I don't agree with your characterisation of epistemically subjective but ultimately I will say again that while I do not understand these terms perfectly, I do reject their usefulness to some extent. What objective and subjective meant to me, had real meaning and doesn't appear to be represented by these terms which focus on human experience, so I am not arguing that these terms make complete sense.Think about this for a moment. If language were epistemically subjective, how could there be such a thing as English class? How could there by syntax if language were mere opinion or whim? There is varying degrees of epistemic objectivity depending on what is being considered. When you get into the philosophy of language there is a deep logical structure to language which is not epistemically subjective.
Language class just demonstrates that there are things we need to remember, words, grammar and such. There are many examples of needing to learn things yet still just opinion, I play a lot of competitive games online and I could easily teach you my strategies and tactics in these games - which could take months for you to understand and there would be a lot to learn. However these are my strategies and my tactics, many very good players would disagree with my strategies and tactics. What makes it subjective despite being at times valid and effective is that some of my strategies are based on my ideals, my preferences, my skill set and so on, but they're still coherent, well-reasoned, logical, created for a function and they're just like someone would talk about a language as being. You talk like epistemically subjective means it's an opinion unique to you that can't be taught to others, this isn't what it means for something to be subjective.
Language doesn't actually exist and it can be interpreted, contested and it's not objectively valid, there's no way it's objectively true. Not to mention that the connotations of language evolve over time, we see that the U.N doesn't even want to define terrorism because how the word is defined matters to a lot of countries. Is it a liberation movement of a terrorist group - that's too much power for a dictionary to decide. It is a definition which is contested because people know the power of the words and they know words need to be interpreted and implemented - all of which occurs subjectively.
In the past, I defined objective existence and subjective existence like this, something which exists objectively has a causal relationship with the universe/other objectively existing things and subjective existence was characterised by no causal relationships. Ontologically objective is what I would actually define as objective existence so following that logic, a social institution exists objectively and so it would be ontologically objective.While I think you may be correct, could you please provide several examples of each? Where would you place social institutions?
Could you please elaborate on what each of these means? In particular, what is logic espoused from objective validity? I’m not clear what sense of the term objectivity is being used here. Since you are trying to define a sense of objectivity, it would be best to not use objective in the definition, no?
Objective validity means that the premise necessarily leads to the conclusion. So "mortal men will die" and "an infinite resource cannot be exhausted" are examples of objective validity. This may not represent the reality which is why objectively valid statements are not necessarily objectively true statements. I did talk about this in my OP and it has occured to me that you may be using epistemically objective to mean objectively valid - from the (mostly baseless) assertion that well-being has intrinsic value and the theory of reducing uneasiness.