What is "binary opposition between subject and object"?

Teacher Liu left me a message:-After reading your article, I found that Professor Wang is still thinking with the binary opposition of subject and object. The west has integrated the subject and the object, so it is not advisable for you to stay in the thinking mode of the industrialized era. -The so-called "binary opposition between subjective and objective" (or opposition) is a dirty word in academic circles at present. Saying this is tantamount to scolding you. I don't think it makes sense for Mr. Liu to scold me-I'm not that kind of person! However, the well-known binary opposition between subjective and objective has aroused my deep thought. And "the west has integrated the subject and object", that is to say, even stupid westerners are no longer like that, and I am still like that, which is more than "undesirable" and simply stupid. Believe it or not, even if you want to be subjective and objective, you can't do it, let alone kill it. Kant said a long time ago that human knowledge must be "mediated" by human senses and rationality, so human knowledge cannot be objective, but created and explained by people. In other words, the dichotomy between subject and object is impossible, and knowledge is the dichotomy between subject and object. Since people can't do the binary opposition between subjective and objective at all, what does this famous name mean? -Is it science? Indeed, science seems to be often scolded by humanists, but science can't do the binary opposition between subjective and objective. Needless to say, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is not even Newton's. Since Kant, "invention" and "discovery" have sometimes been confused. In the past, Chinese and physics teachers told us that you can't say that Newton "invented" the law of gravity, but "discovered" it; Now, it is quite appropriate for you to say that Newton "invented" this law. The so-called "invention" means that Newton's theory is not objective, but his interpretation and creation of the world-indeed. After thinking about it, the binary opposition between subjective and objective can only refer to a certain way of thinking with inappropriate wording. This way of thinking is called "the naivety of epistemology" and is anti-Kant. In other words, if you believe that your knowledge is completely objective and absolutely true, and has nothing to do with your own subjectivity, then you get that ugly name-"binary opposition between subjective and objective". However, the concept itself is still impossible to oppose the subjective and objective binary, because there is no such thing in the world. Locke's whiteboard said that an explanatory version of Marxist epistemology, the so-called "reflection theory", belongs to the theory of "binary opposition between subjective and objective"-but this theory itself can't be binary opposition between subjective and objective, because it was invented by that guy, but it is actually "too objective", which is simply taken for granted. Then, since the binary opposition between subjective and objective has become a dirty word, is the word "objective" still meaningful? Is it wrong when a science professor says to academics, "Don't be subjective, do research objectively"? -If we are critical, this requirement is really anti-Kantian and naive in epistemology. So what does the professor mean? We must retranslate: "You should not substitute imagination for experimental data." That's more accurate. So, is it true that Mr. Liu said that "the West has integrated the subject and the object"? How to understand it? In my opinion, "the integration of subject and object" can't have other meaning, but only refers to the "instinct" or "stimulus-reflex" of animals. I use my imagination to think, for example, oysters and jellyfish may be the subject and object. As a result, many people parrot and say that art appreciation is "the integration of subject and object" and "things are wrong", which is definitely wrong. I have to say that art appreciation is like that, but it is not at all. For example, if you look at a picture of a peony, you certainly know that it is not a real peony, but an image caused by the color painted on the paper. Here, subjectivity and objectivity are indeed separated-and I think you must separate subjectivity from objectivity before you can appreciate art. For example, if you read a novel, give an obvious example. You read Strange Tales from a Lonely Studio. You all know that foxes and ghosts are unrealistic. A story is a story. You are you, which is obviously divided. What are you talking about? "I think Castle Peak is more charming, and Castle Peak looks at me in this way", "I never tire of looking at each other, but I only look at Jingting Mountain"-you see, the author knows whether he is looking at Castle Peak or Jingting Mountain, and it is not the collusion between subject and object such as oysters and jellyfish. Look at the animals painted by Han Meilin. They are furry.-What is furry? It's just the effect of ink on rice paper. That's the beauty. On the one hand, you know that this is just ink with some effect. On the other hand, ink has become a vivid fur image of an animal. How can this be said to be the integration of subject and object? Maybe someone started laughing at me: you, no, no, how do you understand it? "The binary opposition between subject and object" is not what you mean, nor is "the integration of subject and object"-perhaps not, but you must at least admit that these examples I have mentioned here are not completely fabricated. What does this mean? This shows that the confusing terms of "binary opposition between subject and object" and "integration of subject and object" cannot be done. It seems that only some scholars in the humanities are confused about using it there, and it is impossible for people in other disciplines and scholars in the humanities to use such terms to achieve effective communication.