Hello Plaque Flag,

I totally respect going at Heidegger's themes without the baggage

Yeah, his terminology isn’t the most intuitive, to say the least; so I try not to import it into my statements unless absolutely necessary. Also, I am not that well-versed in Heidegger, so I also don’t want to misrepresent his views.

I think you are aiming at something like what I call the entanglement of the object and subject. They cannot be isolated without absurdity.

One could say this of my view iff what they are referring to by ‘object’ is ‘being’. Most people use ‘object’ in the sense of an actual, tangible ‘thing’ in reality that they are experiencing; and, as in idealist myself, I reject the existent of such ‘things’.

There’s has to be something, by my lights, mind-independent even in the case that the world is fundamentally a mind—as, at the very least, that mind exists mind-independently. For me, ‘being’ is the most primitive of all, and it is mind-independent.

Ah, I see. My take is that subjectivity requires a world that encompasses it to make sense as subjectivity. So I can't make sense of the world as fundamentally or most basically an independent subject.

On the other hand, I only know my own encompassing world in terms of the 'lens' or 'window' of my cultural human flesh which seems to contribute to the meaningfulness and color of the lifeworld. In my weird direct realist view, roses really are red. One might say that human cognition paints them red, so that they aren't really red, but to me this is a bluff --- for we can't see around human cognition. The world we can talk about is exactly the world for human cognition. The world apart from human cognition is a kind of bad check that cannot be cashed, a round square.