Interesting! I will try and elaborate my own perspective on this. Firstly, I’m reminded of this passage:
“You had to learn to grasp the necessary injustice in every For and Against; to grasp that injustice is inseparable from life, that life itself is determined by perspective and its injustice. Above all you had to see clearly wherever injustice is greatest, where life is developed least, most narrowly, meagerly, rudimentarily, and yet cannot help taking itself as the purpose and measure of things, and for the sake of its preservation picking at and questioning secretly and pettily and incessantly what is higher, greater, and richer. You had to see clearly the problem of hierarchy, and how power and justice and breadth of perspective grow upward together.” (Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human, Preface, section 6, Zimmern trans.)
So there is a hierarchy, and this hierarchy—of “power”, of course—is inextricably a hierarchy of justice and of breadth of perspective. Yet this is not the same as objectivity—and, to be sure, you spoke of increased objectivity, i.e. relative objectivity. It’s rather intersubjectivity—or at least that’s how George Morgan interprets it (just after quoting from that passage):
"[T]he comparatively just man can see more sides of a situation—‘to see’ meaning ‘to experience intensely.’ But a mere assortment of perspectives would be vacillating and indefinite. The just man controls, organizes, discriminates;’ (What Nietzsche Means, page 368.)
Now of course I disagree with this last sentence—hence my quote marks around “power”, above—: even the just man has no agency; it’s rather his strongest passion or drive, and thereby its perspective, which controls, organizes, discriminates between his other passions or drives.
Now of course by “reality as it is”, I understand the world as eros or will to power etc. And this likewise is not objective, but rather intersubjective—and intrasubjective: analyzing and reflecting on one’s own passions or drives—:
“[U]nderstanding the being of the soul as eros offers a way into an inferential understanding of beings as such via a rational parsimony of principles.
[…T]he self-knowledge of the soul of the driven inquirer, that singularity among beings, permits him an inferential conclusion about the nature of all beings.
[…]
Ultimately, knowledge of the self and the human pointed each of them [Socrates and Nietzsche] to an ontology that could never be more than inferential, the result of moving from the truth about human being to a posited truth about all beings,” (Lampert, How Socrates Became Socrates, pages 131, 173 and 223.)
So I still identify the overman as “the driven inquirer”.—I will end with a Facebook post I made September 7-8:
From a little essay I posted in my Yahoo! Group Sept. 19-20 '08:
Great politics, then, is concerned with constructing and inventing men [i.e. human beings] in the grand style. But men can also construct and invent other things than men: for instance, buildings, statues, musical compositions—artworks in the narrow sense of the word. But the “beauty” of these artworks consists in their reminding us of the essential work of art: man himself:
[…W]hatever reminds us in the least of ‘sursumgeneration’ (generation upward) causes in us the judgment of “beautiful”. A love is aroused—what does man love then? The rise of his type. And artworks in the narrow sense may very well remind us of such a rise. An artwork in the grand style will remind the great man of the rise of his type, and thereby cause the value judgment “beautiful” in him. This is why the “beautiful feelings” an artist arouses prove nothing regarding his greatness: only if he arouses beautiful feelings in a great man do these feelings mean anything. So seeking to define the grand style inevitably leads us to the task of “defining” the great man. For my new “definition” of the grand style makes it a function of the great man:
‘The grand style really communicates the soul of a great man.’
Nietzsche: Manfred-Meditation for Piano 4 Hands