You and ALL are Part and Parcel of Reality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You and ALL are Part and Parcel of Reality [all there is].
Would any one deny the above?

From the above major Premise, one can arrive at the following conclusions;

• 1. You and all humans [subjects] are [in a meta-perspective] CO-CREATORS of all there is in Reality which is perceived and described by humans with factual assertions and propositions.
  
  2. Fundamentally, all humans [subjects] are intertwined with all things within reality and thus in this perspective all things are not independent of the human individual[s].
  Thus the Philosophical Realists' view cannot be absolute.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
  
  3. The fundamental of reality cannot be independent of subjectivity, i.e. subjects.
  
  4. Whatever is claimed to be objective cannot be absolute but merely relatively objective.

Agree? or Disagree?

[surreptitious57]

Humans are currently a part of reality but they are not actually necessary or essential for it because it can exist without them
As it existed before we evolved and will carry on existing after we have become extinct and so is not dependent upon us at all

[Veritas Aequitas]

Humans are currently a part of reality but they are not actually necessary or essential for it because it can exist without them
As it existed before we evolved and will carry on existing after we have become extinct and so is not dependent upon us at all

Reality is not directly dependent on humans.
The term dependent is too crude in this case.
My point is reality is intertwined [part and parcel] with human subjects.

Time is part and parcel of Reality just as humans are.
Therefore, time is conditioned [not independent] by humans.

• Time is conditioned [not independent] by humans.
  'Before' and 'after' are time elements.
  Therefore the concept of 'Before' and 'after' are conditioned by humans.

Thus;

• P1 "As it existed before we evolved and will carry on existing after we have become extinct and so is not dependent upon us at all."
  P2 Since P1 contained human conditional time element of 'before' and 'after,'
  C1 PI claiming "non-independent upon us" humans is false.

While from one perspective it is so obvious the Sun and Moon pre-existed humans and will likely exists after humans are extinct,
from a meta-perspective, the above arguments do not permit one to make any ultimate conclusions that reality can be independent [separated and apart from] of the human conditions.

Therefore the statement and the reality of the assertion below;
"As it existed before we evolved and will carry on existing after we have become extinct and so is not dependent upon us at all."
"is not dependent upon us at all" cannot be sound, thus false.

As Wittgenstein stated;
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
(Tractatus 7)
i.e. we just have to 'shut-up' as far as the claim is absolute, i.e. where the claim is of absolute independence.
That is only upon and after deep philosophical reflection on the issue.

Note my argument on;
Reality is an Emergence
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28671

[Eodnhoj7]

You and ALL are Part and Parcel of Reality [all there is].
Would any one deny the above?

From the above major Premise, one can arrive at the following conclusions;

• 1. You and all humans [subjects] are [in a meta-perspective] CO-CREATORS of all there is in Reality which is perceived and described by humans with factual assertions and propositions.
  
  2. Fundamentally, all humans [subjects] are intertwined with all things within reality and thus in this perspective all things are not independent of the human individual[s].
  Thus the Philosophical Realists' view cannot be absolute.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
  
  3. The fundamental of reality cannot be independent of subjectivity, i.e. subjects.
  
  4. Whatever is claimed to be objective cannot be absolute but merely relatively objective.

Agree? or Disagree?

Agree to the above.

[RyanDeBENNETT]

You and ALL are Part and Parcel of Reality [all there is].
Would any one deny the above?

From the above major Premise, one can arrive at the following conclusions;

• 1. You and all humans [subjects] are [in a meta-perspective] CO-CREATORS of all there is in Reality which is perceived and described by humans with factual assertions and propositions.
  
  2. Fundamentally, all humans [subjects] are intertwined with all things within reality and thus in this perspective all things are not independent of the human individual[s].
  Thus the Philosophical Realists' view cannot be absolute.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
  
  3. The fundamental of reality cannot be independent of subjectivity, i.e. subjects.
  
  4. Whatever is claimed to be objective cannot be absolute but merely relatively objective.

Agree? or Disagree?

Agree the above premise and consequently we can safely state that, any Knowledge Framework that is denominated in 'not-the-above' premise is a Knowledge generation/lexicon/aeon loaded with the gene (radical) of 'not-the-above' premise. This does not say it is futile Knowledge no, epistemologically, it just needs to be recognized and consequently appellated a Knowledge (or dark-Knowledge) era. I have posited a name for it, the erroneously solved mind/Mind Problem...behold the ‘first unfounded object’, the primordial axiom of 'Orthodox Philosophy', the solved mind/Mind Problem.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You and ALL are Part and Parcel of Reality [all there is].
Would any one deny the above?

From the above major Premise, one can arrive at the following conclusions;

• 1. You and all humans [subjects] are [in a meta-perspective] CO-CREATORS of all there is in Reality which is perceived and described by humans with factual assertions and propositions.
  
  2. Fundamentally, all humans [subjects] are intertwined with all things within reality and thus in this perspective all things are not independent of the human individual[s].
  Thus the Philosophical Realists' view cannot be absolute.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
  
  3. The fundamental of reality cannot be independent of subjectivity, i.e. subjects.
  
  4. Whatever is claimed to be objective cannot be absolute but merely relatively objective.

Agree? or Disagree?

Agree the above premise and consequently we can safely state that, any Knowledge Framework that is denominated in 'not-the-above' premise is a Knowledge generation/lexicon/aeon loaded with the gene (radical) of 'not-the-above' premise. This does not say it is futile Knowledge no, epistemologically, it just needs to be recognized and consequently appellated a Knowledge (or dark-Knowledge) era.

I have posited a name for it, the erroneously solved mind/Mind Problem...
behold the ‘first unfounded object’, the primordial axiom of 'Orthodox Philosophy', the solved mind/Mind Problem.

I still have not understood your view.

However the OP view is;

whatever you claimed to be your final position,
that cannot be absolutely independent in itself,
somehow it is intertwined with the self and subjects, thus fundamentally meta-subjective.