Objectivism, A is A, and Ms. Rand

This is the hardest blog to write and I hate when I get all serious about stuff and say its hard to do cause that only makes it harder...its a vicious circle. The thing I am finding about objectivism is that one is either for or against it, which I suppose is the direct meaning of all Ms. Rand's work. She creates such an ideal picture that those who would call themselves "for" it are made into selfrightous, egotistical heroes while those who are against it are seen as sorrowful losers. The way she creates such a divide makes one want to be "in the good", to be completely objective. But is that correct, can anyone ever be completely objective, or does the simple fact that we all view things differently automatically add a subjective slant on life. If we all had one pair of eyes and one brain, then we could see the world as only matter, but we don't, we all add slants on things. Therefore, our thoughts have to be somewhat subjective.
Look at it this way...If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound? I would say no, it only makes sound waves, which would be the objective wavelength and frequency of the friction created by the tumbling timber. Only when that sound wave hits one's ear does it cause the Tympanic membrane to oscillate, therefore causing waves in the fluid that sits in our inner ears...This fluid in turn makes tiny hairs flow back and forth like flagellum, which, in turn, sends signals to the nerves attached to these hairs, through your vestibularcochlear nerve, into our brains at which point we perceive sound. Now if this process was the same in every person and the same exact parts of our brain "fire" then I would agree that it could be objective...but its not like that...different parts of our brain "fire" in response to the same stimuli, and its not only in the hearing part of our brains, but all over. Different people have different responses to the same stimuli, which makes the perception of things subjective. Seeing things is the same if you understand light waves and how they make the rods and cones within our eyes communicate with our brains. So I guess what I am saying is that the presence of our brain only allows for subjective thought. If A is A, then a tree is a tree, but a tree can not be understood until our senses allow us to see, feel, or smell it. I guess I am not arguing that that tree is what it is, but it is what we understand of it that matters.
I still Any Rand, she's motivating and inspiring and one hell of a writer. I guess I just don't see things as so material.