The problem with the words subjective and objective is that these words have multiple valid definitions. There is subjective truth, subjective epistemology, subjective ontology, subjective morality, subjective experience, subjective grammar, subjective politics, subjective agency, subjective probability, etc. The word objective also applies to all of these domains in a contrasting fashion. The meaning of these words slightly warps depending on the domain of usage. But the etymology of the word provides us with the foundational principle that guides all definitions of the word. To the extent we violate the fundamental principle behind the word, we are abusing its definitional flexibility.
Â
In ontology, objective ontologies are materials (atoms), subjective ontologies are qualia, transjective ontologies are the relationships between the two that resolve the hard problem of consciousness.
Â
In epistemology, objective epistemologies are those that rely on external evidence, like empiricism and science; subjective epistemologies are those that rely on inner senses, perhaps empathy, spirituality, and introspection. Transjective epistemologies would be those that try to combine the two.
Â
Examples of subjectivity ("I like pizza") and objectivity (2+2=4) work well in the context of truth (alethiology). An objective truth would be a claim that is externally verifiable with measurements vs a subjective truth being one that is internally verifiable with feelings. A transjective truth might be something like beauty, value, or popularity; because there is an objectively measurable component for how the relative amount of popularity, views, or dollars we collectively give something, but there is a subjective component in how that value can only be understood internally.
Â
There are lots of other examples like grammar: Subjectivity is the noun that takes action; Objectivity is the noun receiving action; Transjectivity is the verb that connects the two into a relationship.