Objective reality is that which the Subject is placed in.
If you mean that you do not denote a duality between the object and subject, I'm in. It makes a lot more sense then attempting to place subject in a vacuum that has no relation to reality, which I've heard some Enlightenment kooks attempt to do.
As I see it, everything we experience must come from somewhere, e.g. sensations, perceptions of objects, experience of thought - and this somewhere must be something outside of the Subject, whether it corresponds to "reality" as think of it or not e.g. when we hallucinate, we might say that these hallucinations are not reality, but they nonetheless are coming from somewhere, i.e. from our brain. The difference in this case is how the object we are perceiving relates to other objects and other subjects. So yes, I say that the subject is connected to something outside of the subject, and that we denote this by objects, which forms the basis of inter-subjective reality. You might be able to explain things in terms of subject alone, I'm not sure, but you would probably end up with something that may as well be denoted by subject and object.
So yes, I assume agree here.
Is there any alternative to being a "dog chasing after cars"? We constantly strive for perfection, not so that we may reach it, but because the striving itself is of value. IMHO.
You kind of defeat your own idea when you carry out this process to its ultimate conclusion though, which I feel is eternal recurrence. Life as a means towards life is not a prodigious generation of new means, it has a consistent means, and that is life. Otherwise I think you run into the Heraclitus vs. Parmenides paradox, which is a problem of epistemology, really, as is this entire debate at its heart.
Is there any alternative to this? or how would you conceive of things otherwise? We are at any moment presented with a particular representation of the world, and we then make a choice, whatever this implies, through our Will, and then this has some kind of effect, whatever that implies. The two important questions are: what is the best way to conceive of this Representation (descriptive)? and how should we then direct our Will given this Representation (normative)?
I believe the purpose here is to answer the second question by saying: do not bind the Will to any object of the Representation. I believe this to be Nietzsche's view, I believe it also to be the Buddhist notion of non-attachment, I even believe it to be the Christian notion of placing no gods before the True God.