If knowledge is entirely self-constructed, self-normed or self-given, how is it that the human person experiences such things as surprise, fear, annoyance, compulsion, error and ignorance?
By self-construction I mean it is the person's (or persons') activity that creates its own knowledge; in short, the whole gist of human self-legislation that is found in any idealist thinker. If there is an element of receptivity, as of the individual receiving input from society, then I contend that this violates true self-legislation, and opens up the door for other receptivity (why limit legislation simply to other people, aka society, when our experience informs us of other things?).
While we can be surprised by our own creations they bear a sense of familiarity that the idealist would be hard pressed to compare in the same light to genuine surprise. That is, to me at least, why we consider some things as our own creation while not considering other things to be our own creation. There are countless other phenomena that the idealist seems in a tight spot to account for (including compulsion, annoyance, anger, contrariety, disagreement, humility, etc.).
Don't all of these phenomenological experiences, which include a sense of becoming and change that is not capable of being brought out solely by what is already known or given by the self, indicate that the human person has interactions with a reality that is not yet known but capable of being known?
How else can a genuine change from ignorance to knowledge be possible if there isn't the introduction of something new that subsists outside the knowledge that currently exists? The change from ignorance to knowledge requires not only the production of new knowledge but the normative and proper circumstances under which such new knowledge is produced. The only circumstances that the idealist contends can influence human knowledge is that which is already immanent and implicitly present in the human person. That is, if I'm not mistaken, the whole gist of self-legislation.