If the nature of reality is jealously fought over between the champions of the objective and subjective poles, then a winning move of the subjective would appear to be to assert that the distinction itself is a subjective one. This is not as masterful as it appears, since the whole point of the objective is that it doesn't care. If you insist that caring matters, that all matters arises from care, then you have merely begged the question. To the objectivist subjectivism is the apotheosis of question-begging, but it can't assert its own point without doing the same. On the one side there is reflexivity and on the other the necessity of deferring to transcendence, perhaps in the guise of contingency. If the transcendent, the absolutely other, escapes any sort of reflexivity, is not embraced by its re-entry, it does not however immediately prove itself the ground and transparent origin of reflexivity. The nothingness curled up like a worm in the heart of being is in no way an obvious emanation of being. No, it can only make sense the other way around, being as the worm in nothingness.