Is there an objective subjectivity to be found as cladistics assumes (asserts, claims, defines)

Cladistics assumes, actually asserts, claims and defines, that there is a single "true tree of life" to be found. This assumption means that there among all erroneous trees is a single true tree, that is, a tree that is totally consistent, whereas all other trees are inconsistent. Is this assumption (assertion, claim, definition) rational?

In search for an answer to this question, we can first clarify that the set of all possible "trees" has to be internally contradictory, since all "trees" are different. Every "tree" in this set thus has to be contradictory to all other "trees" in the set. It means that the cladistic asumption that one of these "trees" is consistent is inconsistent, since it would mean that this "tree" is not contradictory to at least one other "tree" in the set, and thus not be a member of this set. This clarification thus allows us to conclude that the cladistic assumption (assertion, claim, definition) that there is a single "true tree of life" to be found is correct if this tree is not a member of the set "all possible trees", but wrong if it is a member of this set. The assumption (assertion, claim, definition) is thus wrong in every case.

The cladistic assumption is actually the subjective aspect of Russell's paradox, that is, assuming that classes are real instead of objects. This assumption also leads to Russell's paradox, with the difference that it believes that Russell's paradox is real.

On the meeting point between objective and subjective classification (e.g., Linnean and cladistic classification, respectively)

Classification ends in Russell's paradox or the class clade, depending on whether it starts from objects or classes, which thus is the meeting point (i.e., interface) between objectivity and subjectivity. This point is actually the orthogonal opposite to object, and is thus a pure abstraction arising from classification itself. The reason that this point is contradictory is that it is doubly ambiguous, both in time and over time, at the same time, which is contradictory (i.e., a paradox).

The existence of this end point in classfication excludes the existence of a single consistent and unambiguous classification (like, for example, the cladistic idea "The Tree of Life"), instead meaning that classification can only be either ambiguous or contradictory. Objective classification (like Linnean classification) is consistent but ambiguous, whereas subjective classification (like cladistics) is "natural" but contradictory. It means that typology (the belief that classes are real) in practice is an eternal merry-go-round between ambiguous or contradictory alternatives. The difference between classes is in practice fundamentally not qualitative, but quantitative (ie, not a matter of black or white, but of gray scale).

The problem with oversimplifications like Cladistics

The problem with oversimplifications like Cladistics is that they have several equally correct solutions between which they are contradictory, because oversimplification in itself is actually leaving objectivity in preference for subjectivity, and subjectivity is contradictory per definition. Oversimplification is both the act of leaving objectivity in preference for subjectivity and subjectivity itself, like how Fourier transformation is both a transformation and a transform. Independently of objectivity and subjectivity, fact is that there are at least two aspects of every real phenomenon in an objective sense, and that these aspects are contradictory "solutions" of this phenomenon in a subjective sense. Objectivity and subjectivity are merely two orthogonal approaches to reality, objectivity being ambiguous and subjectivity being contradictory.

What Hennig actually does when he confuses object with class is thus that he leaves ambiguous objectivity in preference for contradictory subjectivity. Instead of acknowledging reality's fundamentally ambiguous nature, he claims that reality (i.e., the historical "reality") is unambiguous, thereby instead being contradictory. He thus returns to the same subjectivity that dominated biological systematics before Linné invented his objective (orthogonal) classificatory system, although dressed in new clothes. Its subjectivity is easily recognized by the Golden Rule of Biological systematics: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, then it is a duck.