---

Section 1: The Foundations — What We're Actually Talking About

Before we can argue about objectivity and subjectivity in spirituality, we need to understand what those words actually mean. Not the pop-culture versions. The philosophical ones.

Because here's the problem: most people use these terms without knowing their history, their definitions, or their implications. They say "that's just your truth" without realizing they're making a claim about the nature of reality itself. They say "I'm being objective" without understanding that true objectivity is harder to achieve than they think.

This section is going to give you the tools to dissect claims — any claims, from any source — and follow their logic to its conclusion. By the end of it, you should be able to smell bullshit from a mile away, whether it comes from a guru, a scientist, a politician, or your own ego.

What Is a Worldview?

Every human being operates from a worldview — a set of fundamental assumptions about the nature of reality, knowledge, and value. Most people never examine theirs. They inherit it from their culture, their family, their education, and they live inside it like a fish lives in water — unaware that there's anything outside it.

A worldview answers four basic questions:

1. What is real? (ontology — the study of being)
2. How do we know what's real? (epistemology — the study of knowledge)
3. What is good? (axiology — the study of value)
4. What is the meaning of it all? (teleology — the study of purpose)

Every claim you've ever heard — about God, about spirits, about science, about politics, about your own life — rests on assumptions about these four questions. If you don't know what those assumptions are, you can't evaluate the claim. You're just reacting.

The Two Poles: Objectivism and Subjectivism

In philosophy, objectivism and subjectivism are positions on the nature of truth, value, and reality. They sit at opposite ends of a spectrum, and most people — including most philosophers — don't live at either extreme. But understanding the poles helps you see where any given claim falls.

Objectivism (in its philosophical sense) holds that:

• Truth exists independently of what anyone believes or feels about it
• A claim is true or false based on its correspondence to reality, not on whether someone agrees with it
• Values (good, bad, right, wrong) can be discovered through reason, not just felt
• Reality has a structure that is knowable, at least in part

This doesn't mean objectivists think humans have perfect knowledge. It means they think there's something to know, and that our job is to get better at knowing it.

Subjectivism (in its philosophical sense) holds that:

• Truth is relative to the individual or culture
• A claim is "true for you" but not necessarily "true in itself"
• Values are expressions of personal preference or cultural conditioning, not discoveries about reality
• Reality is constructed by the mind, not discovered by it

Again, most people don't hold either position in its pure form. But these are the poles that pull on every claim you'll ever encounter.

The Logical Toolkit

Before we go further, you need three tools. These are not optional. If you don't have these, you'll be lost in every argument that follows.

Tool 1: The Law of Non-Contradiction

A statement cannot be both true and false in the same sense at the same time. If I say "it is raining" and "it is not raining" about the same place at the same moment, at least one of those statements is false. This is not a cultural preference. It is the foundation of all rational thought. Without it, no argument is possible — because you could always say "well, that's true for you but not for me" and the conversation ends.

Tool 2: The Difference Between a Claim and Evidence

A claim is a statement that something is true. Evidence is the support for that claim. Most people confuse the two. "I feel that God exists" is a claim about your feeling, not evidence for God's existence. "I have had direct experiences that I interpret as contact with a divine being" is a more honest claim — it reports the experience without asserting the interpretation as fact.

The discipline of separating claims from evidence is the single most important skill you can develop. It protects you from being manipulated by your own emotions and by other people's rhetoric.

Tool 3: Following Logic to Its Conclusion

Every claim has implications. If you believe X, then Y follows — whether you like it or not. The discipline of following logic to its conclusion means:

• If you say "truth is relative," then you cannot condemn anyone else's actions as wrong — because they're just living their truth
• If you say "only what can be measured is real," then love, meaning, and consciousness are not real
• If you say "spiritual progress is measured by how it feels," then the person who feels most blissful is the most advanced — even if they're delusional

Most people stop short of following their own beliefs to their logical conclusions because those conclusions are uncomfortable. The engineer doesn't get that luxury. If your framework doesn't hold when you follow it all the way down, you need a better framework.

