I think one of our current stumbling blocks to a next stage of objectivity is our view of time.

As these mobile organisms, necessitating a sequential process of perception and a narrative based culture, we naturally think of time as the point of the present moving past to future. Physics codifies it as measures of duration.

The reality is that change turns future to past. Tomorrow becomes yesterday, because the earth turns. duration is the present, as the events form and dissolve.

There is no literal dimension of time, because the past is consumed by the present, to inform and drive it. Causality and conservation of energy. Cause becomes effect.

Which basically means there is just this state of energy and the forms constantly changing.

Energy, as process, goes past to future, while the patterns generated go future to past.

Energy drives the wave, while the fluctuations rise and fall.

In a factory, the product goes start to finish, future to past, while the production line goes the other way, consuming material and expelling product. Lives go birth to death, while life moves onto the next generation, shedding the old.

Consciousness goes past to future, while perceptions, emotions and thoughts go future to past.

Different clocks can run at different rates simply because they are separate actions. Actually synchronizing them is what is the secret to much of the functionality of reality.

Time is asymmetric because it is a measure of action and action is inertial.

So it's an effect, like temperature, pressure, color, sound. Frequencies and amplitudes. Time is frequency, events are amplitude.

It goes to lots of other issues, like determinism, given the process of determination can only occur as the present.

I could go on, but it's the sociological aspects of this I'm bringing up. Quite a few people do find the argument interesting, though don't have much follow through, since it goes to the basis of thinking, but what is even more interesting is the degree to which anyone with a professional interest in physics, or even neurology, pretty much freezes up and tries rejecting the idea. Basically because, as you point out, there is no survival/professional benefit to stepping outside the primary paradigm.

Just pointing out, there are lots of things where we are barely scrapping the surface.