You’ve assumed that objectivity “reflects what we seek as implicitly common…in the individual perceptions of all homo sapiens when seeking a common perspective of, or about, our individual experiences in the universe we commonly inhabit.”
That’s not self-evident to me. Objectivity is a matter of being directed to something other than us, whereas subjectivity tells us more about ourselves than something else. So, who says we’re commonly being objective rather than subjective? How is that obvious? On the contrary, we deal commonly with folk psychology and with the received wisdom that takes for granted social conventions. We deal commonly with culture, and with the background knowledge in our anthropocentric and self-aggrandizing worldviews.
What deals with that which is fully other than us, or with that which is purely inhuman and not even tinged with our mental projections, metaphors, agendas, and so on is science. And scientific formulations are rare, not common.
I deal with science and mathematics at length elsewhere (first four links below, among others).
As for the academic stuff about logic, I take the questionable metaphysics and epistemology to be hidden in the rarified artificial languages. I remember studying philosophical extrapolations from model theory in a graduate philosophy course. The professor was a hangover from positivism, but all of that was hidden in his exotic mathematical expressions on the blackboard, which the class dutifully copied in its notebooks—without likely understanding much of them.
Anyway, I’ve tried to explain objectivity as resting on the stance of objectification (bottom two links below). To objectify X is to reduce it to something which could be potentially enslaved. Nature must be disenchanted to be deemed rightless, manageable, and exploitable. Yet the sublime whole of nature would be horrific, rather than anything to which a human master could condescend.
Horror, you see, would be a much different stance than objectification.
