I am but an egg

it's true...

there may well be some things I'm really good at... but there are MANY others I am not so good at

I think I tend to be good at fundamental, general things... but it took me a long time to become good at them,
which meant that I neglected the more specialized, particular things.

You can imagine the hilarity that ensued. (well, from someone's perspective it's got to be hilarious)

There's still plenty of fundamentals in which I'm only a weak sauce journeyman level too.
And now, finally, there are a few particulars in which I've started to develop decent skills.

I am but an egg in many ways. Hope I hatch ok. :)

I was thinking that the only definition of "object" that doesn't violate mereological nihilism/plenarism would be something like:
A collection of relatively solid matter surrounded by less solid matter, or void.
It's a weird thing to think about topologically. I mean, we have a more intuitive idea of what an "object" is, but mereological nihilsm (the belief that objects do not exist as such, only fundamental particles) tells us that idea is arbitrary and incorrect. If I glue a razor blade to a toothbrush, is the razor blade still an "object" or is only the "razor brush" itself now an object? And if the former, why? How do we know where "blade" ends and "brush" begins? (other than "we made it up that way in our heads"...)

I'm sort of a nominalist for similar reasons. Things like "greenness" or "blueness" seem too arbitrary and fuzzy to be "real universals". Even something like "1.5 inches" never really exists, unless we make it up, and ignore the infinite decimal places.
Existentialism is in a weird place with the question of objective reality. Consciousness is consciousness of something. In other words, in order to have consciousness there must be being for it to sit within. Yet from inside consciousness, nothing we apprehend is being by itself. We've tainted it with unreality as soon as we apprehend it.
Or maybe another way to look at it - the reality we perceive is the only reality we can possibly have. Yet we're not making it up out of whole cloth either. Being is pretty opaque to us. But we alter its surfaces with our consciousness. So I guess objectivity is the matter of the coefficient of adversity we apply to being.
And that lets us unite existential ontology with skeptical empiricism. The more well-tested our vision* is, the more "objective" it is?
Gravity seems pretty dang objective to me. But I bet there are some physicists who have a much better idea of what "gravity" is than I do.

* standing in for perception in general here...