The Self-Defeating Claim

This is the most powerful tool in your bullshit detector. A claim is self-defeating if, when applied to itself, it undermines its own truth.

Examples:

• "There is no truth" — is that statement true? If it is, then it's false (because it claims to be a truth). If it's not, then there is at least one truth (that the statement is false). Either way, the claim collapses.
• "All knowledge is relative to culture" — is that knowledge itself relative to culture, or is it universally true? If it's relative, then it doesn't apply to cultures that don't believe it. If it's universal, then it contradicts itself.
• "You can't know anything for certain" — how do you know that for certain?

The self-defeating claim is the nuclear option in logical analysis. When you encounter one, the argument is over. The person making it has refuted themselves.

Why This Matters for Spirituality

Here's the thing: spirituality is full of claims. Some of them are true. Some of them are false. Some of them are untestable. Some of them are self-defeating.

The person who cannot distinguish between these categories is at the mercy of every charismatic teacher, every compelling experience, every beautiful-sounding doctrine. They have no defense against manipulation because they have no tools for evaluation.

The engineer's approach is not to reject spirituality — it's to evaluate it with the same rigor you'd apply to a machine. Does it work? Does it hold together? Does it produce the results it claims? Does it survive logical scrutiny?

That's what this chapter is about.

---

Section 2: The Case for Reason — Allan Kardec on Discernment

I'm going to channel Allan Kardec for a moment. Not because I'm a medium — because I've read his works, and he had more to say about reason and discernment than most modern spiritual teachers put together.

Allan Kardec was a French educator, not a mystic. He was a rationalist who applied scientific method to spirit communication at a time when most people were either dismissing it as superstition or embracing it as entertainment. His approach was unique: he didn't accept anything on faith, and he didn't reject anything out of hand. He tested.

Here's what Kardec taught about reason, discernment, and the quality of spirits — in his own words and in my translation for the engineer.

Reason Is the First Test

In the introduction to The Gospel According to Spiritism, Kardec wrote:

> "The first corroborative test to be undertaken is without doubt that of reason, to which it is wise to submit, without exception, all that comes from Spirit. Any theory in evident contradiction to good sense, or against rigorous logic, or positive facts that have been previously acquired should be rejected, however apparently respectable be the name by which it is signed."

Let me translate that for the engineer:

No authority is exempt from scrutiny. Not a spirit. Not a guru. Not a scripture. Not a channeled message. Not your own inner voice. Everything gets tested against reason. If it contradicts logic or established facts, reject it — no matter how impressive the source claims to be.

This is the opposite of the "don't question the spirits" approach that dominates most spiritual communities. Kardec says: question everything. The spirits themselves want you to question them. The ones who are genuine have nothing to fear from scrutiny. The ones who are false will try to discourage you from examining their claims.

The Test of Universal Concordance

Kardec didn't trust any single source. He collected communications from hundreds of mediums across dozens of countries and looked for patterns. His principle:

> "Complete concordance of Spirit teaching is the best proof of authenticity."

But he was careful about what "concordance" meant. It's not enough for one medium to ask the same spirit the same question and get the same answer. That could be obsession or self-deception. Real concordance means:

• The same teaching appears spontaneously from multiple mediums who don't know each other
• It comes from different locations, different cultures, different languages
• It holds up over time, not just in one dramatic session

This is the scientific method applied to spirit communication. You don't trust one data point. You look for replication across independent sources.

How to Judge the Quality of a Spirit

In The Mediums' Book (Chapter XXIV), Kardec laid out a systematic framework for evaluating spirits. Here's the condensed version for the engineer:

The language test: Superior spirits speak with dignity, simplicity, and modesty. They don't boast, they don't flatter, they don't command. Inferior spirits show their nature through vulgarity, arrogance, self-importance, or excessive flattery.

