Yes, I read your words

the subjects personal beliefs and judgements are irrelevant — Philosophim

and I was wondering: why are they irrelevant? The reason you gave

That is because reality will contradict that personal belief and subject every time. — Philosophim

doesn′t explain why I should trust your idea of reality.
It looks like you consider what you call "reality" the ultimate word that establishes how things are. How is that you consider this idea of yours the ultimate word? The same happens about flying: we all have experience that humans who try to fly without a proper equipment fall down. Why should we conclude that this experience is the ultimate word, since it is inevitably interpreted by our brain?
It seems to me that we humans are not ultimate beings, we are so limited, so mortal, including our ideas, so how can we think that any idea of ours, particularly such concepts as reality, objectivity, truth, can contain anything ultimate? This way it is clear that even the very concept of "ultimate" that I have been using now, is far from being ultimate.

And yet I did, and you understood what I was intending — Philosophim

You seemed to consider my understanding of you like a definitive strong point, but I don't think that any human being in this world is able to guarantee that I or you have understood each other, or even themselves. This way even the very concept of "understanding" comes out as far from containing anything clear.
Even in these questions of mine I don't pretend any strength. What I am doing is just a free expression of my feelings, my pleasure of playing with ideas and words. This doesn't mean that my words are just nonsense: in this game I am adopting your rules, your logic, your assumptions, and showing contradictions that I find in them, which is essentially the contradiction between wanting to be objective and at the same time deciding to ignore our involvement in our subjectivity.

It looks like you consider what you call "reality" the ultimate word that establishes how things are. How is that you consider this idea of yours the ultimate word? — Angelo Cannata

Very simple. Can a person fly with their mind alone?

Why should we conclude that this experience is the ultimate word, since it is inevitably interpreted by our brain? — Angelo Cannata

Because we are unable to despite all types of testing and subjective viewpoints, generate a situation where a person can fly by their mind alone, or even think of a scientific scenario where it would be possible. Reality is that which is impossible to deny by consequence. Meaning I can believe it, but reality demonstrate that belief can never be realized in practice.

It seems to me that we humans are not ultimate beings, we are so limited, so mortal, including our ideas, so how can we think that any idea of ours, particularly such concepts as reality, objectivity, truth, can contain anything ultimate? — Angelo Cannata

I have another one for you. Do you discretely experience? Meaning, in all your entirety of being, can you part and parcel things? Can you see more than black and white, but recognize individual letters, words, etc? That's the ability to discretely experience. An objective truth that you have.

You seemed to consider my understanding of you like a definitive strong point, but I don't think that any human being in this world is able to guarantee that I or you have understood each other, or even themselves. — Angelo Cannata

Sure. Its easy to make the mistake that "Because there are things I can't view objectively, that means nothing exists objectively." I'm not saying we don't have circumstances that objectivity is impossible. There are. But that does not mean objectivity is impossible.

Your answer confirms my latest conclusion

contradiction between wanting to be objective and at the same time deciding to ignore our involvement in our subjectivity. — Angelo Cannata

All that you wrote ignores our involvement in our subjectivity.

Your answer confirms my latest conclusion
contradiction between wanting to be objective and at the same time deciding to ignore our involvement in our subjectivity.
— Angelo Cannata
All that you wrote ignores our involvement in our subjectivity. — Angelo Cannata

You are confusing subjectivity with being a subject. I am not ignoring that we are subjects. I am also not ignoring our subjectivity as I clearly pointed out it exists. I am simply pointing out the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. Both have a subject.

I didn’t say that you ignore that we are subjects, nor that you ignore the existence of our subjectivity. I said that what your wrote ignores our involvement in our subjectivity. In other words, you make statements as if your statements came directly from reality itself rather than from you. Your posts are not written by reality, they are written by you. The moment you say that we cannot fly, the author of that statement is not reality, it is you. This is what I mean when I say that you ignore our involvement in our subjectivity. It is humanly impossible to make any statement, or think of anything, without being us the authors of that thought or that statement. It is humanly impossible to make any statement without us being involved in the process of making that statement. Our inevitable involvement makes any statement relative to us. We can never pretend that what we say is pure objectivity, because it is always polluted, distorted by the involvement of us. As a consequence, the very concepts of reality and objectivity are completely devoid of any reliable element.

Look, I would be more willing to take your points seriously if you were to take mine. I've asked very clearly for you to look at the example I've given about not being able to fly with our mind alone. You're just stuck on your own desired outcome in this discussion as most people who are obsessed with subjectivity being everything are. I'm heading out of town for a week so I think its a good time to end this on my side.

It doesn’t seem like a very strong philosophical argument.