[Cornelius267]

"The limitations are of the author's rational reasoning, not of rational reasoning itself. You can reason about what brings you pleasure, and make rational decisions to pursue it."

This is just kicking the can down the road. Why would you want to make a decision to pursue this thing that you decided brings you pleasure? Is pleasure in and of itself reason enough?

We know that all logical systems contain true statements that cannot be proven. This is a fundamental feature of all logical systems, so why should we expect that this restriction does not apply to our own internal logical systems?

I have recently had a similar realization as the author, and so this resonates with me. No matter what, you are engaging in some sort of ontology, some sort of idea that decides what is and is not, and what defines value. You can either engage with this ontology and critically reflect upon it, or you can pretend that you don't have one and therefore miss things that may otherwise have been evident to you.