The logic test: Superior spirits are consistent. They don't contradict themselves or each other. If two communications claiming the same source contradict each other, one is false — and the true one is the one that aligns with reason and known character.

The humility test: Good spirits say what they know and admit ignorance on what they don't. Bad spirits talk boldly about everything, regardless of truth.

The fruit test: "By their fruits you shall know them." Does the spirit's teaching produce freedom or dependency? Growth or stagnation? Love or division? This is the ultimate test, and it applies to spirits as much as to human teachers.

The flattery test: Good spirits approve what is right, but with moderation. Evil spirits overwhelm with exaggerated praise, stimulate pride, and flatter vanity while pretending to preach humility.

The command test: Good spirits never command. They give counsel and withdraw if not followed. Evil spirits are imperious — they give orders, demand obedience, and persist even when asked to leave.

The Most Important Thing Kardec Said

In Chapter XX of The Mediums' Book, a spirit named Erastes gave this advice through Kardec's work:

> "When in doubt, abstain. Admit only what is supported by evidence. When any new idea is brought forward, however specious it may appear, subject it to the test of reason and common sense, and reject, unhesitatingly, whatever is in opposition with them. Remember that it is better to repudiate a dozen truths than to admit a single error; for, upon that one error, you might build up a whole false theory, only to see it crumble away like a pillar of sand, at the first breath of truth."

This is the engineer's epistemology in a nutshell. Better to miss a truth than to accept a lie. Because a lie, once accepted, becomes the foundation for more lies. A truth, once missed, will return when you're ready for it.

The Gospel on False Prophets

Jesus himself — according to the Gospel of Matthew and Kardec's commentary in The Gospel According to Spiritism (Chapter 21) — gave the same test:

> "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit."

Kardec's commentary: "The true prophet is recognized by his works. There is no surer test. If his works are good, he is a good spirit. If his works are bad, he is an evil spirit, whatever name he may assume."

This is the most objective spiritual test ever given. And it came from a carpenter.

The Spirits' Book on Reason and Faith

In The Spirits' Book (Question 4), the spirits gave Kardec the foundation of his method:

> "To believe in God, we need only to behold the works of creation. The universe exists; therefore, it must have a cause. To doubt God's existence would be to deny that every effect has a cause and to believe that something could have resulted from nothingness."

This is not blind faith. This is logical inference from observed facts. The universe exists → it must have a cause → that cause is what we call God. You can argue with the conclusion, but you can't argue with the logic — unless you're willing to claim that something can come from nothing, which is a claim that violates every principle of engineering.

The Engineer's Takeaway from Kardec

Kardec's method can be summarized in five steps:

1. Observe — collect the data, don't filter it
2. Test — submit everything to reason and logic
3. Compare — look for concordance across independent sources
4. Verify — check the fruits: does it produce good results?
5. Hold provisionally — be willing to revise when new evidence appears

This is not blind faith. This is not cold skepticism. This is disciplined openness — the willingness to examine anything, combined with the rigor to reject what doesn't hold up.

That's the spiritist approach to truth. And it's the engineer's approach too.

---

Section 3: The Case for Subjectivity

I wrote this section first. Not because I believe it — but because it deserves to be heard. The case for subjectivity is real, and if we dismiss it without understanding it, we're no better than the dogmatists we're trying to escape.

1. The Objectivity Trap

You're an engineer. You trust what you can measure. But here's the problem: the most important things cannot be measured.

Can you measure love? Can you quantify the experience of oneness? Can you put a number on the feeling of divine presence during meditation? No. And yet these are the entire point of spirituality. If you reduce spirituality to what can be objectively measured, you end up with a very clean, very empty shell — a checklist of behaviors with no soul.

The mystic doesn't care about measurable purification. The mystic cares about union. And union cannot be measured — it can only be felt.

