Duality

  I, for one, lack the sufficient sanctity to supply subjectification. If, to whit, definitions are defined by divining definitions from defining characteristics one defines as defining, then subjecting subjects to subjectification should supply same as stated.

   In Layman's Terms: Everything is defined by itself, right? Only knowing an Orange because you were told that its color is called as such & it has the description of the concept of what an "Orange" is, somewhat robs it of all meaning to you, does it not? Yet, because everything loses itself to being self-referencial... it calls to mind the fact that everything is coalesced from its environment, the delicate way of how things came to be in the unique way it did.

 It is as I say: The meaningless of Life supplies Life its own meaning.

  I was with you the entire way!

This is a return to classic philosophy, really. I'm somewhat familiar with the greats, especially the early Christian apologists, like Saint Augustine, who labored to explained faith and religion and how 'the world' (ie, matter) related to it.

Philosophers like Aristotle used logical rules to establish objectivity. These logical rules, like the First Principles, are what gave birth to the Scientific Method.

Objectivity is established when evidence is presented in such a way that a subject can't provide greater reliability to it's cause and effect. For example, the Sun is the cause of Day. What all beings experience as Day is due to a star which periodically appears in the sky. A subject therefore cannot dispute this with validity that can contradict all measurements made of the sun and the Earth's rotation and all the effects of the Sun's influence.

First Principles:

1) Non-contradiction

2) A part is lesser than its whole

3) Cause and Effect.

And some mind food:

"Truth is the mind conformed to real things." - St. Thomas Aquinas

"The absolute dependence of freedom upon law known and obeyed applies not only to our relations with the universe, but to the conduct of our own selves in their inmost reality. Man is not the one lawless object in the universe. Man is not a being so universally adaptable that it does not matter what he does or what is done to him, does not matter in what ways he treats himself or others treat him, because he thrives equally well under all possible treatments. Such a being, indeed, is inconceivable. Of any being at all it must be true that some sorts of treatment are good for it and others bad for it, some help it to be more fully itself, some hinder and cripple it. Man is not a chaos any more than the universe is; and as he learns the laws that govern himself, he is freer. The dependence of freedom upon law is invariable." - Frank Sheed

@Mirage

  Can't help but suspect that last portion was directed at me!

 Reality can be what you make of it. If you assume & keep telling yourself something is difficult, too much to take or just repulsive, it becomes that for you. To me, how you choose to react to your environment, your reality, becomes your reality. If you're so deadset on brussel sprouts being the ickiest ever to where you never try any, they'll always be that to you.

 But never the less, I agree with Mr. Sheed. While I may view the current universe as a beautiful mess, to claim oneself as wholly separate or completely inseparable is fallacy. To summarize into one of my favorite quotes what I feel your quote is at: