I hate to be more presumptuous than necessary, Fresco, but it occurs to me that there is no more chance of getting you to see what has to be seen here in order to deal properly with the issue at hand, than there is of getting a religious devotee to see what has to be seen in order to deal reasonably with the questions religion attempts to navigate.
You have, for better or worse, simply decided that REALITY is subjective—a compound derived from negotiation and agreement between people. As with a religious person, you will twist and contort words and logic in order to arrive where you want to end up…rather than truly assess what is available for consideration and arrive wherever those considerations lead. You’ve not given any reasons for your claim that it is so…other than to cite the difficulties humans have in understanding and communicating ideas about REALITY.
You see, instinctively, that “the mind” is important to existence in some indefinable way…but you don’t search for the reason it is…you simply treat your assumptions about the issue as something that must be taken on faith.
In effect, you have “faith” that REALITY is nothing more than the result of negotiation and agreement between thinking entities, because you see that humans can only deal with REALITY through words…and you see the considerable limitations inherent in that. But the fact that we cannot understand or communicate notions about REALITY is not the end all that has to be explained by “THEREFORE REALITY IS THE RESULT OF NEGOTIATION AND AGREEMENT”…any more than existence has to be explained by assuming existence to be a “creation”…and then announcing that THEREFORE THERE HAS TO BE A CREATOR.
MY GUESS is that the damage to your “faith” has already occurred; too much of too great a value has already been said in this thread for unraveling not to have begun. You simply have not realized it yet. (I hope the realization does not come while you are repairing a roof, because it is going to be a mother when it strikes home!)
And make no mistake about it, the implications of “what is…is” will hit home. The fact that no matter how you deal with the problem, it is obvious that whatever you imagine as the ultimate REALITY…if correct…will itself become THE objective REALITY. The REALITY…no matter what it is…HAS TO BE objective. Even if something as absurd as “all reality has to be subjective” were shown to be true…then “all reality has to be subjective” WOULD BE THE OBJECTIVE REALITY.
That axiom is a logical black hole for you and your arguments.
Okay, now for the good part: If you finally put that mind of yours to work on it, you might be able to dispute philosophers in ways that will win you whatever the equivalent of a Nobel Lauriat is in philosophy. You could show the logical inconsistencies of the philosophers you’ve quoted to us. Hey, moderns have shown Augustine and Aquinas to be hacks.
As for this thread and this argument—you knew you should have abandoned it a long while back. Twice you’ve actually said you were abandoning, but each time you were drawn back. What you should have done, if I may be so bold, is to have acknowledged that the conversation has given you reasons to further consider your position…and that since your position took a long time to develop, reaffirming or altering it will take some time also. And then…you should have abandoned ship.
That option is still open to you…and it is by far the best option for you.