This is the part where you roll your eyes and go, "Oh no, not relativism with fancy new words."
Which, when put the way I've explained it, is the case. However, this does not hold through when we delve into a few of the deeper ideas that allow EM to work. First, one must consider the reproductive nature of experiences. Most experiences attempt to propogate to other people via a vector (usually language). You go to the park, and later find yourself telling someone about it. Or a rape victim going through counselling, a patient describing ills to a doctor, and so on. In your standard case an experience will attempt to reproduce. Exceptions to this require an external force; the motivation to dissemble, hold a secret; fear, shame, etc. will often cause an individual to prevent the experience's natural impulse to reproduce. This, coupled with the fact that the desire to reproduce is directly related to the intensity of the experience, can cause many extreme experiences to be bottled up (like rape or abuse), leading to psychological dysfunction.
So, any experience is going to attempt to reproduce. To do so, the idea must reveal its presence to its environment. You decide to tell me about your blue-cereal-eating cow. Now, there are several ways I could respond. First, I could accept what you say as true. Second, I can reject it. If I reject it, I might attempt to normalize you, that is, convince you that what you saw isn't real. You in turn may attempt to normalize me, since you are convinced that the cow is real. No matter how this goes, there are a set of possible states.
- I accept the cow
- You reject the cow
- We agree to disagree
- We continue to disagree in conflict
The tension of reality between us is reduced by the first two quite obviously. We no longer are in conflict about the cow. In turn, we may continue this chain of events with other people, proseletysing either the existance or lack there of of the cow. If we agree to disagree, things get a bit more interesting. We have now reached a state of low conflict, unless the subject is brought up again, in which case, a brand new round of normalization is going to occur.
The last possibility, the disagreement with conflict, leads to most political and social debates. Different visions of reality are competing, attempting to normalize the others out. Religion is a perfect example of this. Everyone involved in religious conflicts is attempting to normalize the others out of existance, which occasionally erupts into conflict.
Now, this process of normalization requires one thing to happen: you hold your own, and only your own experiences as real. Hence, this is not relativism, but personal absolutism. What you experience is real, and for you to accept a change in that reality, some event must convince you otherwise.