The challenge for me is thus not to find a universal theory that will map everything, but to find an effective theory that can be used as a coherent framework for long enough before its next wave of deconstruction. The difference between my notion of less suffering and the general notion of spiritual enlightenment is that less suffering admits its provisional state of truth. Universal? Yes. Ultimate? Never.

(This also happens to be how I read Hegel — his “universal knowledge,” I claim, already acknowledges its temporary state when read in juxtaposition with his dialectics and phenomenology. Many readers of Hegel call me weird, but hey, he’s the big flashy impossible-to-read guy so I may be right after all, no?)

Your definition of critical thinking runs into the core problem facing all post(or post-post)modernist thought: Once we’ve reduced things far enough, who gives a fuck? People react this way because we remove their reference points by stating things like “nobody really understands anything.” Most of us are disgusted by those who purposefully skip over these problems because they are uncomfortable with the implications. But, we have to be careful that we don’t skip over them in our efforts to understand them.

Still, good post.