On the consistent use of "objective" and "subjective"

[Angrboda]

Subjective and objective are part of a theory of truth. The subjective is that reality which I experience in my mind. The objective reality is that of my subjective experience which corresponds to things outside my mind. Thus a correspondence theory of truth is not incidental to the subjective/objective split, it is required. My major question has to do with the role of the subconscious in all this. Many times theists will throw around the word subjective to imply mere changeable whim. But the evolved structures of our mind are not changeable by whim. That would imply that they are objective, according to such theists. But I would argue that there is a "midjective" which is neither changeable by whim, nor is it objective. These are the base operations of mind which occur in the subconscious. Our sense of morality would be an example of something that is midjective; it's not readily changeable by whim, yet it doesn't reflect an object's existence in our environment.