So even though everything passes through the filter I call "me" --- objective reason can survive. If I claim objective knowledge, I have established the reality of reason and I am then honor-bound to nurture its promise with coherent skepticism; which in turn solidifies the reality of reason. If I introduce faith or belief or any emotional trigger, I am rejecting the reality of reason by attacking its integrity; (i.e. to exhort belief is to deny reason).

This is not to question the value of subjectivity, but to encourage an acknowledgement of the legitimacy of objective reason. I maintain that we (too) often become emotionally attached to a fundamental idea or concept and neglect the reality of reason by refusing coherent skepticism.

Coherent skepticism does not challenge the reality of the reality of reason, but rather expands and refines the power of reason. To reason is to analyze and consider at progressively higher (or deeper) levels. Thoughtful questioning is required; (as an example, though I said above that "this is not to question the value of subjectivity," one should absolutely question the value of subjectivity; I was merely remarking to maintain focus on the reality of reason).

Based on these arguments, (and despite a common dictionary definition), I maintain that reasoning cannot be used to determine belief. Belief implies a gap and a leap; and reasoning may carry one to the precipice, but it will not provide wings to ensure safe passage. So reason may prod but practically speaking, objective reason will only take one so far and will never provide an ultimate Truth. Hence the necessity of coherent skepticism to continue narrowing the gap. And hence, (because we fear the unknown), the unfounded belief that subjective truth is Truth.

But again, my purpose in this thought is (foremost) to reveal the incisive authenticity of objective reason and, (only secondarily), to expose the superficial duplicity of subjective truth. Many believe and many know. They are exclusive. One cannot do both within a single context. So if knowledge narrows the gap leaving one on firm ground, and belief somehow magically spans the gap leaving one at risk, why would one choose magical thinking over sure footing? The answer of course is fear.

One cannot choose to believe or to not believe a fact. A fact simply is. To dispute or disbelieve the validity of a fact is to deny reason. One who denies reason cannot practice coherent skepticism and cannot reasonably participate in any effort to expand knowledge. Subjective reality can only be bandied about within the confines of subjective reality and, for the sake of understanding and learning, should be; but reason will never be a party to that.

If objective reason is "there" and subjective truth is "here" then the following description from Ursula LeGuin's story, ("Five Ways to Forgiveness: A Man of the People"), is apt.

"There are no gods there. The gods are here. There are souls there. Many, many souls, minds, minds full of knowledge and passion. Living and dead. People who lived on this earth a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand years ago. Minds and souls of people from worlds a hundred light years from this one, all of them with their own knowledge, their own history. The world is sacred. The cosmos is sacred. That's not a knowledge I ever had to give up. All I learned, here and there, only increased it. There's nothing that is not sacred. You can choose the local sacredness [here] or the great one [there]. In the end they're the same. But not in the life one lives. To know there is a choice is to have to make the choice: change or stay; river or rock."

There or here.