Concord is a Catholic apostate(which isn’t the worst thing but he left for secular worldview). Jimmy said something interesting about his phenomenology:

Concord:

And I agree that we can never get outside ourselves. By the definition of being a distinct organic entity, we are limited to subjective experience, subjective apprehension of reality, and thus entirely subjective knowledge. It’s not something I would dispute.

This response subtly begs the question. The very definition of “arbitrary” that it works from assumes the point it’s trying to prove, namely that rational structure is something which must be extrinsic to subjective experience. I argue that it is and always has been irreducible beyond subjective experience, and that’s the farthest we can access it.

Jimmy:

You are missing the objection, maybe because it is “subtle.” The point is you are stuck with relativism if there is no external criterion (of structure) to which minds can appeal to in settling disputes. The so-called humble position is just someone projecting their opinions on incommensurable minds with random experiences. No one can say anyone else is wrong on phenomenalism. Worse, it leaves the individual with subjectivism. If you cannot “get outside of yourself” then you cannot distinguish between knowing yourself and fantasizing about yourself. To say you cannot access excremental criteria revokes any basis even to say you cannot access extramental criteria, since that is to presume yourself an object of inspection not exhausted or exhaustible by immediate consciousness. Phenomenalism is an excuse for people to call themselves humble even as they reduce epistemology to their own opinions.