On the contrary, he is claiming to hold a privileged position; not perhaps on the true nature of knowledge, belief, or "ground truth" (although I believe he is

On the contrary, he is claiming to hold a privileged position; not perhaps on the true nature of knowledge, belief, or "ground truth" (although I believe he is doing that, too), but on the ability to determine what is projected interpretation and what isn't. In fact, if he isn't claiming that privileged position, then he is more than halfway to postmodernism; not perhaps denying that such a position is impossible, but at least denying that anyone has (or possibly could) find one. By the way, one of the difficulties of a philosophy explicitly not for everyone is that it cannot avoid turning into us-versus-them, followed shortly by the wise and knowing versus the misguided, misled, and heathen sheep. One lesson of the 20th century (if it needed teaching again) was that philosophy can be weaponized. (One nice thing about (my interpretation of) epicureanism and possibly Zhuangzi is that the sheep may be heathens, but I don't need to care.)