[There is a certain irony to the fact that the term “objective” covers two very different concepts. So now, let me see whether I can accomplish the full twist to the claim:
Knowledge3 is “intersubjective”.
Well, why not “interobjective”? After all, there are two objects.
Then I can counter: There are also two subjects, each perceiving an “object”.
Knowledge3 brings these two subjects, with their respective objects, into a nested form.
“Knowledge3” contextualizes “human action2“.
Human action2 is the objective behavior of a subject1.
“Knowledge3” brings “objective human action2” into relation with “the possibilities inherent in the subject1“.
These possibilities concern some object perceived by subject1. That object, for the subject1, must be actual on a different (interscoping, adjacent lower) nested form.
That suggests that there may be “some normal context3” that brings “the subject2” into relation with “the possibilities inherent in the (perceived) object1“.
This “normal context3“, plus knowledge3, yields two subjects and two objects. Hence, in this case, thirdness is “intersubjective3” and “interobjective3“.
How twisted was that?]