Here, instead of writing the usual complex and oft confusing analysis, a better way may be had by referring to a source who may help clarify this problem at hand:
From Denney and Sellars, this: ( however such fragment may not clear up the problem in total, I will print out the website, for a further look.
‘We shall take the cogito only as a means of suspending objectivity claims and of thereby inducing infallibility in what remains of the objectivity claim after suspension. This last point is important. For every objective truth claim, in which I am invariably fallible, there is a corresponding trivial truth claim, in which I am infallible, a truth claim which is fulfilled by the sheer fact that I seriously and honestly claim so. For every objective, thick truth claim, that p, there is a corresponding trivial, thin truth claim, that I think that p (or that it seems to me that p)’ (p. 73).
Now if we take two propositional ideas, one substantive , the other claimed insubstantive, for the claim given appears to favor SOMETHING via a first person singular look, here is a way, attained through a test included in the referred test, which sets up correlation between it and objectivity.
I recall mentioning this in another forum I believe , but in this context, it appears to solve the problem of conflicted values and the existential reductio.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5572271/
This would set a minimum epoche, or context from within which the connection to without which may be grasped and connected.
Here phenomenology, structural neurology may be conjoined by psychoanalysis. Where the analytical search for causation could be bonded with the phenomenological reduction , by validating Dennet’s centerpiece basis.
My starting point was, whete several ILP members charged a psychological weakness as the low point where arguments clashed (unambiguous counter argument’s partial claim), in addition to understanding the structural similarities between a phenomenological reduction, versus a psychoanalytical search for effects of casual analysis, especially in drastic psychic regression affects.
I saw and still see no problem in this way of looking at from the point of view of searching for Iambiguous’ problem of his repeated charge of devising merely intellectual contraptions.
The reason why, in his narrative, there can not be any connection, whereby the aforementioned test may offer to approach some measure of linkage.