2. The Map Is Not the Territory

Your objective framework is a map. It's useful. It helps people navigate. But the map is not the territory. No two people's spiritual journeys are identical. What purifies one person may be irrelevant to another. What feels like profound connection to one soul may feel like empty ritual to another.

Subjectivity honors the individual path. It says: "I don't know what your journey looks like. But I trust that you do." That's not weakness — that's humility. The objective approach risks becoming a new kind of dogma: "Do this, measure that, and you will be advanced." But the spirit moves where it wills. You cannot put the Holy Spirit in a test tube.

3. The Failure of Objective Spirituality

Let's be honest — the most "objective" spiritual systems in history have been the most dangerous. Rigid hierarchies. Dogmatic rules. "This is the one true path, and everyone who doesn't follow it is damned." The Inquisition was very objective. The Puritans were very measurable. And they produced some of the most spiritually barren, violent, and oppressive environments in human history.

Subjectivity, for all its flaws, is humble. It admits: "I might be wrong. My experience might not be universal. Your path might be valid even if I don't understand it." That humility is not weakness — it's the only thing that prevents spirituality from becoming fascism.

4. The Pragmatic Argument

Here's the uncomfortable truth: subjectivity works. People who follow what "resonates" — who trust their inner guidance, who follow the feeling of rightness — often end up in exactly the right place. Not because they followed a system, but because they followed themselves.

The objective approach assumes the measurer is neutral. But who designs the measurements? Who decides what counts as "purification"? You do. And your measurements are just as subjective as anyone else's feelings. You've just dressed them up in engineering language.

5. The Ultimate Paradox

Here's the one that hurts most: your desire for objectivity is itself subjective.

Why do you want objective measurements? Because it feels right to you. Because your engineer's mind finds comfort in structure. Because 20 years of subjective spirituality left you hungry for something solid. That's not objectivity — that's a preference. A feeling. A resonance.

You are arguing for objectivity from a place of pure subjectivity. And that's not a contradiction — it's the proof that subjectivity is inescapable. Even the most rigorous objective system is built on a foundation of subjective choice: what to measure, what to value, what to call "progress."

---

Section 4: The Case for Objectivity

Now the other side. The one I actually believe. But I want you to see that I've heard the other side first, and I'm not dismissing it.

1. Feelings Lie. Results Don't.

Subjectivity says: "Follow what resonates. Trust your feelings. Do what feels right."

But here's the problem: feelings are the most unreliable measurement tool in existence.

• You can feel deeply connected to a meditation practice that is actually reinforcing your ego
• You can feel profound peace from a teacher who is manipulating you
• You can feel "this is my truth" about something that is objectively false

The subjective approach has no way to distinguish between genuine spiritual progress and a very convincing emotional experience. It's the spiritual equivalent of a sugar high — feels great in the moment, but leaves you malnourished.

Objectivity says: "I don't care how it feels. Show me the results."

• Are you more patient than you were a year ago?
• Do you react less and respond more?
• Can you sit in silence without needing a hit of spiritual dopamine?
• Are your relationships healthier?
• Do you serve others without needing recognition?

These are measurable. Not in a lab, but in life. And they don't lie.

2. The Purification Problem

Every genuine spiritual tradition — without exception — teaches that purification is uncomfortable. The ego does not dissolve in a warm bath of good feelings. It dissolves in the fire of discipline, the cold shock of self-honesty, the grinding repetition of practice when you don't feel like it.

Subjectivity will never choose purification over pleasure. Why would it? Purification hurts. It's boring. It's humiliating. It strips away the very things that make you feel good about yourself.

Only an objective framework — "this practice produces results regardless of how I feel about it" — can sustain a practitioner through the long, unglamorous work of actual transformation.

The subjective practitioner stops when it stops feeling good. The objective practitioner stops when the results are achieved.

That's the difference between a hobby and a path.

