In its beginnings, to navigate the uncontrollable flux of spacetime, sentient beings created markers noting points of origin of repeated phenomena perceived intersubjectively by a body of embodied beings and began to construct distinct, recognizable objects, such as space as opposed to time and vice versa. Humans went further, and named them, creating or discovering ideas whose elucidating nature allowed further control over their experience of the flux. They spoke in parables or metaphors that well described the world without masking its essential, mysterious, and uncontrollable nature, but rather giving it a voice that demanded reverence and sacrifice. But as the metaphors failed to provide the proofs of what they pointed to -- as to do so would bely the very mysterious, uncontrollable otherness intrinsic to its nature, the proofs more and more demanded as humans sought more and more control over phenomena, humans gradually replaced the unmediated, immediately existent, continuous phenomenal world with a discontinuous collection of authorized objects, and then called this pastiche of authorized objects the "objective" world discerned with "objectivity".
How did the word "objective", the attribute of objects formed for special uses and interests of sentient subjects by filtering experience and organizing it according to those special interests and uses, come to mean the truth apart from special interests? I (and many others) object! It is objectionable to call objects objective in that sense. The connotation belies and covers up the plain, honest annotation of the construction that is an object, as with snow covering the breadcrumbs meant to lead Hansel and Gretel back home from the cage of the witch, who represents this very bewitchment that starves and disenchants the real world and is keen to devour its children and all its childish charm.
To mix up object-ivity with what's meant today by objectivity is also dangerous, as the objectively (by the present definition) non-objective world that precedes and transcends objects impinges on us constantly, and you will keep getting bruised or worse if you keep running into a wall that you refuse to acknowledge exists. Meanwhile, again, by allowing the word's meaning to stray from the root word, you cover up the original annotation, you discredit language as self-expressive energetic matter in which, as with all other matters, you can read the world, with the result suggested in the paragraph above. You make the world wherever language touches it darker than dark matter. You don't need to. You can just stop it.
