What you mean is sly, IMHO. You and I don't agree. I think you are wrong. The assumption of naturalism can only be understood once the distinction between subject and object is in place. Short of this clarity, the mantras are nothing but propaganda.
I understand quite well the assumption of naturalism. I don't see what it has to do with this distinction you insist on, but, if you're right, I must be making it.
You actually think I'm wrong that modern science is naturalistic?