I see I didn't express myself clearly. In saying 'reality', I meant to indicate matters beyond the personal, the matters considered by the physical sciences.
But that is sometimes the problem. You don't have it, but some do end here. E.g. only that, which is knowable by hard science, matter. When I then counter, that it matters, is that it matters to them and that is not science, they don't acknowledge that there is the individual and personal and that it matters, is individual and personal. They in effect go in a weird sense objective, universal, absolute and what not in that the personal doesn't real matter, because they don't do that. They don't attach subjective values, purpose, meaning and what not to how they behave. They are all objective in all sense, nothing but rational and so on.
Not that they are evil, wrong or what not. They simply take their own personal understanding of how reality matters as objectively, rational and so on self-evident. It is so true, that it can't be otherwise, because then you really don't understand reality. They are a weird kind of objectivists, absolutists and rationalists. As for skepticism they seem unable to doubt their own position.
No argument from me. I usually phrase it that a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / conforms to / accurately reflects objective reality. And at some point I'm likely to add that there are no absolute truths, except possibly that statement itself.
Yeah, I use a different version of that: Words are true, if what they imply, is actually so. So that I am personally a secular humanist, is true not for objective reality, but it is still true.
It is not objective, because it is not independent of all human thought and it is not a case of an observation. It is a person value system. Nor is it unbiased and thus not objective as without bias. Further it is not just based on reason and logic, because it involves emotions.
In other words meta-reality is the combination of objective and subjective reality.