RE:"Encounters with a god, the numinous, past lives, the supernatural, superstitions like witchcraft, Christian/Jewish/Muslim prayer and 1,000 other things we can name have this in common: THEY THOROUGHLY ON THEIR FACE REPUDIATE MATERIALISM AND ARE NEAR UNIVERSAL AMONG HUMAN KIND."
So, all that is just something you made up. OK
That one wasn't me.
Nor reality is what it is independent of human thought and feelings.
Here is how there are 2 ways to go about definitions:
One is the correct, proper definition or if you like the authoritative version. A word has this meaning, because I say so.
The second is to explain how you use the word, how it works in relationship to the rest of the world.
It ties in with the correspondence theory of truth. You explain a word as what makes it true. I see a cat, when I see a cat and I can describe the general properties of a cat.
You don't define a work as how it makes sense to you as you. You explain and describe how the word works in relationship to the rest of world.
A word is a sign, so how do signs work?
A word has meaning, so how does that work?
A word is about something, so what is it about and how does it work that it is about something.
Now in everyday conversation that is simple, but the moment we hit the following level: What is reality really and what is the relationship between us as humans and reality? Further for humans, is there an universal we for all humans that covers all aspects of being human?
Now here is what happens in practice: We are all doing an act of self-referencing in part because we all in effect talk about reality with us as a part of it. It is weird, I know, but the words: Universe/world/everything/reality are in part an act of self-referencing, because e.g. everything includes the human using the word everything.
It doesn't mean that I am everything, I means I am a part of everything and all I in effect do, is to describe the relationship I have to myself and other parts of everything.
So here is how everything is objective work. You answer no, because everything is not objective. Objective is a specific relationship between two parts of everything.
Everything is subjective. No, because subjective is about human control, but you don't control everything.
The list of everything is a specific X goes on, but in practice there is always a non-X as something else.
The joke about the word everything is that it is about "everything, something, something else and/or nothing and how that works". But how that works is not that simple. How is that? Well, we can disagree about it.
