Let us return to the mother and child. The hard lesson to be learned is the essential difference between fantasy and reality. A fantasised breast is not an actual breast, even though the fantasy image may provide its own temporary satisfaction. For the fantasy image, its existence consists wholly in its being perceived or enjoyed: the breast overflows with milk because that is what the child desires above all else. The real breast, by contrast, stubbornly remains the physical organ that it is in reality perhaps dry and barren, or beyond reach irrespective of the infant’s desires.What was I getting at here? Ignore the stuff about psychoanalysis. The point of logic is that you can't distil the notions of subject and object (the actual subject, the actual object) from a network of relations for example, along the lines of Kant's 'Refutation of Idealism' where a subject and objects of perception are simultaneously generated from a 'theory of experience'. (For the best account of how this works see Christopher Peacocke Holistic Explanation.)
Such a scenario might be thought of as more relevant to analytic psychology than to philosophy. Yet its philosophical importance which transcends the biological peculiarities of the human race is unmistakable. The reality principle, the idea that there is such a thing as the way things are irrespective of how we would like them to be, is indeed a sublime, opaque, baffling notion. There is something that is there, something that is that: a harder-than-diamond hardness that our will cannot scratch or move, a blankness at the very heart of things that (pace Hegel) the intellect can never enter into and appropriate.
(Pathways Metaphysics Unit 1)
The world is not 'my world', but neither am I a mere product or component part of the world, one of the functional wheels that makes it go round. I am the one asking the question. There is an absolute starting point, and it is right here. What the question relates to is not here, it is out there. I can't think of any more basic terms than these.
This isn't about the 'concepts' of the subjective and objective, or of subjectivity and objectivity. That's all part of the relational network. This is about the very idea of a 'starting point', a question which is no ordinary question but which dashes itself against the harder-than-diamond face of the real. (Devotees of Ayn Rand might recognize an echo of her axiom, 'Existence exists'. But the point is lost unless one grasps the reason why anyone should need reminding of this.)