Objective Knowledge is Subjective Knowledge

My objection to the absolutist edifice of Western Thought in general, and the Abrahamic Religions in particular, is that ultimately they preach the concession of control and judgement to an external authority (note: the Realist authority of “Objective Truth” in Scientism is no exception).  This attitude encourages dependency and anxiety and devalues and humiliates the subject.  While I wholeheartedly believe humility is a necessary condition for enlightenment, I also believe that this humility rests - not on guilt, shame or inferiority - but the exact opposite.  Humility is Compassion, and the latter can only arise through the subject’s acceptance, love and faith in Self.   Any philosophy that is grounded in an external authority is both manipulative and irresponsible.  Any “freedom” granted by an external authority is at best contingent; while faith in the authority’s magnanimity and power to forgive and save may be seen by some as the freedom to release their personal burdens, that “freedom” comes with an even larger burden of fealty to an unknown authority whose values you cannot truly know and thus have no reason to believe you share.  Because the values you are taught to judge yourself by are not your own you have no means to determine whether you can ever measure up.  Thus you are forever Unworthy.  That this is psychologically toxic goes without saying.

The only person who has the right and the authority to judge and forgive you, is You.  The opinions of others are only valid to the degree their values align with your own.

True happiness is self awareness:  to be so conscious of your Self that you are no longer self-conscious.

True happiness is determined by the locus of control.  Self control. I cannot accept Western religion in particular but absolutist western philosophy in general because it is founded on authoritarianism: the core concept is that the locus of control -Truth - is grounded exclusively externally to the subject.  It devalues the subject.

I agree that the subject by definition is incomplete - Being is always the process of Becoming.  However this does not preclude the ability of the subject to be Consistent.  For at the very least the subject is by definition the subject: this is Identity.  And through continual focus on the core of their evolving identity - consistency with their own true Values, and thus on becoming their own true self, the subject’s perspective is valid - particularly to the degree that their values align with those true subjective values of others.  Then the negotiation of reality between subjects becomes a search for mutual consistency through shared values.  The negotiation depends on a shared system of representation and meaning - ie language.  Negotiation is a calibration of subjective meaning to find shared meaning through a common focal point grounded in a common set of values and mediated through a common language.  Exactly as two eyes create depth perception, negotiation between subjects gives rise to objective truth, at least epistemically.  The core of postmodern thought is the understanding of the validity of this negotiation and the fact that this is the only means we have to expand our horizon of Completeness.  This is the foundation for the evolution of Knowledge.  This is Being in Time.

I do not deny the possibility of external objective truth.  That would be solipsism and would kill the ability of the subject to learn and grow.  I merely deny the exclusive and absolute authority of the external objective truth.  I argue that we have no choice but to recognize the authority and validity of the subject, for if we are truly honest, this is the sole foundation of our Epistemology.