Speculation is fictional at its root. I participate in it but always aware of its fictional nature, from thought experiments to movies to what if’s and wherever they’re found.
Impersonal is a style of communication but I do not believe it holds ontological value.
I speak in the subjective because it is the only thing I can give some semblance of validity to. It is me, my perspective, from this viewpoint.
I try not to speak for the Universal or for all time (this is what I mean by “working for eternity”) – but I do believe that it is valuable to determine pragmatic truths of a transient, practical nature.
Ultimate things are, to me, fictional and subject to change and found in many human systems that have pragmatic and social value.
Truth is generally of a consensus nature.
You say there is a deep inversion of subjective and objective but I do not see objectivity-as-fixed.
It is pragmatic to act “as-if” it is fixed for the purposes of getting things accomplished, just as logic is practical, formal discourse is practical. But something that is useful makes it a contingent truth.
I do not have absolute truth. Perhaps you do. Perhaps your sources do. Perhaps logic is. I don’t know.
I am a systems thinker. I think in terms of systems.
Logic is a system among other systems and is functional and useful for its purposes, but I do not utilize it as a basis-for-truth except truth that is considered truth from within the confines of its system.
Outside of its system? I care if it’s practical or not. If it’s not practical, then it is speculative fiction.