That leads to such a long conversation !! And unfortunetly much of that thought process lives inside my head since people have a stigma of discussing things when two people disagree about something - and when you are like me and belive in "both" things (use term very loosely) you always find yourself disagreeing with someone - and thus noone wants to talk to you about it

so in a nutshell - relativists tend to assert that reality is what we make of - it is a creation of our ideas - thus there are different realities. while an objectivist would counter that the world is static and not dynamic and things are the way they are. period. life will continue whether or not we are around to interpret it (basically the two different answers to what sound does a tree make when it falls alone in the woods) Does it make a sound because we percieve it - or does it make a sound regardless. So my non dualistic brain (similar to wilber and spectrum of consciousness) says sure there is a sound when it falls, even if there is not someone there to perceive it, but how we percieve it when we are there creates the different realities - i hear a big tree, you hear a small tree. So objectivist in that the sound happens no matter what - but relativist in that noone hears the sound the same way, thus everyone is perceiving different realities. So the reconciliation is simply that its not black and white - but instead a spectrum of greys. In other words i believe in a static world but the way we perceive it is dynamic.

Then again - what is it Robert A. Wilson always says: "believe everything, accept nothing" oh wait thats mine - he says: "I believe in nothing, but I have many suspicions." My old sig used to say: life is most interesting at the intersection of its contradictions.