Drawing on Alasdair MacIntyre’s, After Virtue, he argues that many, having lost faith in the attempt to ground morality in the Enlightenment’s understanding of reason, now believe that truth is but the imposition of our arbitrary will on the world. Such a view assumes truth is not discovered or discerned, but rather a mere name we give to the illusion we choose to live by.
This neatly summarises my view of non-evental truth. It's a truth that is purely internal, but not internalised from the transcendent. This view is a poor mis-reading of the notion that truth is only true when it is true for the subject. A better reading of it is "(transcendent) truth is only subjectively valid when it is internalised by the subject." Such a reading avoids the trap of "a truth" being "true" for one subject and not the other (see my earlier post about this).
However, it leaves us with a different problem: what is transcendent truth, and how can we discern the difference between truth-claims as genuine Event or mere illusion? Or is that even possible?