and the EQL scale that you’ve developed?

Eric Burlingame: The best place to keep up with the work is on our Inception Publishing website,, where you can join our email list. There I have a regular blog where I am working to build reader’s understanding of CV, and the work we are doing generally. Also, the first full length book will be out this spring (with three more released shortly thereafter). Readers who’d like to join me on this exciting adventure can also go to our Patreon page at Becoming a patron and helping us grow Inception Publishing will get you some enlightening rewards for participating in the growth of Inception Publishing.

Closing thoughts from Ryan:

The accomplishments of humans are truly incredible, but we’ve also produced some unspeakable atrocities. Stop for a moment and imagine how things would change if, at large, we began identifying and agreeing upon what is truthful and actual, and what is false and imagined.

How much faster could progress occur if time and energy wasn’t flushed down the existential toilet by arguing about whose subjective impression is the supposed “right” one; whose political party is “the best”; whose religion and holy book is the “really really real one”; and whose skin color is the most valuable? What would happen if through objective analysis people realized that there was no reality at the foundation of any of those long-held and strangely valued misconceptions? What could we get to creating if we let go of our false notions of “survival of the fittest” and “I’m alone, incomplete, and separate from everyone and everything else”? What would happen if we all realized that we’re in this together, that we all matter, and that we’ve accidentally created some pretty ugly nightmares because of errors of perception?

Our world is something that humans have created. Some of it is astoundingly beautiful, and some of it is tragically sick. No one person can correct course and change everything, but each of us can do our part to be expressions of the best in human nature, and master the courage that’s required to refuse anything less than absolute truthfulness.

Until next time, be kind to yourself, to each other, and venture fearlessly into the awesomeness that is your life.

Like what you read? Give Ryan M. Weisgerber a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.