Well, you're posing many interesting questions here. The thing is that I try to answer them one piece at a time, so my answer is spread across many articles. And I try to improve my answer as I return to older topics.

I think there's a bit of a false dichotomy when you suggest that a writer can either preach to the choir or attempt to convince the audience. A third option is to be true to yourself, to do your best in expressing your muse, daemon, or inner vision. Whether people end up agreeing would be a side benefit.

Sure, though, I try to convince in that I argue the advantages of my philosophical way of seeing things. That doesn't mean I can stop and explain every detail of what I'm saying. Medium doesn't like long articles. I add links to supporting articles, and some focus on certain concepts, while others focus on others.

I'm not a dogmatic animist. Rather, I'm exploring the connection between animism, pantheism, and late-modern philosophical naturalism.

Objectification is an intriguing topic for me, and again I'm still exploring the concept. There's objectivity in the sense of being open-minded. There are objects in the sense of things that are the subject matters of thought. And there's objectification in the sense of ignoring subjective qualities and emphasizing impersonal or quantitative ones, possibly due to a nefarious aim of domesticating the thing. We objectify nature by analyzing it, breaking it down into systems, layers, and cycles, explaining apparent patterns not by being perfectly open-minded, but by being pragmatic humanists. We want to understand nature so that we can control it. That ideology of objectification seems to me at the bottom of our civilized ideal of secular progress.