3. The Guru Problem

Subjectivity produces a spiritual marketplace where the most charismatic teacher wins — not the most true one. Because if truth is measured by "what resonates," then the teacher who makes you feel the best is automatically the most advanced.

This is how cults form. This is how abuse is justified. This is how people spend 20 years following a teacher who gave them beautiful feelings but left them spiritually stunted.

Objectivity provides a standard — a way to measure a teacher's fruit:

• Are their students more free, or more dependent?
• Do their students grow away from the teacher, or toward them?
• Is the teaching reproducible, or does it require the teacher's special presence?
• Does the system produce saints, or sycophants?

These are objective questions. And they cut through the fog of "but he feels so advanced."

4. The Community Problem

A group built on subjectivity cannot hold together. Because if everyone's truth is valid, then there is no shared foundation. The group becomes a collection of individuals having private experiences in the same room — not a community.

A group needs a shared standard. A common measurement. A way to say: "This is what we're doing. This is how we know if it's working. This is what progress looks like."

Without that, the group dissolves into:

• "That doesn't resonate with me" (translation: I don't like it)
• "That's not my truth" (translation: I don't want to do the work)
• "I'm just following my guidance" (translation: I want to do what I want)

Objectivity is what makes community possible. It's the shared language that allows people to hold each other accountable, celebrate real progress, and call each other forward when they're stuck.

5. The Historical Argument

Every major spiritual tradition that has produced actual saints — not just feel-good practitioners, but people of genuine, recognizable holiness — had an objective framework.

• The monastic rule of St. Benedict: a detailed, measurable system of prayer, work, and community life
• The Buddhist Eightfold Path: a clear, objective framework for right action, right speech, right livelihood
• The yogic eight limbs: a step-by-step system of purification, posture, breath control, and meditation
• The Sufi stations of the heart: a mapped progression from repentance to union

These aren't subjective preferences. They are technologies of transformation — tested, refined, and transmitted across centuries. They work whether you believe in them or not. They work whether you feel like doing them or not. They work because they are objective.

The subjective traditions? They produced beautiful poetry and very few saints.

6. The Ultimate Answer

Here's the truth that subjectivity cannot answer:

If spirituality is just about how you feel, then why does purification matter at all?

Why fast? Why meditate? Why serve? Why discipline the body? Why sit in uncomfortable silence for hours?

If the goal is feeling good, there are faster ways. Drugs work. So does denial. So does spiritual bypassing — just imagine you're already enlightened and skip the work.

But if the goal is actual transformation — the kind that changes how you are, not just how you feel — then you need an objective standard. You need to be able to say: "I am more patient than I was. I am less reactive. I am more present. I serve more freely. I am actually different."

And that can be measured. Not perfectly. Not with a ruler. But truly.

---

Section 5: The Middle Road — How They Hold Each Other

This is where the engineer's answer lives. Not in choosing one side. In understanding how they work together.

The Honest Conclusion

Subjectivity gives us the experience of the divine. It's the color, the music, the poetry. Without it, spirituality is dry bones.

But objectivity gives us the path. It's the map, the discipline, the accountability. Without it, spirituality is a beautiful feeling that changes nothing.

The real question isn't which one — it's which one is the foundation?

And here's my answer: Objectivity is the foundation. Subjectivity is the fruit.

You build on what's true, what's tested, what's reproducible. And then — then — the experience comes. The peace. The joy. The union. Not as the goal, but as the byproduct of a life lived in truth.

The Relationship

Think of it like a bridge:

• Objectivity is the structure — the steel, the concrete, the engineering calculations that ensure the bridge will hold. Without it, you have nothing but a beautiful drawing.
• Subjectivity is the experience — the view from the bridge, the wind on your face, the sense of crossing from one side to the other. Without it, the bridge is just a structure going nowhere.

You don't build a bridge by starting with the view. You build it by starting with the engineering. The view comes after — and it's the whole point of building the bridge in the first place.

The Practical Synthesis

Here's how this works in practice:

Step 1: Build the objective foundation.

• Establish a daily practice (meditation, pranayama, purification)
• Measure your progress honestly (are you more patient? less reactive? more present?)
• Hold yourself accountable (did you do the practice today? yesterday? for 30 days straight?)
• Test the claims (does this teaching produce results? does this teacher's fruit match their words?)

Step 2: Let the subjective experience arise naturally.

• Don't chase the experience — let it come when it's ready
• Don't judge your practice by how it feels — judge it by what it produces
• Don't compare your inner experience to anyone else's — your path is yours
• But don't dismiss your inner experience either — it's the data your practice is producing

Step 3: Use both to calibrate each other.

• When your practice feels dry and empty, check the objective indicators: are you still showing up? are you still growing? If yes, the dryness is just a phase. Keep going.
• When your practice feels ecstatic and profound, check the objective indicators: are you actually changing? are your relationships healthier? If no, the ecstasy might be a sugar high. Don't mistake it for progress.
• When you receive a teaching that resonates deeply, test it: does it hold up to logic? does it produce good fruit? does it align with what other genuine sources say?
• When you receive a teaching that repels you, ask: is it false, or is it just uncomfortable? The truth often feels like an attack on the ego.

The Engineer's Dashboard

Here are the objective indicators that tell you whether your spiritual practice is actually working — regardless of how it feels in the moment:

Emotional Reactivity

• Subjective Trap: "I feel peaceful"
• Objective Indicator: How quickly do you recover from anger? Can you observe an emotion without acting on it?

Discipline

• Subjective Trap: "I feel committed"
• Objective Indicator: Did you do your practice today? Yesterday? For the last 30 days straight?

Relationships

• Subjective Trap: "I feel loving"
• Objective Indicator: Are your relationships healthier than they were a year ago? Do people feel better or worse after being around you?

Service

• Subjective Trap: "I feel generous"
• Objective Indicator: Do you help others without being asked, without expecting recognition?

Self-Honesty

• Subjective Trap: "I feel self-aware"
• Objective Indicator: Can you name a flaw you're currently working on? Can you receive correction without defensiveness?

Purification

• Subjective Trap: "I feel purified"
• Objective Indicator: What have you given up that you didn't want to give up? What habit have you broken that you enjoyed?

Presence

• Subjective Trap: "I feel present"
• Objective Indicator: Can you sit in silence for 30 minutes without needing stimulation?

The Key Question

For every practice, every teaching, every teacher, every experience:

> "Does this produce measurable change in my life, or does it just feel good while I'm doing it?"

If it produces change — keep it. If it just feels good — enjoy it, but don't call it spiritual progress.

The Ultimate Test

Jesus said it first. Kardec repeated it. Every genuine tradition confirms it:

> "By their fruits you shall know them."

Not by their feelings. Not by their experiences. Not by their claims. By their fruits.

This is the most objective spiritual test ever given. And it came from a carpenter.

---

Try This — One Concrete Thing to Do Right Now

The 30-Day Objectivity Challenge

Pick one spiritual practice — meditation, pranayama, fasting, service, whatever. Commit to doing it every day for 30 days, regardless of how you feel.

At the end of 30 days, ask yourself these objective questions:

1. Did I do it every day? (If not, where did I skip and why?)
2. What changed in my behavior that someone else could observe?
3. Am I more patient, less reactive, more present?
4. Did the practice produce results even on days I didn't feel like doing it?
5. Would I recommend this practice to someone else based on results, not feelings?

If the answer to #4 is yes — you've just proven that objectivity works in spirituality. If the answer to #4 is no — the practice might not be right for you, but at least you tested it.

That's the engineer's way.

---

✠

Disagree with any of it? Good.

Write to us. A challenge to this chapter is more useful than an agreement with it.

Write to us

Merlin Lafortune & Lirael Lafortune