Response to Deven's Post- Existentialism

I am responding to Deven's post "Secular Rebuttal to Existentialism ". I will start by saying I enjoyed the concept you brought up, and find credence in the argument.  The case it supports provides a greater understanding of the views associated with existentialism; and works to provide an alternate perspective that I can embrace.  I wondered after reading your passage- Who deciphers the constitution of objective purpose? Wouldn't any qualifications or strengths of arguments be formulated from subjective views?  If "meaning" or "value" is ascribed to any totality of life, wouldn't they be formulations as the result of an overwhelming subjective consensus?  I often consider subjective and objective to be interrelated, a possible mistake on my part but I am convinced neither can exist without the other. 

Sartre's Rejection of the Unconscious- relating to dreams

Sartre is very committed to his concept of freedom void of any predisposition (determinism).  He even rejects the scientifically supported notion that dreams are controlled by our unconscious.  What would this mean then, that even while we rest our mind is wide awake and able to make decisions?  Do we never truly sleep?  I might be completely misunderstanding what the concept means, and if you know better what the reaches of Sartre's ideas are please offer your opinion.  To what did Sartre credit dreams? How did he feel it contributed to our personal essence? If we freely choose our dreams would that take a recognizable selection before we lay down to establish the course of the night's dreams?

Pojman's examples of our "absurd" life

As Pojman explained the components of existentialism, he offered a very good paragraph for discussion. He was adding to the example Camus cited in explaining our "absurd" life.  Camus compared the human existence to that of Sisyphus in Greek mythology; as "tedious, boring, meaningless, and full of never-ending toil."  Pojman offers his own example which he believed to be consistent with the ideology outlined by existentialism.  He believed that the lifestyle of a person who works a mundane job 5x a week exemplified the absurd life.  He called them "mindless" and condemned to perpetuate the cycle due to the "grim need to earn a livelihood".  I wondered, does this description only apply to those who are financially dependent on the absurd life? What if one is economically stable and chooses to operate in this fashion- strictly for structure in their daily practices?  Are the questions (or variables) of this scenario contradictory to the concise example Camus gave? Is the difference too distinct to say that Pojman's example contributes to a greater understanding of the absurd life?