Destroy My Belief System, Please!

I've got no problem at all with it, Thomas: it's how the world seems to work.

An observation that I've made over my years of participation in these philosophy forums is so obvious that I'm afraid it may be banal for most of our A2K philosophers; I just hope they will add to and refine said observations.
It seems to me that we tend to bifurcate the World into opposing almost metaphysical categories: the advocates or practicioners of subjectivism or idealism VERSUS objectivism or realism (in the 60s and 70s social scientists where I studied expressed this as materialism vs. mentalism ); absolutism, which is compatible with various forms of "essentialism", vs. relativism, sometimes expressed as contextualism. Objectivists seem to inhabit a Newtonian world with substantial "things" and structures moving about in an imagined quasi-void while ontological relativists seem to inhabit a world of ever-changing PROCESSES in which "becoming" (rather than being) occurs in a condition of ontological impermanence. There is also a strong tendency to divide the human World by means of an essentialism emphasizing NATURE vs. the "artificialism" or constructivism of CULTURE (wiith its "artifacts"). Everyone acknowledges the reality of both, but we tend to weight them differenly.
I am exaggerating of course: no-one is wholly on one side or the other. We are in a sense amphibians occupying two kinds of reality simultaneously, but most of us (with the obvious exceptions of the more mystically inclined among us--me included), make a dualistic distinction between our world INSIDE (subjectivism) and our world OUTSIDE (objectivism) , no doubt a tendency strengthened in the West by Descartes.
What I find most interesting in this pattern is that it seems to reflect a fundamental dualism running deep within us. We spontaneously emphasize EITHER subjectivism/ relativism/ idealism, etc. OR we emphasize objectivism/ absolutism/ realism, etc..
We seem to do this spontaneously in a manner similar to the way we deal with the ambiguous illusions presented us by the Necker Cube and the Rubin Vase.

But whatever it is it is that. I agree.
I'm referring to the human tendency to dualism; I'm not advocating it. I feel (subjectively) certain* our minds are inherently incapable of grasping reality in an absolutist extra-human way. But as a Buddhist I also feel that our "puny human way", or reality, IS--in its purist sense--more than adequate.

* What I am saying is neither true nor false (in an absolute sense); I'm merely expressing an opinion, one that works for me, for the moment.

REALITY is a son-of-a-gun to even consider.

Is the "reality" you refer to some kind of ULTIMATE (metaphysical) reality, or simply the world as we experience it?

I agree, by the way, that dualism (like logic) is a strategy enabling us to
operate in the world in particular ways. They are useful but they do not reflect the "unitary" and "paradoxical" world as I see it.

Much appreciation. Other words, thank you.

Anonymously said: I feel I'm losing touch with reality. Not understanding of my actions. What am I doing. I don't know but I'm confused. Can't make sense of anything.

Frank, I can't disagree with your mantra "Reality is whatever is the case".

It's just that I feel I'm spending energy in a less than optimal way when I insist that "It is what it is" (and perhaps nothing more).

Actually, it was not meant as an "insult" at all. By "mantra" I denote an utterance that conveys a critically important principle.